THE URGENT NEED TO DEVELOP
ZERO IMPACT FARMING
WRITER: Pang, Yiu Kai (彭耀階)
Lacking Of Systems Thinking
It doesn’t need detailed explanatiojn as nowadays people with some common knowledge all know the mainstream industrial type of farming is harming the global environment as well as consumers’ health. One basic most thing we must know is that one particular species growing on the ground doesn’t exist independently of other living species and physical environment around it, but rather, there are very complex interactions among that species and all else on earth in systems enclosing sub-systems or as sub-system within other larger systems. This is why Ecology is the first systems science ever developed by scientists. So, when you treat your crop as an independent existent, only pump in nutrients you find to be most relevent for it’s growth, sooner or later you will have depleted the nutrients needed by hundreds of kinds of beings living in the soil which are also responsible to providing readily absorbable nutrients to your crop. Although your crop looks nice and growing fast since you’ve pumped in directly related nutrients, it’s health has already been affected, and become contracting diseases more easily and readily.
The War Between Humans And Nature
Going on with the systems negligence, you spray pesticides, fungicides to control diseases, it works! But it also works in damaging the systems balance of bugs and micro-organisms, much more bugs /germs appear later to attack your already unhealthy plant as a result. Then you have to pump in heavier and heavier doses of them as well as more and more often, it still works. But those bugs/germs turn to let you know why they live short, that’s to let their spray resistant mutants can undergo enough generations of multiplications to become mainstream strain quick enough to attack your crop again, by then you have to develop new types of pesticides/fungicides to keep them under control. Even you can still succeed, the war between humans and Nature has started.
Releasing Soil Carbon Back Into The Atmosphere
Improper nutrients together with pesticides/herbicides/fungicides kill off living beings in soil, which in turn releases the carbon stored in their bodies or maintained in soil back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or methane, quicken the global warming process. Don’t forget that cellulose, fats, and proteins not only are carbon containing compounds, their main constituents is carbon, they form up the main body of any living beings. This is why roughly two-thirds of the earth’s surface carbon is stored in the soil, letting loose of this stored carbon and change to store them in the atmosphere is simply mass suicide. Therefore one of the main tasks for combating global warming is to stop this sort of carbon release, or better to see if we can get the atmospheric carbon back to the soil.
Incessant Need To Exploit Forests Or Biodiverse Places
Soil deterioration not only harm the bio-productivity of farmland, when farming bosses find the output of a piece of field has become too low to be profitable, they will create another piece, that means the world needs to develop new farmland every year. According to United Nation’s Food And Agriculture Organization’s projection released in 2012, in the subsequent 30 years or so, every year humans need to develop 10,000 to 50,000 square kilometer of new farmland to fulfil the increasing food demand, population growth, more prevalent meat eating, and the most important of all, to replenish farmland that’s become far less productive.
When farming bosses look for new farmland, they of course will not consider low bio-productive places, this usually results in the clearing of biodiverse forests. The mass burning of tropical rainforest in Indonesia and large scale clearing of Amazon rainforest in recent years are but some of the classic examples. But if the existing farmland can all be used in a sustainable manner, the need to develop new ones can at least be shrunk by 90%.
Damaging Regional And Global Ecosystems
The harm of farm drugs does not rest in humans’ fields or orchards alone, they drug the surrounding insects and animals in the wild as well. Honey bees is one classic example. People began to bewilder at the shrinking of bee population throughout Europe and US in the first decade of the 21 century. At first scientists doubt the mobile phone signals have interfered the bees’ direction finding mechanism so they lost their way home. Subsequent detailed studies found this is not the case. What should be responsible is the newly developed neonarcotinoid pesticides, a kind of insects’ neurotoxin that causes the so called CCD(colony collapse syndrome), the finding led to European Union’s banning of certain neonarcotiniod pesticides in her member countries in mid 10s.
Emergence of Organic Farming
So much have been mentioned about the harm of mainstream industrial farming, anyone must have found these are already too much, we need not exhaust exploring all the harmful effects one by one. What about organic farming? If we can switch the mainstream practice to organic, can all the problems be solved? The answer is, part of them yes, but there remain two chief environmental problems, i.e., habitat loss and continental hydrological cycling obstruction that are waiting to be solved. So long your crops occupy farmland, you create these problems no matter you are organic or the first three zones of permaculture.
