I was asked to give a presentation to a group called Leadership Mendocino. Every year about 30 people in our County, usually from a mix of businesses, government agencies, and non-profits, meet monthly for a full day and intensively study a particular topic. Nov. 14th 2008 was their Ag day, and my presentation followed the Ag Commissioner’s, who reviewed the County’s history and present. I didn’t want to talk about the future as if I knew what was going to happen, but I did want to highlight the vulnerabilities and tensions I saw building and suggest some alternatives to our predicament. Hence I created a storyline in which I was now the County Historian in 2020 giving a talk to the group about the past decade of change.

While the details are specific to where I live, the general lessons apply to the whole world.

Click on any image to see a higher resolution version.

For Mendocino County the key date was December 12, 2009. The trucks didn’t show up that day.
Why weren’t the trucks running? I’ll give a quick overview of what led up to the Little Death.

Let’s start with the credit market break down in 2008. What followed was a plunge in the volume and reliability of global trade. Without access to the free flow of credit, countries experienced food and fuel shortages. People began rioting.

We saw how developing countries were in profound crisis, but most of us didn’t imagine how those awful scenes would so quickly be in our own neighborhoods too.

Everyone knows the story…Pakistan devolved into anarchy and was unable to keep all of its nuclear weapons secure. Several went missing and the world didn't find out where they went until it was too late.

South-Central Asia and the Middle East were on fire.

The nuclear exchange was contained within the region, but the effects spread globally. The world’s largest oil production facilities and ports were destroyed or inaccessible. The daily flow of supertankers from the Middle East was over.

It was common knowledge at the time that crude oil was the lifeblood of our economy, but little had yet been done to reduce our dependency on oil. The modern world was suddenly without sufficient transportation fuels and totally unprepared.

The specific numbers are staggering. Only a quarter of U.S. crude oil consumption was domestically produced in 2009. The trucking system was the key part of what was called the Just in Time delivery system. Warehousing and stockpiling were no longer practiced significantly and so no buffer existed when the trucks stopped. Our Just in Time system unraveled over a period of several weeks.

J-I-T now stood for "Just Isn't There."

As the flow of goods and services slowed dramatically and then in some cases stopped moving altogether, we were subject to cascading, compounding failures in key sectors of the economy. Just a couple of examples…Without constant truck movement, spare parts and basic supplies ran short. Electricity production relied on coal, which relied on diesel.

Most dire of all was that within three days of the halt to trucking, the grocery stores were out of food.

Looking back at historical records it is clear that, while shocking, this was no surprise. Community-based organizations had been warning of this exact possibility for years.

Nowadays we have buffers and resiliency built into our systems, but that was not the case in 2009. Government hadn’t prepared, having placed its faith in the market to provide for basic goods such as food and energy. Global food stockpiles had been declining for over a decade, and in any case they were not under any government control.

Although some people had stockpiled food and essentials, most people hadn't because either they never thought this could happen or were simply distracted. It might be good to remind everyone what life was like in 2009. Most of us tended to spend our free time in front of the television or interacting with various media and communication devices. Gardening, food preservation, community meals and stuff like that wasn’t cool and exciting for the majority of people, although interest in food security had been increasing for a few years preceding the crisis.

After a week everybody became scared, and most started to feel hungry. This was so unthinkable that many also became profoundly disillusioned and angry. This was not supposed to be happening to “us.” The Five Stages of Grief were on full display.

Events began to run their natural course.

Scared, hungry people saw that some households still had food. This led to looting in some areas. A handful of police and sheriffs couldn’t protect private property from a desperate populace. In other areas looting was averted (barely) as neighbors and authorities agreed to pool private food holdings and distribute them evenly.

As the crisis deepened, a triage system was established. Food was preferentially given to those who could work, and the young.

All sorts of questions that had been ignored for decades became very important. “What about the local farms,” the people asked. “Can they feed us?”

“It’s the middle of winter,” the farmer’s replied. “We can plant potatoes and grains in the spring but they won’t be ready until summer.”

“And where are the seeds going to come from? We are hay farmers, cattle ranchers and grape growers. We don’t even have the right equipment for this.”

Three months passed without relief. Clearly, household preparation wasn’t enough, and now the population was starving.

Other problems arose too. Electricity was spotty. Every bit of gasoline and diesel were needed in generators to keep pumps for water and sewer systems going, to keep the hospitals powered, and to cook food in community kitchens.

But by spring these supplies, commandeered from the tanks of gas stations, were gone.

FEMA didn’t arrive with supplies of food, fuel and medicines in the major valleys until March 2010. These were barely enough to end starvation and give tractors some fuel.

When the railroad cars arrived in May 2010 we finally had enough of the basics again. Freeways were abandoned for hauling freight. They were in disrepair from winter storms and far too expensive to maintain for the now minimal trucking system.

In addition to supplies of grain and beans (25,000 lbs per trailer load), enough seed potatoes were brought in to plant. Potatoes became our survival food for a few years. As we all know, it is hard to eat enough of them to keep the weight on! Health care providers estimate that the average person lost twenty pounds between 2009 and 2012.

Here’s another graphic from the archives. Food security organizations in the County knew that storage foods with high caloric density were essential, and had even started to import and store them in the County. The grain and bean silos established in Willits in 2009 really helped that area weather the crisis better than elsewhere. Silos were quickly built along the railroad tracks in every town.

All of us began to learn some of the basic facts about nutrition and agriculture, such as how many calories we need per day and how to eke that out of the soil.

Even with farm supplies brought in by rail car, we lacked much of the needed energy infrastructure to irrigate crops as electricity was still unreliable. Few well pumps ran off solar panels. So in most cases, yields weren’t as large as we’d hoped. It was terribly frustrating; we could see the water 30 ft down in the well but couldn’t get it out fast enough to make a difference.

Ever since the Little Death, precious tractor fuel has been limited. Much more is now done with manual labor than in the past. This was a difficult adjustment, both physically and psychologically. Some people were excited by the challenge and adapted well. On the bright side, “unemployment” is nearly non-existent and we are a fit and industrious people.

