The organic section of the Kentucky State University Research Farm is beautiful at this time of year. Here are some photos taken yesterday, July 7th.

The brilliant yellow flowers are a variety of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) called 'Pacific Gold.' It can be used as a condiment or a source of biofuel, but we are growing it as a soil-building cover crop and a natural fungicide. We're conducting experiments to see if it can combat soil-borne fungal diseases.

Inside the high tunnel, tomatoes, basil, coriander, cucumbers and other warm season crops are growing like mad. We're well into our tomato harvest now.

This is an updated planting diagram showing the four replicates of the farm scale study that we are conducting in collaboration with the Energy Farms Network. The color coding shows the randomization of crops within each plot. We are growing food and fuel varieties of each crop except sweet potato.

This picture is taken from the east corner of Rep 2, looking west. A 'biointensive' plot is in the foreground. Only human power is used for production in these comparatively small plots. A 'market garden' plot is in the background on the right. These medium-sized plots are managed with a mix of human power and walk-behind tractors. A 'small farm' plot is in the background on the left. These plots are mostly managed with implements attached to 4-wheeled tractors, with help from walk-behind tractors and human power when needed.

This picture is taken from the south corner of Rep 3, looking north. A 'market garden' plot is in the foreground.

The corn and sweet sorghum crops are most advanced in the 'small farm' plots because a combination of poor germination and severe weed pressure in the other treatments forced us to replant these crops. The primary cultivation technique used in the 'small farm' treatments appears to have reduced our weed pressure, relative to the other treatments, by burying many of the small-seeded weeds, like redroot pigweed. The major weed problem in the 'small farm' treatments has been johnsongrass, which can emerge from pieces of root deep beneath the soil surface.

Michael Bomford provides research and extension services related to organic agriculture and small-scale renewable energy production through Kentucky State University's Land Grant Program. He thanks Tony Silvernail, Joelle Johnson, Brian Geier and John Rodgers for their help with maintaining the organic land at the KSU Research Farm in recent weeks.

The Kentucky State University farm has been blessed with rain, and our crops are all in the ground and looking good.

We direct-seeded corn, sweet sorghum and soybeans, and transplanted sweet potato slips. Planting and management is done entirely by hand in our 'biointensive' plots. Our 'market garden' plots use no machinery larger than a walk-behind tractor. Our 'small farm' plots are primarily managed with conventional 4-wheel tractors and attachments.

[video]

The video shows some of our planting, transplanting, and management activities at each of the three farm scales in June. We have been able to use smaller tractors in the Small Farm plots now that the primary cultivation is complete. We are weeding these plots with a Farmall 130 tractor built in the late 1950s; all other weeding is conducted with wheel hoes, conventional hoes, or by hand-pulling. The planting and management phases, in June, required much less energy than the soil preparation phase, in May.

Labor (top) and energy use at three farm scales at the Kentucky State University farm, 6 May - 23 June 2008. Bars are divided into soil preparation (black), planting (purple) and management (yellow) components. Each bar is the mean of 4 replicates. Error bars show standard errors of each mean.

Michael Bomford provides research and extension services related to organic agriculture and small-scale renewable energy production through Kentucky State University's Land Grant Program. He thanks Tony Silvernail, Brian Geier, John Rodgers, Joelle Johnson, Monique Marcus, and student volunteers from the CASS program for their help with planting and management in June.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has a new factsheet entitled "Biofuels & Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Myths versus Facts." It's a fascinating mix of wishful thinking, careful data selection, and occasional outright lies cobbled together to promote the big biofuel agenda.

It begins with the assertion that US energy consumption will grow by 50% by 2030. That's twice the increase predicted by the US DOE's own Energy Information Administration (right). As I showed in a previous post, US energy consumption has actually been leveling off in recent decades, despite consistently incorrect forecasts of perpetual growth. If the trend were to continue, the nation's energy consumption would peak in 2015. A more likely scenario is a near-term decline in energy consumption in response to rising energy costs, as occurred in the previous two energy crises.