Habitat Loss in Land Occupying Farming
Experienced farmers all know about this, once he abandons a piece of his farmland, in a few years’ time things growing there will no longer be their crops, but many different kinds of mosses, lichens, grasses, shrubs and young pioneer trees together with lots of insects, worms, bugs. Those who have the natural right of abode on that land are they, not your crops.
Continental Hydrological Cycling Obstruction By Massive Land Occupying Farming
Looking down on a piece of forest or shrub from above, you cannot see the exposed ground or soil, layers of plant leavies above have covered it completely. Alternatively, on a piece of farmland, even orchards, exposed soil can be seen from above, not to say from many different angles. When rain comes, a large portion of raindrops hit the soil of the farmland directly and infiltrate the soil without hindrance, leaving only a small portion sticking on the leavies and stems. The amount of rainwater running off after hitting the ground is also small in vegetable fields, for the short lived vegetable roots do not spread wide, grow deep and last long, leaving the farmland soil easily infiltrable. Instead of running off as surface water, this farmland rainwater infiltrates down and become subterrainean water and so cannot benefit the fauna and flora of the surrounding ecosystem. Not only so, as the stem and leavies can only hold a small portion of the downpoured rainwater, the amount of which can be evaporated back to the atmosphere is also small. Careful studies indicates that on average only about 20% of the downpoured rainwater can go back to the sky, as compared to 80% of natural forest, and it’s this difference which causes shrinkage in continental hydrological cycling.
Deep inside continental hinterland, surface evaporation cannot provide the inland air enough moisture for “enough” precipitation. To have enough rainfall, the water vapour has to come from the oceans. When the oceanic air mass flows inland, it brings along a lot of water vapor evaporated from the ocean surface. However, as these air masses moves inland, most of them precipitates in the coastal region, if 80% of the downpour can go back to the sky, they can retain 80% of it’s water content as they move deeper into the continental hinterland. But if the non-hinter continental land mass has mostly been developed into farmland, then only 20% of the downpour can go back to the sky, the same air mass will move inward with a much drier water content, leaving the continental hinterland without enough rain to keep forests growing. Deforestation in hinterland can kick off a vicious cycle. Without forest cover, sunlight hits the ground soil directly, which heats up the top soil and thus heats up the surface air mass relatively more, making the air temperature in the local area a lot higher than when there was forest. This higher temperature makes rainfall more difficult as higher temperature can hold more water vapour without condensing into water droplets. After the forest is gone, rainfall becomes more scarce, plant growth becomes more difficult, the area downgrades to savanah, and if the process goes on, it further downgrades to grassland or even desert.
Inferring from these mechanisms alone we can already conclude that massive land clearing farming causes deforestation and desertification, factual evidences can be found in the recent most earth history. Geographically the nearly soil free Iraq and her surrounding desert has been called "The Fertile Crescent" by historians as this was the place where humans first established farmland for growing wheat and barley in history around 8 to 10 thousand years ago! This could not be so if it didn't have enough rainfall and originally was not forest. It must be the many thousands of years of wheat and barley farming which turned the area into desert, thus led to the downfall of the Babylonian Empire around 2500 years ago and henceforth it’s receding from the stage of history. Another classic example is the Inner Mongolia of China. According to the “Classic Of Mountains And Seas” compiled around 2000 to 2500 years ago, the area was covered by forest. Today it has been deteriorated to largely grassland, and a Hong Kong geography professor of The Baptist University attributed the cause to thousands of years of farming in China.