Explicit warnings of our vulnerabilities, and an alternative vision had been given by local community groups as early 2004. In August 2010, a plan for a local food economy was adopted by local governments based on the research of community activists that preceded the crisis. The food system we have today is by and large based on those plans.

The ranching community was familiar with the concept of carrying capacity, but usually called it the “stocking rate.” Good ranchers made sure not to put more cattle on a piece of land than it could handle. A local food system plan had to think about the sustainable population of humans in the County too.

Some basic facts that were used to frame the plan:
1. The County’s population in 2010 was estimated at 80,000 (down from a peak of 90,000 before the crisis).
2. Somewhere between 35,000 and 50,000 acres of prime ag land remained in the county (after an initial endowment of 95,000).
3. To supply enough food to feed one person requires about one acre.

The plan also recognized that a local food system had to overcome serious capital deficits with respect to: renewable energy, equipment, infrastructure, education and worker skills, business to business relationships, and public law and policy.

In any environment it would be difficult to overcome these deficits, but the crisis was a mixed blessing. Everybody now recognized that a new system had to be built. Nearly all resources were allocated according to this need. Ideology was replaced by practicality. What people were “willing to do” changed overnight.

Now I will shift gears and contrast the food system of 2009 with what we have today. I’ll start with a review of the 2009 food system.

Here are a couple of graphs that summarize data at the national scale when the crisis hit. At that time, one calorie of food energy depended on several calories of fossil fuel energy. Basically, all parts of the system were highly dependent upon fossil fuels, long-distance supply chains, and complex financial markets.

Today’s food system has many features that improve our resiliency and security. Key attributes are:
Diverse. A complete and balanced diet can be had within the agricultural base of the County.

Local. Food produced here is consumed here, and the agricultural landscape is no longer dominated by grapes and cattle for export.

Renewable. Energy inputs for agriculture, transportation and processing are based on solar, wind, hydro and other non-fossil sources.

Non-toxic. Artificial pesticides and herbicides are no longer available and we use biological controls and landscape management to dampen pest cycles.

Cyclical. Soils are improved rather than depleted through conservation tillage, smart land-cover rotation patterns, and composting of all human and animal wastes.

Adaptable. As climate changes and new farmers learn what works best, systems are in place to exchange information and perform needed research.

Buffered. The future is always uncertain. Always be prepared for trouble by storing extra of what we really need.

Today’s food system is completely different. The plan recognized the web of relationships needed for a sustainable system. Fossil fuels are nearly eliminated. Transportation distances are very short. Waste becomes the new fertilizer.

While mechanized to the extent energy availability allows, the farm of 2020 uses efficient hand tools when those suffice.

Compost today is very expensive. Farmers work very hard to create the fertility they need on site as best they can. Food scraps are highly valued and used in vermiculture systems. Human wastes are professionally handled and sold to farmers certified disease free.

Imported chemical pesticides and herbicides are also very costly. More knowledge and labor is now used, including beneficial insect plants that add a lot of color and interest to farms.

Off the farm society has changed just as dramatically. People often use solar ovens to cook, and disposable packaging is rarely seen anymore.

Because a transportation fuel crisis was the proximate cause of the crisis, people were especially keen on eliminating reliance on long-distance supply chains. Households began sourcing as much food locally as they could. In 2009 a trip to the grocery store would mean a 1500 mile diet. Today that could be more like a 150 yard diet. Bikes with trailers can now handle much local transport. Streets are quieter, and the air less polluted.

Not only have on the farm practices changed, but farms are cooperating like never before. This creates synergies at the landscape level we all benefit from.

For example, this goat dairy sows a hay crop rich in wildflowers, thereby supporting a local beekeeper. The beekeeper’s hives also service orchards and row crops in the area, ensuring good pollination and food for all of us.

We have much to be proud of now. We made it through very tough times together by mostly keeping our heads on straight and making good decisions when it really counted. But we also live with the pain of loss and regret, asking ourselves over and over, “How did we let this happen?”

What does the last 10 years teach us about the importance of leadership?

I look at this issue in two ways. First, good leaders do their best to prevent crises. This requires the ability to help people accept the reality of unsustainable tensions before they go too far. Just talking to people can establish new conversations that propagate. Only when enough people are having similar conversations are social changes possible.

Of course human history is full of one account after another of societies that failed to recognize their obvious problems before it was too late. When disaster strikes, good leaders manage their shock and the loss of normalcy. They model the proper attitude, reducing panic and heightening clear thinking.

The best crisis leaders are those that combine awareness of the problem before it arrived with a sense of direction and clarity. Because they saw what was coming, they often have a plan to deal with it as soon as the population is forced by circumstances out of denial, distraction and inaction. Since what people are willing to do changes in a crisis, wise leadership can make a lot happen for the good very quickly.

I have only been growing my own vegetables and preserving them for a few years now. The first thing I thought of was heat canning, and have spent a number of hours getting water to boil. This was not entirely satisfactory to me, however, because it just didn't seem very efficient. Heat intensive processes are inefficient at small scale, such as my kitchen! So this year I ditched the water canning and decided to try other methods.

I recommend the book Keeping Food Fresh and basically followed the guidelines there for drying, lacto fermenting and preserving in olive oil.

While you can't taste the results, here's what they look like.

These are dried veggies and I dried them with the sun. Great way to keep nutrient quality intact and very light weight for storage and transportation. Shown are onions, tomatoes, pears and peppers.

Lacto fermentation is a fascinating process. All you need is salt and chlorine free water. Here are examples of pickles, a vegetable medley including beets, and shredded zucchini.

Olive oil is a more expensive preservative. But the oil isn't lost, just borrowed while preserving and becoming a flavored oil when the vegetables are consumed. Many vegetables are sauteed briefly in vinegar before storage in oil. Shown are sweet pepper, tomatoes and a vegetable medley including carrots. Onions and garlic and herbs are often mixed into these.