The first "myth" the factsheet adresses is that biofuels emit even more greenhouse gasses than gasoline. That happens to be the conclusion of two recent studies published in Science by researchers at the University of Minnesota and Princeton University. The greenhouse gas emissions don't necessarily come from producing or burning ethanol ("biofuels burn cleaner than gasoline," notes the factsheet), but from converting forests and grasslands to biofuel feedstock crops. Studies that assume no loss of forest or grassland show a slight net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from using biofuels. In the likely event that forests and grasslands are displaced by biofuel feedstock crops, the "myth" may well turn out to be true.  

The factsheet goes on to tackle the "myth" that "Ethanol cannot be produced from corn in large enough quantities to make a real difference without disrupting food and feed supplies." Last year the US dedicated 25% of its record corn harvest to produce 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Burning all of that ethanol released 0.6 exajoules of energy. As the graph above shows, the US currently consumes about 105 exajoules of energy each year, so burning ethanol accounted for less than than 0.6% of our energy use. If we had dedicated 100% of our corn to ethanol we might have met 2.5% of our current energy demand. Whether 2.5% constitutes a "real difference" is a matter of opinion, but it's safe to say that using all or our corn for ethanol would have disrupted food and feed supplies. The "myth" is undeniably true.

The interesting thing is that the factsheet doesn't actually address the statement it labels a myth. Instead, it talks about the potential for cellulosic ethanol, little of which will come from corn. Citing the Billion Ton Study as its source, it claims that "we can grow adequate biomass feedstocks to displace approximately 30% of current gasoline consumption by 2030 on a sustainable basis —  with no conversion of U.S. croplands."

By the Billion Ton Study, I assume the factsheet refers to a 2005 report released by the USDA and the US DOE called Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. The report concluded that, by 2030, "relatively modest changes in land use" could produce 1.3 billion tons of biomass annually (equivalent to a row of round hay bales circling the earth 75 times) for conversion to enough ethanol to replace 20% (not 30%) of the nation's transportation fuel plus 5% of the nation's electricity and 25% of the nation's chemicals. The necessary "modest changes in land use" include:

1. A 50% increase in all small grain yields (twice the rate of increase observed over the past 40 years, during an era celebrated as the "Green Revolution");
   
2. Conversion of all cropland to no-till (about one-third of US cropland is currently no-till after 40+ years of development and promotion of no-till systems);
3. Conversion of 55 million acres of cropland to perennial biofuel crops (contrary to the factsheet's claim that no cropland need be converted, the report calls for conversion of more than half as much cropland as currently grows corn);
4. Recovery of 75% of all crop residues (which help build healthy soils).

Needless to say, the likelihood of any of these happening is slim, and the chance that they will all happen together in the next two decades is almost nil. The final, unstated, assumption is that economical means of converting cellulose to ethanol will be developed by 2030. Whether that will happen is still anybody's guess. The claim that we can displace 30% of the nation's gasoline consumption with biofuels is not supported by the DOE's own report, which itself is based on unrealistic assumptions.

The next "myth" is that ethanol reduces fuel economy. Ethanol has about two-thirds the energy density of gasoline, so simple physics predicts that a car will go only two-thirds as far on a tank of ethanol as on a tank of gasoline. A recent industry-sponsored test of fuel economy in several cars running on a range of gasoline-ethanol blends confirmed that fuel economy tends to fall as ethanol content increases: In most cases the "myth" is true. The report has been celebrated by the ethanol industry, however, because of some interesting exceptions to the general rule: Some cars running on 20-30% ethanol blends got better mileage than would be expected from the fuel's energy density (See figure below). The report offers no explanation for these interesting outliers. 

Highway fuel economy of a 2007 Toyota Camry running on blends ranging from pure gasoline to 65% ethanol. Purple line shows expected fuel economy, based on energy density of fuel blend. Diamonds show mean fuel economy for three test runs. In this case, a 30% ethanol blend gave significantly better fuel economy than would be expected, offering a 1% improvement over pure gasoline. Figure from Optimal Ethanol Blend-Level Investigation, 2007.

