Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Robert H Olley | February 21st 2009 05:07 AM | 12 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Beamlines articles

All

About Robert H Olley

I work in the Polymer Physics Group of the Physics Department at the University of Reading.

I would describe myself as a Polymer Morphologist. I am not an astronaut, but I am a "Real


... Full Bio

Last night, I watched on BBC Television Natural World, 2008-2009 - 14. A Farm for the Future in which

Wildlife film maker Rebecca Hosking investigates how to transform her family’s farm in Devon into a low energy farm for the future, and discovers that nature holds the key.

With her father close to retirement, Rebecca returns to her family’s wildlife-friendly farm in Devon, to become the next generation to farm the land. But last year’s high fuel prices were a wake-up call for Rebecca. Realising that all food production in the UK is completely dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel, particularly oil, she sets out to discover just how secure this oil supply is.

Alarmed by the answers, she explores ways of farming without using fossil fuel. With the help of pioneering farmers and growers, Rebecca learns that it is actually nature that holds the key to farming in a low-energy future.


There were some wonderful things in it, but afterwards it raised a number of disturbing thoughts.  But let’s start with the wonders.

She visited a smallholding in Snowdownia (Eryri), where the owners had taken some worn-out pasture, and over twenty-two years had transformed it into a very productive small farm.  First, they had allowed much of the woodland to re-grow, and then created clearings in which they managed animals and vegetables.  The whole area was like a piece of temperate rain forest (it can be wet in North-West Wales), and harvesting from what is effectively a multi-storey field allowed apparently very large yields per acre.  Cattle were not only fed on the grass, but on ash branches from the tree canopy.  The tallest trees may seem to be otherwise unproductive, but their roots bring up nutrients from the deepest layers, and their root fungi shunt nitrogen from areas of surplus to areas of deficit.  About potash I didn’t catch, but phosphorus is recycled by seed-eating birds in the form of guano.

In this and other smallholdings, biodiversity, in the form of mostly native species, is actively encouraged.  Flowering plants cater for pollinating insects and predators such as hoverflies, while Khaki Campbell ducks are the most efficient at eliminating slugs.

She then showed us supermarkets with oil-consuming transport networks providing bread made from grain which required energy-dependent fertilizers, and had to be dried at considerable fuel cost.  She compared this with one farm in the South of England (I think) which could produce almost sustainable chestnuts with the same nutritive value as the grain from a field the same size.  If this were to be the future, our diet would change back to one more like a Mesolithic one, from before the time when agriculture spread to these islands from mainland Europe.

Now comes the disturbing part.  This kind of food production is much more labour-intensive than today’s agriculture, and lots of people would have to “re-ruralize”.  Today’s urban youth “wouldn’t like it, Captain Mainwaring”.  Indeed, we might become a much more parochial society, and while I myself don’t even like to travel outside Reading, I do enjoy meeting people from six continents.  And would the speedy international communication, of the type I am enjoying right now, become a thing of the past?

And what kind of society would we have in Britain?  Would there still be a reasonably standard British culture, or would there be a “Cambrian Explosion” of cultural diversity, such as Huckleberry Finn and Jim encountered on their travels, some of it not nice?  Or would we be like the Amazonian Indians, vulnerable to invaders with a more centrally dictated society?

At the end of the programme, she mentioned the possibility of government action to bring about the necessary changes.  And this really gives me the heebie-jeebies.  In the second half of the twentieth century, there were two major experiments in “re-ruralization”.  The better-known one is Mao Zedong’s “sending to the countryside” which took place during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (Wúchǎn Jiējí Wénhuà Dà Gémìng).  But the most thorough experiment was that carried out by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, in which the entire urban population was driven out into the countryside.  They called themselves Reds, but as my Ould Da used to say, they were really more like fanatical Greens.

Comments

adaptivecomplexity's picture
I would like to think that forced migrations are a thing of the past in so-called first world countries. Even the temporary internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII is viewed with horror, shame, or at least discomfort by most people; I can't imagine forced re-ruralization working out very well.

Stephanie Pulford's picture
Maybe the ruralization wouldn't have to be forced.  If there was money in this kind of farm, quite a few people would relocate voluntarily.  Perhaps Ms. Hosking's "government involvement" might involve a system of subsidies and incentives-- god knows there's been plenty of speculation about how greatly farming subsidies have shaped the current state of agribusiness. 

But, why would any sort of redistribution cost society the internet? How could anyone be expected to de-centralize themselves-- even to a magical rainforest farm full of slug-terminating ducks-- if it meant forsaking the internet?? 