Organic Farming Only As Interim Farming Solution
Isn’t those traditional farming in pre-industrial times the equivalent of organic farming? If such kind of farming still led to the disruption of continental water cycling, causing desertification and habitat loss, what then is the use of the latter? We may say although it’s not a long term farming solution, It’s still useful as an interim measure for organic farming is a far lesser evil comparing to the prevalent type as far as the environment and consumer’s health is concerned. Especially in facing the urgent most global warming crisis, organic farming does not release soil carbon back to the atmosphere so much like the prevalent industrial type. Not only so, if organic farmers compost farm waste, the practice can store carbon taken from the atmosphere back to the soil through soil regeneration. Since the carbon in the crops or kitchen waste is taken from CO2 in the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis, composting the farm waste and then putting them back to the soil as fertilizer means CO2 from the atmosphere becomes a part of soil texture, adding up the soil mass, i.e., a process of Carbon Sequestration. Of course, we should bear in mind that not all organic farming has the carbon sequestration effect, only those that compost farm waste or kitchen waste do.
So, before humans can find out an ultimate farming solution, organic farming should still be promoted and developed as an interim mainstream farming practice.
Having understood all the main evil and merit of organic farming, those who are looking for the way out for all life on earth know that they still need to develop new farming solutions which can be free of all the evil mentioned above. Attempts have been put forth by certain farmer-ecologists since early twentieth century, and some years later two Australian ecologists, Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, together propounded the theory of Permaculture in 1978. In the broadest sense we may say the permaculture theory consists of two parts, one mental and the other material. The mental part deals with the mindset of farming practitioners, while the other part deals with farming arrangements and techniques. We may say permaculture tells people not only how to farm, but also how to think together with an attitude guideline towards farming, or a set of farming ethics.
Why Permaculture Can Solve The 2 Universal Farming Harms?
Many claim this to be the ultimate farming solution for our troubled world. Needless to say, farming ethics directs the behaviour of a farmer, thus her/his farming practice, therefore a good set of farming ethics is essential. When asked about how a good motive necessarily lead to a practice which can solve all the farming problems, as permaculture already provides farmers with concrete techniques and arrangements to follow, the chance should be small that a good motive would lead to undesirable results. All we need to ask is only whether a permaculture farmer will follow the farming ethics especially when their farms is situated in highly competitive markets.
It all sounds nice. If so, the rest is only in spreading the idea and practice. However, permaculture can be a farming solution depends largely on zone 5, usually a farmer’s self gazetted wilderness; and a part on zone 4, a mixture of native trees together with artificially planted ones and with free range cattle and or poultry kept inside for money making and usage purposes. Zone 1 to zone 3 makes nearly no difference from organic farming, and so bear the same problem of continental hydrylogical cycling obstruction and habitat loss if zone 5 is too small or even absent, otherwise, when most farms in a place can all be planned according to permaculture principle, their zone 5 will then be connected together and turn the place from non forest farmland back to largely natural forest with lots of zone 0 to zone 3 islands situated inside.The natural forest thus created becomes the restored natural habitat of that place, it can at the same time overcome the hydrological cycling problem caused by the farmlands to a certain degree. Right from the theoretical stage, we can’t be certain if the 2 main problems caused by organic farming can be overcome completely, but it should not be any doubt permaculture can lessen the 2 problems at least to a large extent.
The Reason Permaculture Farms Is Still Very Rare After Half Century Of Development
So far so good, it seems permaculture can no doubt be a farming solution in theory. However, after decades of promotion and practice since mid 70s, so far still nearly no permaculture products can be found in the food market, inspite lots of permaculture schools and courses have been opened in most developing and developed countries, many ecovillages have employed permaculture to plan and run their ecovillages, yet genuine permaculture farms are still rare. Why?
The culprit is zone 5. A farmer can hardly get useful yield from this zone, yet he still need to rent or buy this piece of land, thus the land cost of zone 5 is added to the cost of the other four zones’ yields, making them more costly and less competitive than other organic food. Customers are willing to pay the much more expensive organic food for their own health’s sake, but are they willing to pay a even higher than organic food price simply because permaculture food is more environmentally friendly than organic ones, especially when the average people mostly have a misconception that organic food is already environmentally friendly enough?
Another reason for permaculture’s non popularity is that it has a lot more diverse farming items which would have to be grown or raised in a permaculture farm. In zone 4 you need to have many kinds of fruit trees together with timber, soap and other utility trees. Some cattle and or poultry are better kept underneath as well. Not only so, you need to have a fish pond with many kinds of fish and frogs inside in zone 3……farmers simply find this ineffective and too troublesome.