The final "myth" is that more energy goes into producing ethanol than it delivers as a fuel. This probably isn't true, but it's not far off. A range of peer-reviewed studies have found that producing ethanol from corn takes 60-95% as much energy as the ethanol delivers as fuel. The factsheet claims that ethanol can be made from corn using as little as 30% as much energy as the ethanol delivers. I wish I knew where they got that figure; I've looked all over for a study that can support it. There may be a net energy advantage to ethanol production from corn, but it's not very big. 

This past winter we began converting the three largest beds at the Sebastopol Energy Garden into a broad acre demonstration plot. The initial steps of converting the beds into a 528 ft² field entailed building up the soil with compost that was produced on-site, and broadcasting alfalfa and white clover seed onto the plot. We planted the two legumes separately so as to compare their performance as living mulch. Both can sustain a mowing, and both will grow perennially in this climate but we also want to see how they compete with weeds and the amount of water that they require. We allowed the legumes to grow into the spring and just recently scythed them down and dug the pockets into which Quinoa was planted.

The method that we followed in planning this system of growing is described in The One-Straw Revolution, written by Masanobu Fukuota. It is a method that he refers to as the “Do Nothing Method” or “Natural Farming” which is outlined in four principles: No Cultivation, No Chemical Fertilizer or Prepared Compost, No Weeding by Tillage or Herbicides, and No Dependence upon Chemicals. By this method, pockets of annual grains are inter-planted among an under story of perennial legumes, in our case White Clover and Alfalfa. The legumes fix nitrogen and carbon and compete with weeds, in addition to retaining water, while the annual grains, in our case Quinoa, provide calorie rich seeds for consumption and biomass for soil sustainability. This technique uses a no till approach, and minimal human interference. The seed florets are removed from the annual grains by hand; the stalks are scythed and left in place to decompose and return carbon to the soil. By leaving the biomass in place we promote nutrient cycling without the laborious task of hauling material back and forth from compost piles.

Living mulch can offer a number of benefits that straw mulch cannot. Bare soil resulting from intensive tillage can lead to soil erosion, nutrient losses, and offsite movement of pesticides. In addition, weeds can germinate and grow without competition. Living mulches can reduce water runoff, reduces erosion, and protect waterways from pollution. Living mulches have also been shown to increase the population of organisms which are natural enemies of some crop pests.

As atmospheric CO2 levels rise and the effects of increased greenhouse gases result in higher global temperatures, the application of living mulches for carbon fixation also becomes more appealing.

The Sebastopol Energy Garden recently introduced a hive of Western Honey bees to our suburban food system. Bees play a vital role in sustainable food production; not only do they provide beeswax and calorie rich honey (64 cal/21 g), bees play an important role in pollinating flowering plants, and are the major type of pollinator in ecosystems that contain flowering plants (80% of all insect pollination). It is estimated that one third of the human food supply depends on insect pollination, most of which is accomplished by bees, especially the domesticated Western honey bee. The value added by honeybee pollination to American agriculture is estimated to range from $5 billion to $20 billion a year.

[video]

In determining where to purchase our bees and what materials to use for our hives there were many factors that were taken into consideration. We wanted to use a hive constructed from locally harvested and manufactured wood upon which chemical treatments had not been used. Rather than the commercially available assembled frames which use plastics as the foundation for honeycomb, we wanted to use a natural bee’s wax product that was chemical free. We also wanted the bees to come from a reliable beekeeper that didn’t use any chemical treatments for mites and hadn’t experienced Colony Collapse Disorder amongst their hives. Our overall goal was to obtain responsibly kept, healthy bees and chemical free hives in a way that had the smallest energy footprint linked to it. 

A local beekeeper, Eric Rocher assisted us in acquiring the bees and the hive materials. It is his goal to develop a network of decentralized hives so as to encourage pollination and avoid the health risks that threaten large scale beekeeping. Bees often gather the majority of their food within 2.5km of the hive, but a bee will also visit familiar flowers up to 10km away. By distancing hives from one another, the area pollinated increases and competition among the bees decreases; this improves the health of the food system as well as the hives.