It is perhaps the greatest indication that the "free" market (or at least our U.S. early 21st century version of it) is a failure when those who work very hard to feed other people can't cover their own basic expenses. I bring this up after reading this article from Grist:

Dispatches from the Fields: The trouble with small-scale farming
Can sustainable farming provide a sustainable living?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/24/133720/582

One item I disagree with is the notion in the article that farming isn't "highly skilled." That really depends. Some jobs are mundane, but overall I have found that advanced management skills and sublimely honed knowledge sets are needed to farm well. Where does the idea that farming is "unskilled" come from?

One hypothesis I have is that the cheap availability of fertilizer inputs masks the actual difficulty of caring for the soil properly and making compost that works.

A second hypothesis is that farming is associated with rural, poor and foreign minorities with low SAT scores.

I would like to get paid to grow food for other people and am going to ask the members of my farm to do so next year. As the article suggests, most farmers don't make it on the food value alone. This is true in my case as well. My wife has a nice salary and I am her "kept man" so to speak.

What the article doesn't delve into is the changing economic environment. In a collapsing economic situation I'd expect more people to grow their own food. And with few high quality fertilizers and fuels available over the long term farming will require greater knowledge, much of which has been lost to the general population.

It has been months since I've posted a blog. This is the busy time of year on the farm, but I came across something I'd like to share.

I have been bothered by the talk of cellulosic ethanol without a clear discussion of the effect such removal of celluosic biomass would have on soils. Soils are alive with microbes that feed off of cellulose (and lignins). Furthermore, macro and micro nutrients are contained in plant stalks and their removal could lead to a soil nutrient deficit that would need to be replaced by importing fertilizer.

So it was great to see the article posted below published by the Washington State University news service. This article made me think about our soil practices at Brookside Farm.

Are our compost practices sufficient to replace the carbon burnt by veggie cultivation? Brookside Farm's soil began with 6% organic matter, built up over the years by a perennial grass sod that goes through an annual dry season in the summer. Dry summers mean that soil microbial activity is low when the temperatures are warm, permitting a large build up of dead organic matter. Theoretically, we can grow highly productive winter and summer compost crops that produce more biomass than the removed sod, but it isn't easy to keep track of how well this is going. There's the risk of growing too many veggies and relying on the stock of rich soil to last a while, rather than growing compost crops, which don't yield high value food each year. Short term gain vs. long term stewardship. Articles like this remind me to be very careful with the soil!

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/542626/
Released: Tue 15-Jul-2008, 08:00 ET

In the rush to develop renewable fuels from plants, converting crop residues into cellulosic ethanol would seem to be a slam dunk.

However, that might not be such a good idea for farmers growing crops without irrigation in regions receiving less than 25 inches of precipitation annually, says Ann Kennedy, a USDA-Agricultural Research Service soil scientist and adjunct professor of crop and soil sciences at Washington State University.

“With cultivation, organic matter tends to decline in most places around the world,” she said. “In the more than 100 years that we have been cultivating soils in the Palouse,”—the wheat growing region of Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho and Northeast Oregon—“we have lost about half of the original organic matter.”

Ideally, according to Kennedy, soils in the Palouse should have about 3.5 percent organic content. In most farm fields, she said, it is now closer to 2 percent.

She said organic matter provides nutrients crops need, helps the soil hold water and contributes to the formation of soil clods that help prevent wind erosion. The percentage of organic matter in a given soil varies naturally from region to region, depending on climate, soil disturbance, moisture and vegetation. Generally speaking, more moisture leads to more vegetation, which is the feedstock for the microbes that break down residue into organic matter.

“A lot of people think residue is part of organic matter,” Kennedy said, “but that is not correct. Organic matter is well-decomposed plant material and microbes. It is black and rich and gives soil its dark color.”

Kennedy, who researches the composition of cereal crop residues and the amount of residue needed to maintain soil quality, said that the tillage system used to prepare the soil for planting has a big effect on the conversion of residue to soil organic matter. In no-till (direct seed) or one-pass tillage systems, she said, at least a ton of residue per acre per year is needed to build soil organic matter over time. In these minimum tillage systems, the intact and slowly decomposing roots also add to organic matter. She found that the percentage of organic matter in no-till research plots at the Palouse Conservation Field Station increased from 1.9 percent to 3.6 percent over the course of 20 years.

In fields with multiple tillage passes, on the other hand, organic matter may not increase even if all the crop residue is left in the field.

Kennedy thinks multiple tillage may mix the soil and residue too well, in essence over-feeding the microbes. The microbes will consume the incorporated residue too quickly and release most of it into the air as carbon dioxide.

“It is like going to an all-you-can-eat restaurant every day and eating too much,” she said “You cannot adequately metabolize all the food you ate. Cultivated soil is like a ‘pig out’ for microbes.”

For the long-term health of the soil, leaving residue on the soil surface works best.

“It will tend to stay around longer, and the microbes will slowly invade it and convert it into organic matter with less lost as carbon dioxide,” said Kennedy.
And about proposals to bale off crop residue for production of biofuels?

“You could remove the extra residue,” she said, “but it still provides surface cover and will eventually become organic matter; this residue layer is especially important if you rotate with low-residue crops legumes and canola.”

If residue were harvested, she said, soil fertility would drop and farmers would have to find other ways to increase the amount of organic matter in their soils.

“We need to constantly replenish organic matter—so removing valuable residue, especially in areas with low rainfall, may not be the best practice.”

It is somewhat amusing to see the Wall Street Journal cover
this topic.  After all, they are the
paper of Wall Street, which I imagine has a “look down the nose” attitude about
the people who grow food for a living, especially small-scale farmers who don’t
use giant machines or buy inputs from Fortune 500 companies.   Perhaps I need to get over a prejudice?

Check out what this reporter did…and on page A1 to boot:

Green Acres II:
When Neighbors
Become Farmers

Suburban
Arugula Is
Organic and Fresh, but
About That Manure...