But the most influential point of all is still permaculture products are not so fit into the competitive market economy. Nowadays most farms in the world are function under just such an economic system. Even granted we can educate the public into buying the more expensive than organic permaculture products, under strong competition permaculture farms will have to search through every corner of their farms for rooms to cut down the cost, zone 5 and even zone 4 are just too pronounced an item for the cost not to be cut there. They will proceed to dwindle the sizes of zone 5 and even zone 4. When the majority of the surrounding farms act likewise, the forest in the place restored through establishment of permaculture farms will be thinned out to such an extent that the restored natural forest can no longer function to remedy continental hydrological cycling and restore lost habitat.
This is why apart from well to do fervent permaculturists, in the end only establishments which can live independently of the existing market can employ permaculture, genuine ecovillage is one classic example. However, being able to fit into the existing competitive market economy seems to be essential if we want the majority of farms can switch to permaculture ones, so in practice whether permaculture can be a feasible farming solution is very much in doubt, unless we can change the globally prevalent economy from the existing market competitive one to a resource based, globally collaborative and sharing one.
But please don’t misinterpret here the argument implies fervent farmers should abandon permaculture, by no means. Permaculture campaign should still go on, so does organic farming. I only aim at pointing out we must not have a false sense that humans have found out the farming solution in theory. Not yet!
There are other farming methods I would rank them to be “better than organic, more feasible than permaculture” and classify them as “low input farming methods”, but I decline to call them “natural” like most other farmers do. A piece of land chiefly growing your crops is not natural at all, even though a farmer’s touch of the land is no more than planting the crop there and harvest them later. The natural process of the piece of land, even with your crops already planted there, will be that after a few years the natural succession process will replace most of your crops with grass and shrub of local species. If your crops can stay there for some years with more or less the same number it must be “unnatural”, i.e., it must have been the result of the farmer’s effort. So, to be honest we had better call similar methods “low input farming method”. As the name implies, such methods usually input little to no fertilizers, input only a little man power to do the weed trimming instead of weed clearing, thus the crop co-exists with other herbs and shrubs in the field, also the mutual check and balance of various bugs and germs realized by this species co-existence allows little to no input of pesticides and fungicides. Even so, such farmland still cannot be regarded as habitat restored land, for the natural succession still cannot take place there. If habitat restoration is not allowed, the problem of habitat loss is still present. So is the continental hydrological cycling problem, unless the crop is fruit trees, the co-existing herbs and shrubs are simply too small to cover the whole farmland surface and provide large enough canopy to hold enough raindrops.
Returning Farmland Back to Natural Forest?
Most people have a thinking that returning farmland back to natural forest must be a net gain to both the global and local ecosystem, yet upon in depth analysis such conception crumbles at once. One must bear in mind that the amount of global farmland needed is not dictated by the will of farmland owners, but by the global population as well as the type of food they eat, their eating habit, farming methods employed, etc..For example, if the global population increases, more food will be needed, farm owners will develop more farmland to fulfil the increased demand on food and vice versa. If people eat more meat, even though the demand on food remains the same by weight, the demand on farmland will still increase as meat needs far more farmland to produce per unit weight, ......So, suppose a 1000 acre of farmland is turned back to natural forest, as the global food demand won't change because of such practice, it only results in decreasing the amount of food originally produced by the 1000 acres of farmland, thereby increases the demand of food by the same amount, other farm owners will quickly develop 1000 acres more of farmland to fulfil the need in other places, thus render the returning farmland back to wild forest useless.
On the other hand, if the returning of farmland is not just back to an idle piece of wild forest, but can still have food yield as well, the result is going to be completely different. Suppose the abandoned 1000 acre farmland can still have 20% of food yield it originally had, farm owners of other places will only develop roughly 800 acres new farmland to fulfil the increased food demand, not 1000 acres, as the abandoned one can still yield a 200 acre equivalent amount of food. This argument sounds convincing, but how can an abandoned piece of farmland, or rather, a plot of wild forest can still have food yield just seem not possible.