This past Saturday, May 31, 2008, the first gallons of recycled water entered the Sebatopol Energy Garden water system that before then had only circulated captured rain water. The recylced water, also called grey water was not plumbed from the house at 327 Murphy Avenue due to pending permission, however we were able to divert the drainage of our outdoor spray table and hand washing sink without violating any legal limitations.

The system was designed such that the drainage of the sink first falls directly into a gravel filled tank (30 gallons) planted with unicorn juncus, pennywort, and water parsley. This tank funtions as a filter and primary treatment for any debris From there, that water which isnt retained within the system flows into a second larger tank (150 gallons) which houses a larger community of wetland plants. The reason for using a second is to provide a longer retention time and thus a longer phytoremediation period for the recylced grey water. When more water is added to the first tank, the water that it contains will overflow into the second tank and all overflow is then plumbed at a 2% drop in grade to the previously existing  water treatment system.

To help in the installation of the system was Heather Shepherd who led along with myself a hands on grey water workshop. The day began with an explanation of the steps involved in designing a site specific grey water system, and followed with an analysis of the process that had gone into designing and constructing the system at the Sebastopol Energy Garden. We had the class go under the house to look at the piping and explained the legal requirements to plumb from the house's outward pipes into a grey water system and leach field.

For the later part of the day we were busy putting tanks in, filling them with gravel and plants, and plumbing them into the system. Whereas most courses offer the theoretical process of installing a grey water system, we had the rare oppurtunity to actually lead a group through the installation process kinestetically.

I would like to thank everyone that came, especially Heather. It was a warm day and within 6 hours we were able to install the two tanks, trench all the pipes, and connect the system. It is running now as I write this and I will no longer have to worry about the system going dry or having to fill it from the hose, because all vegetable washing and hand washing water will flow into the system to keep it full of water and provide nutrients for the plants growing within the tanks. 

Pest control at the Sebastopol Energy Garden does not involve the use of any commercial organic or chemical pesticides; rather the encouragement of natural pest controlling systems. A variety of plants have been intentionally planted to encourage beneficial insects and deter derimental insects from vulnerable crops. Other plants have been planted as trap crops, that is they attract pests to lure them away from other crops. By planting trap crops we can create dense aggregations of pests and manage them with non harmful sprays such as soapy garlic and cayene pepper water or leave them be and hope for predatory insects to find them and aggregate around the trap crops as well.

Such was the case with the two plots of Canola that were planted in the Energy Garden this year. Canola is often planted for the oil rich seeds that it produces but also as a trap crop and beneficial insect attractant. While the plant is preferred by aphids, a trait that we observed this winter, the flowers of Canola attract adults of the following species of hoverflies (Syrphidae): Allograpta obliqua (Say), Sphaerophoria spp., Syrphus spp., and Toxomerus spp. Larvae of all of these species are predators on aphids. In addition adult lady bugs, soldier beetles, and a variety of predatory wasps are attracted to Canola due to the dense populations of aphids that inhabit it. By planting Canola in the garden this year we not only lured herbivorous aphids away from other brassica crops that we grew, we increased the populations of predatory insects in the garden.

In addition to growing plants that deter herbivourous insects and attract predatory insects we have provided habitat for predatory birds, snakes, lizards, frogs, and salamanders in hopes that they prey upon pests that visit the garden. Snails are also regularly captured and fed to the chickens as a source of protein and calories, and gopher traps are set and monitored.

By encouragin ecological pest control as opposed to using chemical and organic pesticides we improve the ecological health of the garden without the risk of harming our crops and ultimately ourselves. Rather than removing all insects from the garden ecosystem, a charecteristic of most pesticides, we are able to combat only those that are detrimental to our crops.

Two and a half million tons of commercial pesticides are now applied annually in the United States. Because of pests ability to develop resistance towards chemical treatments, pesticide effectiveness decreases and our dependence upon them increases with each spraying. Production of these chemicals now accounts for 6% of US agricultural energy consumption as the industry continues to grow.
 