By KELLY K. SPORS
April 22, 2008; Page A1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882472974233235.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

Not bad!  The people
doing this work are good looking, young, suburbanites.  Probably makes it more palatable to the
readers because they can relate to them. 

The music on the video included at the web site, however, is
kinda hill-billyish.  I enjoy banjos and
blue grass myself, but don’t know any farmers of the generation depicted who
listen to it regularly.  If more young
farmers are needed, it might be better to associate them with rock stars
instead. 

I appreciated the coverage of the SPIN farming method:  http://www.spinfarming.com/

It is great that there is now a marketed entry path to
farming in urban/suburban areas.  I would
like to point out where SPIN differs from what we are advocating in the Energy
Farm Program.  The article explains:

Start-up costs for a
one-eighth-acre farm run about $5,500, says Ms. Christensen of Spin-Farming.
That includes a walk-in cooler to wash and store fresh produce, a rotary tiller
and a farm-stand display. Annual operating expenses, including seeds and
farmers-market stall fees, can add about $2,000. Such a farm can generate
$10,000 to $20,000 in annual sales, she says. That's "an entry point into
farming to see if they have a talent for it," Ms. Christensen says.
"Those that do will eventually be able to expand and increase that income
level quite substantially."

Where we differ is in the use of hand tools instead of
rototillers, and passive cooling techniques instead of walk-in coolers
requiring electricity.  Also, we would
probably be more circumspect about the inputs of manure and other fertilizers
and ask farmers to work on green manure cover cropping and compost making on
site instead.  This is all about the need
to “get off the sauce” of oil, and fossil fuels in general.  Good hand tools are incredibly efficient at
the scale needed for home-scale veggies (http://www.energyfarms.net/node/1509
).

The Wall Street Journal does have some great reporters.  Good going Kelly!  Too bad the editorial pages of the WSJ are
full of garbage about energy and climate issues. 

I saw this today, had a morbid laugh, then got pensive.

(cartoonists web site: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/cartoons.aspx#cararch)

A couple of years ago, biofuels were hot. There were the promoters touting "green" fuels, getting off "foreign oil" and helping "American farmers." A perfect set of environmental, geopolitical and populist allies created a basket of incentives to boost corn-based ethanol production.

A few of us were decrying this as bad policy. The net energy of ethanol was around break even, so it couldn't be climate neutral or help with oil dependency. The rise in food prices would impact the poor around the world, causing much pain and unrest that could destabilize nations. And American farmers would go through another painful boom-bust cycle rather than transition to a sustainable agriculture system that is realistic about energy constraints.

Other issues are exposed by this fiasco. Why is it that so many people ARE dependent on cheap, often imported grains (especially in Africa)? Some have ridiculed the local food movement for potentially depriving farmers in the developing world of their markets in the wealthy nations. But if these developing nations are ones who can't feed themselves, shouldn't we ask if it might be better for them to focus on food self-sufficiency rather than production for export? Especially if our energy and financial policies can cut them off from our food so blithely.

Take a look at not only corn in the fuel tank, but coffee, tea, coconuts, palm oil, cane sugar, papayas, bananas, out of season vegetables, etc. All these tropical products may be produced in places dependent upon trade for money that is used to buy imported staples such as grains. What if they decided to relocalize instead? Would they be better off?

Winter is the time for making plans for the main growing
season. While the sometimes frenetic
activity of a farm is invigorating, I really enjoyed the time to study and
think for the past few months. January
was filled with bouts of mouth-watering pleasure when considering which peppers
and melons to eat in August.

One of my main projects was developing detailed plans for
what to put in the ground when, and the natural implications for preparing of
beds, distributing finished and building new compost, space-time relationships
in our little greenhouse, harvest duration, and number and varieties of seeds
in stock and to be ordered. I like
working with numbers and wanted a way to efficiently go through iterations and
refinements of our crop plan. There are
so many variables that optimizing one can cause problems elsewhere. As we explore these relationships we find
compromises and end up with a plan we have confidence in—knowing that the real
world will “interfere.” Plans are useful
for organizing time and resources, and signaling to us when we are ahead or
behind, but we also know that a change of course may be needed if new
information demands it.

Attached below is a spreadsheet file with many linked
pages. Each page is drawing attention to
a particular issue of farm life. It
starts with the decisions of what crops to grow (e.g., tomatoes), and how much
of each we want (e.g., pounds per week).
The amount of food can be translated into approximate areas (e.g., 200
square feet). Each plant that gets put
in the ground starts as a seed, so we can estimate backwards from harvest time
to seed time and therefore greenhouse space if required (e.g., tomatoes harvested
in early July begin in the greenhouse in early March). When clearing an area for a vegetable crop,
the cover crop sown in the fall is removed.
This becomes material for compost piles that are applied a year
later. Does our crop plan allow cover
crops to fix enough nitrogen and produce enough carbon to make sufficient
compost for our site (ca. 2600-5200 lbs per year)?

The spreadsheet is made specifically for Brookside Farm, but
could readily be modified to suit farms of different sizes and locations. It is modeling the annual pattern of
intensive vegetable cultivation with cover crops. If you find this useful for your situation
please let us know.

"Can
we rely on it that a ‘turning around' will be accomplished by enough people
quickly enough to save the modern world? This question is often asked, but
whatever answer is given to it will mislead. The answer "yes" would lead to
complacency; the answer "no" to despair. It is desirable to leave these
perplexities behind us and get down to work." E.F. Schumacher, Small is
Beautiful

I would rather have titled this essay "Where the Hoe Meets
the Soil" but that phrase is not part of our cultural lexicon, which is itself
a symptom of the problem I am working to address. Setting aside any prolonged discussion of
whether or what about the modern world should be saved, this essay is primarily
about what it means to "get down to work" as Schumacher puts it. But very quickly, to me saving the modern
world means setting a goal for the human economy to be properly scaled relative
to the global ecology, and maintaining a sufficiency of social stability
necessary to manage a transition.

Before getting to work, I want to make sure the work I do is
useful. This is where a clear
understanding of the big picture helps.