Just wanted to pick up on a quick point... Robert mentioned,

'Now comes the disturbing part. This kind of food production is much more labour-intensive than today’s agriculture, and lots of people would have to “re-ruralize”.

This seems to contrdict what was in fact stated on the programme. If memory serves correctly when the farmer of the forest farm was asked how labour intensive it was, he in fact stated that other than harvesting. The whole farm took him no more than 10 days a year to maintain (contrary to the 365 days needed to maintain a modern farm)

The conclusion as far as i could see was that forest farms gave a greater yeild, for less labour, at far less cost and without the reliance upon fossil fuel!

This is one of the only examples i have yet to come across whereby the green alternative is also the most productive and economically viable.

Some 'urban youf' already want to become smallholders/farmers - but they can't afford to buy a house in the country - never mind a farm. In fact - with the way things are at the moment - renting a house is hard enough.

Start by making it easier for those that already have the desire to make it so - then worry about forcing them.

Hank's picture
Bringing the cost down to an affordable level for the masses would mean subsidizing farms even more than they are now - and feeding 1% of the people Europe feeds now.

Subsistence farming is a fine thing but, as someone who actually grew up on one, I can tell you the notion of only spending 10 days a year working is nowhere near accurate - and if something goes wrong, a blight, a flood or anything else, you are basically screwed because there is one growing season in most places.   

It took 30-40 cords of wood (full, not those wussy face cords people buy in the city) at minimum to heat the house in the winter.   People who fantasize about some bucolic existence, a la Thoreau, fail to realize Thoreau came from a rich family and had the money for all the stuff an actual naturalist would not.

Your article I think slightly misses the point - you may not be attracted to the idea of more people living on the land and working in food production, but what we are having to consider here is what will be possible and how we might sustain ourselves after peak oil. The systems which have supported our late 20th century urban lifestyles simply won't be sustainable and we'll be looking at very different ways of making sure that we're ok. Business as usual simply won't be an option. It is disturbing, and if we're brave enough to face it and accept that change is inevitable then we can start thinking about the future we want and working towards it, rather than sleepwalking over a cliff.

The most interesting observation in the programme, for me, was the difference between a landscape set over to industrial agriculture cconsisting of fields and boundaries, and one given over to permaculture consisting of a forest with clearings.

We live in cities for a number of valid reasons -- access to leisure, jobs and companions -- and there is a huge infrastructure invested in cities, so I don't see a mass migration to the country happening overnight. Instead we'll have to build experience of growing food in cities: a productive plot here; a suburban garden there; use of local shops. It's this patchwork nature of life and land use in cities that could be transformed into a permaculture landscape.

Andi above has hit the nail on the head "...what will be possible and how we might sustain ourselves after peak oil. The systems which have supported our late 20th century urban lifestyles simply won't be sustainable and we'll be looking at very different ways of making sure that we're ok. Business as usual simply won't be an option."

Remember geology doesn't care about people having the Internet or being able to take cheap flights or starving... Oil production will steadily decrease year on year by 2-3 per cent if we are lucky, more if not.

http://rapidshare.com/files/204382217/FfF.mov

for everybody who stil hasn´t seen it

As a farmer i watched this programme with great interest, and i have read your comments with equal interest.
Firstly re urbanisation it aint gonna happen, at least not on any great scale and only through necessity, second, subsidies, if they were to be subsidies then big scale farming would take the bulk as they do now and they certainly would'nt get where they were supposed to go.
I think the one area that for me was'nt touched on enough was sustainabilty, firstly you must define sustainabilty, as a farmer the present system is long term unsustainable, however I question how many people you could feed on a given area when you compare the two systems and remember both systems must be profitable for the farmer or no one is gonna do it.
Most small farmers are already subsistance farmers wheather they would admit it or not, so I for one am prepared to give this idea a shot ,at least on a limited basis
Where do I go for help or advice?
Do I see us all eating nut bread and the like? no definately not, but there may just be a market there.
10 days maintenance a year, I don't think so, but it can't be harder than what we already do.
Also why do we lose the internet? this change would not be so fundamental, or put it another way, if it is, it won't work.

Hi AlanM,

You said where can I go for help or advice; I would suggest Martin Crawford of the Agroforestry Research Trust, one of the people featured on the programme. You might also be able to contact Rebecca Hosking, I'm sure she'd have a lot of sources to pass on, especially as she's started down the path already.

There are lots of resources online about permaculture which you can get from a few searches too, perhaps with farming specifically in mind you might get further by talking to people ;o)

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.