Caroline Cox lists ten reasons why not to use pesticides in the Journal of Pesticed Reform:

1. Pesticides don’t solve pest problems. They don’t change the conditions that encourage pests.

2. Pesticides are hazardous to human health. Every year, enormous quantities of pesticides known to cause significanthealth problems are used in the U.S.

3. Pesticides cause special problems for children. For their size, they consume more food and drink than adults, and both of these can be contaminated with pesticides. They play in ways that increase their exposure. Also,their growing bodies can be particularly sensitive.

4. Pesticides often contaminate food. The widespread use of pesticides in agriculture means that pesticides are frequently found on a variety of common foods.

5. Pesticides are particularly hazardous for farmers and farmworkers. There are no comprehensive systems for tracking pesticide illnesses, and research shows that farmers and farmworkers face risks of both short-term poisonings and long-term illness.

6. Pesticides are hazardous to pets. Pet poisonings occur frequently, and exposure to lawncare pesticides is associated with a higher risk of cancer in dogs.

7. Pesticides contaminate water and air. Monitoring studies find pesticides in almost every sample that is tested.

8. Pesticides are hazardous to fish and birds. Enormous quantities of pesticides already known to EPA to cause problems for fish and birds are used in the U.S.

9. Pesticides are immensely profitable for the corporations who manufacture them, yet these corporations conduct or sponsor the tests used to determine their safety

10. Pesticides have too many secrets. Where are pesticides used in our communities? When? How much? What’s in them? We almost never have good answers to these questions.

For more information check out these sites 

http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/pesticides.html

http://www.pw.ucr.edu/textfiles/Stormwater%20%20The%20Urban%20Pesticide%20Problem.htm

http://www.chem-tox.com/pesticides/ 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5409/is_199810/ai_n21427664 

A critical component of Post-Carbon’s strategy is direct education to the public. One of our direct education approaches is providing tours of our energy farms network demonstration sites. Tours are offered to groups of many different ages and backgrounds. Tour participants leave with new information about how individuals and societies can be prepared for eminent changes in our food and fuel supplies. Our educational strategy also includes Classes and How-To guides.

Our goals are very practical. We seek to provide citizens of all ages direct access to the information they need to implement strategies for localizing the supplies of basic necessities. We also seek to provide context and understanding, so that communities are able to problem solve and find solutions for living with-in realistic ecological boundaries.

Recent Sebastopol Energy Garden Tour Highlights

“What is the crop grown on the most land in the U.S.” we ask Parkside Elementary first-graders as they arrive. It comes as a big surprise to learn that the answer is – LAWNS. From there, we brainstorm what else could be done with people’s yards. For example, growing vegetables and fruits and herbs and medicines so they don’t have to travel in trucks and planes and we don’t even have to go to the store to pick them up.

Sebastopol Energy Garden Coordinator, Josh Puckett, speaks with students about the importance of chickens in a sustainable local food system. Trading kitchen scraps for eggs sounds like a good deal to the first-graders. They also share ideas about getting locally grown grains for the layers. Some offer their yards for this purpose.

Students learn about starting seeds with a seed block press, this allows you to plant a lot of seeds in one day with out using electricity. Students also learn about what a seed needs in order to germinate and grow into a healthy plant. Some of the kids share their plans for which food crops they would like to plant in their yards at home.

Energy Farm Network Manager, Miriam Volat, welcomes a group from Occidental Arts and Ecology Center for a tour and a discussion about how to prepare local food systems for fuel supply shortages. Discussions range from natural pest management practices to raising community support for small farmers and the roles Post-Carbon Relocalization Network and Post Carbon Cities have in creating a sustainable food system.

Tour participants of all ages are surprised to learn that up to 34% of the energy in the food system is used in storage and processing of food. Alternative food preparation, such as solar ovens, solar driers and lacto-fermentation, that can be done right in your backyard, are important parts of post-carbon living; and nothing is better than solar nachos.