Ecological Economics

The question of proper economic scale is examined by the field of ecological
economics. In the ecological economics
model, the human economy is a subset of the Earth system, and therefore the scale
of the human economy is ultimately limited.
The human economy depends upon the throughput or flow of materials
from and back into the Earth system.
Limits to the size of the human economy are imposed by the interactions
among three related natural processes:

(1) The capacity of the Earth system to supply inputs to the human economy
(Sources),

(2) The capacity of the Earth system to tolerate and process wastes from the
human economy (Sinks), and

(3) The negative impacts on the human economy and the resources it relies on
from various feedbacks caused by too much pollution.

Fig. 1. The ecological economics model
of the relationship between the human economy and the Earth system highlighting
the importance of sources, sinks, feedbacks and scale.[i]

For an expanded look at the relationship between our economy and the planet
see the engaging on-line film "The Story of Stuff."[ii]

One measure of whether the human economy is too large is the
ecological footprint (EF), which calculates on a nation-by-nation basis the
consumption of resources and the build-up of wastes relative to resource regeneration
rates and the waste-absorbing capacity of the environment. According to two independent EF analyses (which
I will call EF 1 and EF 2) the human economy (population plus consumption and
waste generation) is in a state of overshoot, meaning it is too large relative
to the long-term capacity of the planet to cope.[iii] The Earth can provide for us beyond its means
for a long time before the consequences become severe, just like a millionaire
can, for a time, live high on the principal in a savings account instead of the
interest. The degree to which we are
drawing down principal as opposed to living on interest is called our
"ecological debt."

Figure 2. Change in
ecological footprint over time according to EF 1 with our cumulative ecological
debt in blue.[iv]

Getting More Specific:
Fossil-fuel Depletion and Climate Change

Indicators like the ecological footprint are important for
understanding we have a problem and giving us a sense of the scale, but they
aren't very specific. In order to do
something about reducing our footprint, it would help to know what is causing
the ecological footprint to be so large.
A significant portion of the ecological footprint represents consumption
of fossil fuels and the resulting waste, mainly greenhouse gases. The "carbon" footprint component is about 52%
for EF 1 and the similar "energy land" is 88% for EF 2.[v] According to EF 2, "energy land" is 93% of
the North American footprint. A priority
on reducing fossil fuel consumption appears justified. The human ecological footprint can be lowered
below "1 Earth" only by eliminating the pollution from fossil fuel
combustion.

EF analysis uses the capacity of the environment to absorb
greenhouse gas emissions, which, as seen in the model shown in Fig. 1, means EF
measures "sink" capacity. The real
picture is more complex and more disturbing for a couple of reasons. Firstly, fossil fuel extraction is reaching
limits sooner than expected. Since we
have not been weaning our economy off fossil fuels steadily for the past few
decades, rapid energy price inflation will likely make it difficult to maintain
the kind of economic vitality and stability needed for a smooth transition to
renewable energy alternatives. Secondly,
recent evidence suggests that climate change is happening faster than
expected. Ice sheet destabilization is
one major indicator that the Earth system is more sensitive to greenhouse
emissions than most scientists and policy-makers have presumed. Recent articles by Kurt Cobb[vi]
and Richard Heinberg[vii]
review all these points, and the "Climate Code Red" report[viii]
goes into truly excruciating detail so I won't elaborate further here.

The bottom line is that every measure must be taken to
rapidly eliminate fossil fuel consumption and dependency in every component of
our lives. The key word is
"rapidly." Don't passively assume
inexpensive alternative energy substitutes will arrive to replace fossil fuels-we
may have waited too long to respond to have a smooth transition. Therefore, focus most attention on reducing
energy demand rather than substituting a new energy supply. And finally, in the context of ecological
economics, fossil fuel depletion and climate change, ask whether what you do in
your life, vocation, hobbies, and habits, contributes to the long-term function
(or dysfunction) of society.

The U.S.
Food System and Fossil Fuels

It would be hard to argue against a claim that a secure and
healthy food supply is indispensable to society. A widely known and troubling fact is that the
current food system in the U.S.
(and most highly industrialized nations) is very dependent upon fossil
fuels.

As far as I am aware, the most comprehensive study on the
topic of energy use in the U.S.
food system is by Heller and Keoleian of the University of Michigan's
Center for Sustainable Systems.[ix] The report is from 2000 and makes use of data
from the mid-1990s. Although the data
are about 10 years old, I don't believe the basic structure and function of the
U.S.
food system has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. In fact, current trends of increased
industrial meat consumption[x]
and biofuels[xi], which
both rely on grains, make the following case even stronger.

We learn from the study that over 10% of the energy
consumption in the U.S.
can be attributed to the food system, and that about 20% of this occurs in the
agricultural production sector. Home
energy consumption (e.g., refrigeration and cooking) consume the largest share
at about 30%. Between the farm and the
home are everything else (transportation, processing, packaging and
retail). Much of this middle portion is
a function of the geographic disconnection between production and
consumption. Eating food out of season
either requires long-distance transportation or energy demanding
processing. Both transportation and
processing require investments in storage.

Sorting out the proper scale of operations for farms,
processing and transportation systems is very difficult, however, because optimization
for one factor (e.g., transportation), may be sub-optimal for another (e.g.,
heat intensive food processing). Within
a category, such as transportation, the technologies analyzed may be limited
too. A study comparing rail cars, large
semi-trucks and small produce trucks may conclude that bigger is better, but
what about hyper-local transportation systems using bikes, small electric
vehicles and bipedal locomotion? Another
complicating issue is that studies may assume the U.S. food system should be more or
less similar in its mix of products while lowering energy consumption. For example, tomatoes can be processed using
canning or drying. Canning lends itself
to centralized operations and so does drying if fossil fuels are used as heat
sources. But a naturally decentralized
and fossil-fuel free technique such as passive solar dehydration may not even
be considered. Large energy savings can
be found everywhere in the food system, but especially so if assumptions about scale
and consumer-level demand are allowed to change.

Fig. 3. The energy
inputs to the U.S.
food system are several times larger than the energy content of the food. A life-cycle analysis identifies how energy
consumption is partitioned among economic sectors.[xii]

Another graphic from the Heller and Keoleian report clearly
identifies a huge savings potential.
Over 50% of U.S.
grains are fed to domestic animals, and most export grains go to animal feed as
well. Overall, only 26% of U.S. grain
production in 1995 went to domestic human consumption.

Although poultry need grains, red meat and milk products
dominate the feed market and grains are not a natural part of their diets. If red meat and dairy production were reduced
to only what harvested hay and pasture could provide, perhaps half of annual U.S. grain
production could be eliminated. The
acreage out of food production could be used for green manure crops to build
soil and fix nitrogen. A 2004
Congressional Research Service report showed that fertilizers are the largest
part of farm energy use, and that natural gas to produce nitrogen comprised
75-90% of the fertilizer input (Fig. 5).[xiii] Fixing nitrogen naturally, therefore, saves
significant energy. Some of the vast
cropland area no longer producing grains could then be used for appropriately
scaled biofuels to power farm equipment instead of fossil fuels.

Fig.
4. A reprint of Fig. 3 from the Heller
and Keoleian report. See graph label
above.

Fig.
5. A reprint of Fig. 2 from a 2004
Congressional Research Service report.
See graph label above.

An older and less comprehensive on-line
review paper[xiv] titled "Energy Use in the U.S. Food System: a summary of existing research and
analysis" by John Hendrickson of the Center for
Integrated Agricultural Systems, UW-Madison concluded that:

"It appears that some of the greatest
saving can be realized by:

• reduced use of petroleum-based fertilizers and
  fuel on farms,
• a decline in the consumption of highly processed
  foods, meat, and sugar,
• a reduction in excessive and energy intensive
  packaging,
• more efficient practices by consumers in shopping
  and cooking at home,
• and a shift toward the production of some foods
  (such as fruits and vegetables) closer to their point of consumption."

Hendrickson's paper is helpful in republishing and comparing
tables from many previous studies, including "Table 5" reprinted here on the
energy consumption of home grown versus market-purchased fruit and
vegetables.

Taking Responsibility: Brookside Farm Examples

With this extensive background I introduce the project I
have been working on for about two years now, Brookside Farm. This is a 1-acre mini-farm in Willits, CA. It operates as a program of the non-profit
corporation North Coast Opportunities, functions as a working farm with a
community supported agricultural program serving 15 "shares" per year, exists
at an elementary school and is therefore open to classes and tours, and
conducts research and demonstrates aspects of a local food system with the collaboration
and support of Post Carbon Institute.[xv]

Brookside Farm thinks about food from a "farm to fork" and
back again perspective. Farmers create
artificial ecosystems, and we therefore look to ecology to guide our
practices. Highly productive and stable
ecological systems are noted for a diversity of species both in kinds and
functional forms. When these diverse
species interact effectively, they maximize the rates of productivity and
nutrient retention in the system using ambient energy sources. We view ourselves as human members of the farm
ecosystem with our labor and wastes as parts of the whole.

To get by on ambient energy as much as possible, we have
sought alternatives to fossil fuels in every aspect of the food system we
participate in. Table 1 considers each
type of work done on the farm, to the fork, and back again and contrasts how
fossil fuels are commonly used with the technologies we have applied.

Table 1. Feeding
people requires many kinds of work and all work entails energy. In most farm operations the main energy
sources are fossil fuels. By contrast,
Brookside Farm uses and develops renewable energy based alternatives.

Our use of food scraps to replace exported fertility also
reduces energy by diverting mass from the municipal waste stream. Solid Waste of Willits has a transfer station
in town but no local disposal site. Our
garbage is trucked to Sonoma
County about 100 miles to the south.
From there it may be sent to a rail yard and taken several hundred miles
away to an out of state land fill.

We are also planning to irrigate using an on-site well and a
photovoltaic system instead of treated municipal water or diesel-driven
pumps.

How much energy does Brookside Farm
save?

The complexity of the food system makes it difficult to
calculate how much energy Brookside Farm is saving. A research program at UC Davis now devoted to
just this sort of question is recently underway, but with few results to share
thus far.[xvi]

From previous studies we can find clues about the high
energy inputs to fruit and vegetable cultivation. From Fig. 4. above, we can see that fruits
and vegetables account for (102,370/921,590) 11% of crop production by weight. Table 3 (given below) of the Congressional
Research Service report shows that energy invested in fruit and vegetable
production is proportionally higher, accounting for (3759/18364) 20% of the
energy for crops at the farm level.

Much of the savings at Brookside Farm occurs off the farm by
replacing what would normally be imported, through passive solar preservation
and storage techniques, and by shifting consumer habits towards seasonally
fresh cuisine proportionally high in vegetables.

Does Brookside Farm Scale? Lawns to Food

Before it was Brookside Farm, it was a field of mostly grass
at an elementary school. The school
district watered and mowed it (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Brookside
Farm in early spring, 2007. The image
shows the farm site adjacent to the forest and bordered by grassy fields,
school buildings and a residential neighborhood. Arrows from a home contrast distance and
direction of food coming from the local Safeway supermarket and Brookside
Farm. The 1 acre Brookside Farm occupies
about a quarter of the available play field at Brookside Elementary School.

Using satellite imagery, the area of lawn in the United States
has recently been estimated:

"Even conservatively," Milesi says,
"I estimate there are three times more acres of lawns in the U.S. than irrigated corn." This means
lawns-including residential and commercial lawns, golf courses, etc-could be
considered the single largest irrigated crop in America in terms of surface area,
covering about 128,000 square kilometers in all.[xvii]

The same study identifies where and how much water these
lawns require:

That means about 200 gallons of
fresh, usually drinking-quality water per person per day would be required to
keep up our nation's lawn surface area.