Energy Farms Network is collecting information and data about how to produce sustainable local bio-fuels as well as local grains and animal fodders. Many visitors to the Energy Garden and tour participants have never before seen some of these vital oil crops, such as rape seed, peridovik sunflowers, soybeans and corn, wheat, quinua and barley.

Upcoming Classes and Tours
Backyard Water Conservation with Heather Shepard
Occidental Arts and Ecology Center Permaculture Design Course
Backyard Home Food Processing Techniques
Daily-Acts Tour
Parkside Elementary School
Sebastopol Community Center Summer Camps

Recent Tours
Santa Rosa Junior College
Parkside Elementary School
Occidental Arts and Ecology Center Permaculture Design Course

We also currently hold weekly volunteer days and harvest days at the Sebastopol Energy Garden.

I created this flow chart to help myself understand the variety of processes used to make ethanol from plants:

The large yellow arrow shows the pathway for "first generation" ethanol production from starches and sugars. This pathway consists of mature technologies: It has been used for centuries to make distilled spirits like vodka or whiskey, and it is used by today's ethanol refineries to make fuel from corn and sugarcane. It is compatible with both small and large-scale production systems. Its increasing use has led to concerns about competition with food supplies, energy efficiency, land-use efficiency, and sustainability. Some of those who feel first generation ethanol technology is irredemably flawed hold out hope for second generation technology...

Production of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks, like wood or switchgrass, depends on further development of emerging technologies. People are pinning high hopes on such "second generation" ethanol production, with claims that it will allow efficient conversion of non-food feedstocks compatible with sustainable agriculture systems. Despite concerted research efforts to improve second generation technologies, and numerous claims of their superiority over first generation technologies, commercially viable examples are few.

My previous blog posting, with preliminary data from our farm scale study, brought several helpful comments from readers. I will refine our experimental methods to address some of the concerns raised. I see this as collaboration at its best. I am posting this diagram, which is very much a work in progress, in hopes that others may offer corrections, refinements, and critiques.

Michael Bomford provides research and extension services related to organic agriculture and small-scale renewable energy production through Kentucky State University's Land Grant Program.

Over the past two weeks we prepared the land in the Kentucky State University Energy Farm Study for planting. We started with a freshly-cut hay field that has grown an alfalfa and grass mixture for the past three years. It is rich in organic matter and naturally-fixed nitrogen, so we chose not to add additional fertilizer in the first year of the study. The soil preparation process differed between our three production systems:

1. Biointensive plots were cleared with a hoe, then double dug with a spade, spading fork, and broadfork. All labor was done by hand over the course of a week.
   
2. Market garden plots were prepared with two passes of a roto-tiller attached to a 13 hp BCS 852 walk-behind tractor, fueled by gasoline. The roto-tiller passes were spaced two weeks apart to allow sod to decompose after the initial cultivation.
   
3. Small farm plots were prepared with a single pass of a moldboard plow attached to an 89 hp John Deere 5520 tractor, fueled by diesel. The plow was followed, two weeks later, with two passes of a roto-tiller, pulled by the same tractor.
   

The following charts show the amount of labor and energy used to complete the soil preparation process at each of the three farm scales. Labor use is in minutes per square meter of land. Energy use is in megajoules per square meter of land (1 megajoule = 239 food calories). Error bars show the standard error, which is a measure of the variability between plots that were treated the same way.

The small farm plots cover about 40 times as much land as the biointensive plots, and 6.5 times as much as the market garden plots. (A previous blog post showed relative plot size on an aerial photograph of the site.)

We spent 20 hours clearing sod and double digging the biointensive plots, 2.5 hours using the walk-behind tractor in the market garden plots, and 3.0 hours on the 4-wheeled tractor in the small farm plots. The walk-behind tractor consumed 3.7 liters (1.0 gallon) of gasoline and the 4-wheeled tractor consumed 34.5 liters (9.1 gallons) of diesel fuel.

Michael Bomford provides research and extension services related to organic agriculture and small-scale renewable energy production through Kentucky State University's Land Grant Program. He thanks Brian Geier, John Rodgers, Hank Schweickart and Tony Silvernail for their help with preparing the land for planting.