Let me put the area of lawn from this study into a food
perspective. The 128,000 square
kilometers of lawns is the same as 32 million acres. A generous portion of fruits and vegetables
for a person per year is 700 lbs, or about half the total weight of food
consumed in a year.[xviii] Modest yields in small farms and gardens would
be in the range of about 20,000 lbs per acre.[xix] Even with half the area set aside to grow
compost crops each year, simple math reveals that the entire U.S. population could be fed plenty
of vegetables and fruits using two thirds of the area currently in lawns.

Labor Compared to Hours of T.V.

For its members Brookside Farm's role is to provide a
substantial proportion of their yearly vegetable and fruit needs. Using our farming techniques, we estimate
that one person working full time could grow enough produce for ten to twenty
people. By contrast, an individual could
grow their personal vegetable and fruit needs on a very part-time basis,
probably half an hour per day, on average, working an area the size of a small home (700 sq ft in veggies and fruits plus 700 sq ft in cover crops).

American's complain that they feel cramped for time and
overworked. But is this really true or
just a function of addiction to a fast-paced media culture? According to Nielsen Media Research:[xx]

The total average time a household
watched television during the 2005-2006 television year was 8 hours and 14
minutes per day, a 3-minute increase from the 2004-2005 season and a record
high. The average amount of television watched by an individual viewer
increased 3 minutes per day to 4 hours and 35 minutes, also a record. (See
Table 1.)

So if we imagine families having the discipline to cut out a
single sitcom viewing per day, or one baseball or football game per weekend
during the growing season, that would free-up sufficient time to become
self-reliant in fruits and vegetables and likely improve overall health.[xxi]

(A note of caution though, an article from The Onion warns
"that viewing fewer than four hours of television a day severely inhibits a
person's ability to ridicule popular culture.")[xxii]

Conclusions

For those wanting to contribute to a lower-energy food
system, starting with fresh produce makes sense for several reasons:

(1) Significant production is possible in a small area,
often what people already have,

(2) Tools and equipment are simple, inexpensive and readily
available,

(3) Fruits and vegetables are heavy due to high water
content, and therefore energy-intensive to transport and process either by
canning or dehydrating,

(4) Growing vegetables and fruits is generally more energy
intensive than other crops because of high fertilizer and irrigation inputs,

(5) Quality declines rapidly after harvest, so home or
locally available food has higher nutritional value and usually tastes better,

(6) Labor, packaging and storage demands of fruits and
vegetables are high in mechanized production systems, making the investment in
home-grown produce financially competitive, and

(7) Gardening and small-scale fruit and vegetable farming
lend themselves to physical and social activities across generation and income
gaps that improve health and enhance a shared sense of purpose and fun.

[i] This
graphic was developed based on the principles discussed in Chapter 2 of Daly
and Farley "Ecological Economics:
Principles and Applications" (2004, Island Press)

[ii] http://www.storyofstuff.com/

[iii] http://www.footprintnetwork.org and
http://www.rprogress.org/ecological_footprint/about_ecological_footprint.htm;
the original ecological footprint analysis (EF1) is at the first reference, and
the second type (EF2) at the second. The
major difference between the two is that the second attempts to incorporate
aquatic systems (e.g., oceans), total terrestrial productivity, and
biodiversity reserves.

[iv] Graphic
from: http://www.footprintstandards.org/

[v] For the
50% figure see: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=global_footprint; for the greater than 90% and discussion of
differences between methods see: http://www.rprogress.org/publications/2006/Footprint%20of%20Nations%2020...

[vi] http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1397

[vii] http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_big_melt_meets_big_empty

[viii] http://www.climatecodered.net/

[ix] http://css.snre.umich.edu/main.php?control=detail_proj&pr_project_id=29

[x] See
especially Table 2. in: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC911E/ac911e05.htm

[xi] http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2431

[xii]
Graphic from: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-06.pdf

[xiii] http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/04nov/RL32677.pdf

[xiv]
Although no date appears on this paper, it is clearly related to a 1994
conference and workshop: http://www.cias.wisc.edu/pdf/energyuse.pdf;
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/archives/1994/01/01/energy_use_in_the_us_food_system_a_summary_of_existing_research_and_analysis/index.php

[xv] http://www.energyfarms.net/

[xvi] http://asi.ucdavis.edu/conferences/farmtofork/;
http://californiaagriculture.ucop.edu/0704OND/editover.html;
http://asi.ucdavis.edu/Research/ASI_Program_Proposal_Brief_-_Energy_Life_Cycle_Assessment_in_Food_Systems_9-13.pdf

[xvii] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Lawn/

[xviii] http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodGuideIndex.htm

[xix] An
acre is ca. 43,000 sq ft. Our experience
at Brookside Farm suggests about 1 lb of produce per square foot of cultivated
space is to be expected, with infrastructure and paths requiring significant
area. Fruit orchards in Mendocino County yield about 20,000 lbs per
acre: http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/agriculture/pdf/2006%20Crop%20Report.pdf

[xx]http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=4156527aacccd010VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD

[xxi] http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html

[xxii] http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30863

Brookside Farm provides produce year-round. After all, people eat even when the days are
short and cold and plants go into a hibernation mode. Before supermarkets could place a call to a
vegetable broker and have a truck deliver boxes of tomatoes from anywhere in
the world, humans planned for seasonality by growing during the summer the
kinds of foods that would keep during the winter. Brookside Farm is a bit unique among veggie
CSAs (locally at least) by growing storage crops. As a result, our baskets in January are still
pretty hefty.

These baskets are from January 15^th. Potatoes, onions, shallots, and winter squash
make of the bulk, and are all from storage.
Carrots, beets, parsnips, Jerusalem
artichokes, tree collards and kale are still harvested fresh.

The farm has experienced a cold and wet January, including a
few days of snowfall, but without much accumulation. Snow is not very troublesome, even to the
greens. Much more concerning would be a severe
frost at night (in the low teens) and bright sunny days. The wet soil can expand and contract, harming
root crops in the ground. Above ground
greens can be tissue damaged by extreme lows and fluctuations. A sunny day could light and warm the leaf
surface enough to provoke strong photosynthesis, the need for gas exchange and
the opening of leaf pores, but since the soil is still frozen root activity
could be limited and the leaf could become water stressed.

We don't get a lot of snow in Willits, so its presence is an
exciting novelty and the transformation of the beautiful landscape is
captivating. The picture is from January
31^st, and shows in the foreground a row of kale and cabbage, middle
of the frame are former potato beds in compost crops, and the conifer trees
from the neighboring property dominate the background.

A particularly hardy crop around here is a variety of leek
known as "elephant garlic" (Allium
ampeloprasum). Once established, it
is practically impossible to get rid of because it propagates by sending out
subsidiary bulbs that form new plants the next year. During the summer it goes dormant and can be
harvested for the edible bulbs. Like
regular leeks, you can try eating the immature leaf stalks, though these are
generally tougher than the familiar leek.
Two big advantages to elephant garlic are that the plant requires no
watering around here to produce well, and it is high in calories. Most don't think it tastes as good as true
garlic, but it is milder and so can be eaten in larger quantities--providing
some significant calories if need be. I
think of elephant garlic in the same way as Jerusalem Artichokes-not the best
to eat but oh so easy to grow.

I don't have a lot to do on
the farm this time of year, but work for
the farm is continual. A tree pruning is
scheduled for next week as we expect a break in the weather. Seeds have been ordered and organized. I started some flats of leeks in the
greenhouse. Going to get some folks to
look over the work plan for the coming season and refine as I see fit. Should probably take stock of tools and
equipment, making sure everything is in good repair and blades are sharp;
organize the workshop so it is ready when called upon. And there are relationships to cultivate with
the school system, the after school program, community service clubs and
potential farm volunteers and donors.
Oh, and my wife reminds me to do sit ups and push ups regularly!

I wasn't happy with the news in Part 3 of this series, which
basically concluded that Mendocino
County could not be food
self-reliant.[i] To quote the most relevant and discouraging
passage from that essay:

The Caltrans EIR implies that in
about a ca. 20 year span, Mendocino County went from 69,000 to 35,000 acres of
prime farmland, down from and original endowment of 94,000 acres. This does
seem like a remarkably high rate of loss, totaling 34,000 acres or about 1700
acres per year for 20 years. In either case, whether the real figure is closer
to 69,000 or 35,000, both are far from the estimated need of ca. 95,000.

However, I knew that this conclusion rested on certain
assumptions, and that changing these might alter the conclusion. In the end we may be left having to decide
which assumptions are more realistic, or whether what may be theoretically
possible is probable given human nature/folly, or, if you are more inclined,
human spirit/ingenuity.

So I went in search of better news (and the resulting
dopamine reward this could potentially provide) by re-performed some
calculations, starting with the diet. I
will call the diet from part 1 of this series diet 1, and the one presented in
this essay diet 2.[ii] Before creating diet 2, I wanted to be
clearer on what the dietary needs and expectations are in North
America. The USDA has a
fascinating set of web pages. Included
is a survey from the Agricultural Research Service of what several hundred
people eat during a day, which can be extrapolated to the whole population
(standard errors noted) and then broken out by demographic category.[iii] According to this data set, on average, people
eat about 2200 calories per day. As
expected, the very young and old eat the least, and females eat less than males. Another branch of the USDA, the Economic
Research Service concludes that people consume closer to 2700 calories per day
on average.[iv] Changes in American consumption patterns over
time are also discussed in a report by the same sub-agency.[v] In general we are eating more calories than
30 years ago, but we are consistently wasting about 25% of the food produced.[vi]

New Diet Assumptions

For my second go at a model diet, I selected the 2200
calorie per day figure, and I assumed we could get by with half the food waste
of today, which means a production system is required that produces about 2600
calories per person/day. By contrast,
diet 1 used the figure about 3000 calories per day as a guide, which is still
about 700 calories per day lower than what Americans have available to them
from the current system. Diet 2
therefore has less calories available than diet 1, and far less than current U.S.
diets, but is still enough food overall if food waste is half of current
percentages.

Diet 2 is given below, and for comparison I give the current
U.S.
consumption patterns for the modeled foods.
I have made a change in the fruit and vegetable category, where potatoes
are segregated for analysis purposes. Significant
differences between diet 2 and U.S.
averages include much lower meat, sugar and egg consumption, and much higher
dry bean consumption. To compare U.S.
consumption of sprouting seeds (sunflower seeds in my model) I used data on
nuts, which are nutritionally similar. In
the U.S.
this mostly means peanuts, but locally it could be walnuts and
filberts/hazelnuts. I believe diet 2 is
a much healthier diet than current U.S. habits.

Diet 2 also took into account the calories yielded per area
for different food items. This is one
reason why potatoes were given stand-alone status-they efficiently make human
food. When grains are fed to animals,
as in chickens and dairy cows, area efficiency is very low. Diet 2 therefore has fewer animal products
than diet 1, and more veggies and potatoes.
I limited potato consumption to 180 lbs per year because potatoes are
typically edible for only 6-7 months at a time and eating more than one pound
of potatoes per day would get tiresome.
Even with the extra load from vegetables, fruits and potatoes, the total
diet weight is still low, ca. 5.2 lbs, because the total calories are reduced
and grains and dry beans still form the core of the plan.

New Inputs and Yield
Assumptions

In addition to fiddling with the diet, I made a giant change
when modeling the land-area required for the diet-I assumed no limits to
irrigation, which essentially doubles the yields of grains and dry beans.[vii] Remember
also that sugar is modeled as honey and, perhaps optimistically, is given no
direct land area requirement.

So what's in going to be?
Will eating lower on the food chain plus more intensive inputs change
the results? Are we gonna make it? Drum roll.....

First, we look at the acres per person for diet 2:

Not bad! The "acres
minus meat" for diet 1 was 0.76 per person.
Next, multiply by population size:

If you read previous essays you may recall that meat is
assumed to be produced on subprime farmland plus prime farmland in a green
manure rotation. This brings up the need
to account for crop rotations and green manure, thus: