Download Permaculture: A Viable Alternative to Industrial Agriculture

Permaculture: A Viable Alternative to Industrial Agriculture
Our current system of agriculture is damaging the environment, culture, and crops
themselves. Water is loaded with chemicals. Erosion is prevalent due to lack of cover
crops and proper crop rotation. People across the globe are losing connection with the
sources of their food, relying more completely upon the global, industrial food system.
Traditional, place based farming knowledge is declining rapidly, as is the number of
farmers. Crops are becoming less nutritious, and livestock is raised on a sickening,
unnatural diet (both for them and for us). Is there an alternative to such a destructive,
energy hungry system? The answer might be found in permaculture, an agro-societal
system that strives to improve the earth and the lives of organisms that inhabit it through
ecological harmony.
The history, goals, and methods of both industrial agriculture (IA) and
permaculture (PC) will be discussed and compared in the first section of this paper. The
contrasting impacts and effects of both systems will demonstrate that PC is a more
environmentally, economically, and socially healthy and secure system of food
production and social organization. The second half of this paper will discuss the
viability of PC as a widespread alternative to a destructive IA system, analyzing issues
such as the ability of PC to feed an ever-growing population and obstacles to widespread
acceptance of a system that requires a lifestyle change, hard work, and a long time frame
before benefits are apparent. This analysis will result in a conclusion that PC becomes a
more viable alternative as our current system becomes more impractical, catalyzing the
lifestyle changes necessary to commit to the long-term goals of a PC system.
Industrial agriculture has a relatively short history. Fueled by techno-scientific
advances made in the 20th century in the fields of plant nutrition and petroleum chemistry,
such as the identification of nitrogen and phosphorus as essential plant nutrients and the
development of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, IA began its rise to dominance.
Agricultural production increased sixteen-fold from 1820 to 1975 to feed a world
population that has risen from 1 billion in 1800 to 6.5 billion in 2002 (Scully. 2002).
Despite this increase in production, the number of farms and farmers has decreased.
Increased mechanization combined with vertical integration of production, processing,
and distribution within agricultural conglomerates has reduced the percentage of the
population involved in agriculture in the United States from 24% in the 1930’s to 1.5% in
2002 (Ibid). Advances in food processing, storage, and distribution, such as refrigeration
and forced ripening systems, coupled with cheap fuel and a federal interstate system,
have increased the average distance traveled by a kilogram of produce to 2,400km,
almost a 25% increase from 1980 (Halweil. 2004).
The goal of IA is simple: make as much money as possible. To achieve this goal,
monoculture (single crop) fields are pumped with synthetic, petroleum derived nitrogen
fertilizers that cannot be fully utilized by a single- or two-plant rotation. Pests problem
are rampant in monoculture due to a simplified ecology, so fields are sprayed with
massive amounts of pesticides. Herbicides are used to control weeds rather than laborers
to keep costs down. All these chemicals eventually reach a watershed, creating
environmental hazards downstream. Massive yields of a single crop are produced,
creating surpluses which drive crop prices down, hurting farmers while benefitting the
agribusiness that control the farms, processing and distribution centers, and input
manufacturers. For instance, five companies control 75% of the world vegetable seed
market, two firms (Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill) control 75% of the cereals
market, one firm controls 60% of all chicken purchases in Central America (Halweil.
2004). These are the goals and principles of IA: scale up, vertically integrate, and control
a majority share of the market in order to boost profits. The methods to achieve these
goals do not consider the welfare of people or the environment.
What are the environmental effects of high-input, monoculture crops sold into a
long-distance food system? Monoculture alone has many detrimental effects on the
environment. A prime example is the corn – soybean rotation employed in much of the
American Midwest. These crops are blasted with synthetic nitrogen fertilizers which this
simplified ecology cannot fully utilize. This excess nitrogen ends up in the watershed,
and finally in the oceans. This increase in nitrogen in bodies of water has led to massive
algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, the decomposition of which removes oxygen from
the water column. The result is a 20,000km hypoxic “dead zone” in the gulf (Halweil.
2004), where virtually no marine life exists. Realize also that all the other agrochemicals used by industrial farms end up in water supplies too, as a study of sources of
contaminants on the Big Sioux River confirms. “Big Sioux River sites upstream from the
[waste water treatment plant] discharge had [organic water contaminant] contributions
that primarily were from non-point animal or crop agriculture sources” (Sando, et. Al.
2006). These chemicals are inherently toxic to many life-forms. Also, “the heavy
plowing and periodic absence of ground cover associated with [monoculture] erodes 100
million tones of topsoil per year” (Halweil. 2004). Monoculture is extremely harmful to
the environment due to the need for excessive chemical use, plowing, and the absence of
groundcover.
The combination of monocultures with long-distance food chains magnifies the
environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Let’s examine a head of lettuce grown in
Salinas, California. When “shipped nearly 5,000km to Washington, D.C. … about 36
times as much fossil fuel energy in transport [is required] as it provides in food energy”
(Halweil. 2004). A diet of imported foods requires nearly four times as much fuel
energy, and therefore four times as much greenhouse gas emissions, as does a diet from
local/domestic sources. As fuel prices increase, the need for immense volumes of fuel
and other petrochemical inputs increases food prices drastically. A long-distance food
system will therefore not be economically viable as oil prices increase and supplies
decrease.
The economic effects of the IA system fall mainly on the shoulders of farmers and
consumers. The effects of fuel prices on food costs in this system was just mentioned,
and is an easily recognizable correlation. What, however, are the effects of IA on the
farmers’ wallets? Increasingly less of the consumer’s food dollar goes to the farmer. In
1910, around 40 cents per dollar were seen by the farmer, compared with around 7 cents
per dollar in 1997 (Halweil. 2004). Regional economies take a massive hit as well.
Economists Ken Meter and Jon Rosales of the Crossroads Resource Center in
Minneapolis describe this removal of resources in their 2001 paper, the “key finding [of
which] is that the existing economic structures through which food products are bought
and sold extract about $800 million from the region's economy each year” (Meter and
Rosales. 2001). Margins are becoming increasingly small while profits are declining,
forcing many farmers into debt or reliance on government subsidies. These are only
three of the major economic impacts of IA, but are significant enough to give one pause
when considering the long-term benefits of such a system.
What about the social impacts? Farming is becoming less profitable due to the
aforementioned reasons, driving people away from agriculture and thereby further
consolidating market control into the hands of a few. IA also encourages reliance on a
scientific program of fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide applications, irrigation regimes,
planting and harvest schedules that is force fed to farmers through extension programs
and land grant colleges. This results in the loss of local, place based knowledge of the
agricultural needs and potential of the land developed over decades of close
interrelationships between farmer and farm. Furthermore, the distance between
consumption and production is enormous, and not only in kilometers. People no longer
understand that their food comes from a farm, that it is grown from the soil or raised from
infant to adult. People no longer appreciate the amount of energy that goes into food
production, nor do they realize the wastefulness of the current system due to its
convenience. All fruits and vegetables are standardized into an ideal shape, size and
color, and are available year round. This disconnection from food is one of the scariest
aspects of IA. People have lost the skills and knowledge to produce their own food.
Permaculture attempts to rectify the ecological and social damage created by IA.
Bill Mollison coined the term permaculture as a shortened form of permanent agriculture
in the 1970’s, and is defined by Mollison as “the conscious deign and maintenance of
agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of
natural ecosystems” (Mollison. 1988). It is founded upon a threefold ethical base. “1.
Care for the Earth: Provision for all lifesystems to continue and multiply. 2. Care of
People: Provision for people to access those resources necessary to their existence. 3.
Setting Limits to Population and Consumption: By governing our own needs, we can set
resources aside to further the above principles” (Mollison. 1988). These ethics are
diametrically opposed to the “grab everything you can and squeeze all possible resources
out of it” mentality of IA.
Methods used to adhere to these principles while maintaining productive
agricultural systems are diverse and location-specific. Some over-arching guidelines to
forming these sustainably productive systems are care for surviving natural ecosystems,
rehabilitation of degraded or eroded land using pioneer species, and the creation of our
own complex living system using as many species as possible and necessary (Mollison,
1988). The integration of as many ecological systems that complement and reinforce one
another is essential to close energy and matter loops, preventing unnecessary inputs or
wastes of either. An example of such a loop involves chickens. Chickens require food,
water, shelter, and other chickens to survive, while producing manure, feathers, eggs,
meat, heat, and pecking and scratching to obtain food. To fully integrate and utilize
chickens on one’s permaculture plot, one would let them range in fallow fields under a
canopy, so that in their search for food they aerate, weed, fertilize and mulch the soil
while living a high quality of life as a free-range chicken. A chicken coop can be built
next to a greenhouse to heat the greenhouse and provide a concentrated source of
fertilizer right next door. Observing and integrating natural ecosystem patterns is
essential to proper permaculture farming.
If multiple ecosystem processes are integrated in agricultural land and living
space, as they are in a good PC system, environmental, economic, and social benefits will
be reaped. Figure 1 (Mollison. 1988) shows the scale of these benefits in cash
accounting, energy accounting, environmental accounting, conservation, accounting and
social accounting.
Figure 1
This clearly shows the multiple and far-reaching benefits of permaculture. Soil is not
only saved but improved, energy is produced rather than consumed, and human health
improves. Real profits are gained from farm production rather than from government
subsidies. Social networks evolve due to the co-operation and involvement of a
community in its planning, development, and on-going food production. Unfortunately,
most single-family permacutlture farms are small, ranging for 1 hectare to about 50
hectares. This size is unsuitable for red meat production, and crop and energy yields,
regardless of farm size, are by design and definition self-sustaining rather than surplus
producing. The modest surplus produced is sold or traded to maintain farm or house
upkeep or install new systems, such as greywater, pools, solar panels, etc. These
permaculture farms, therefore, feed few people besides those employed or living on site.
This leads us to our first assessment of the viability of permaculture as a
widespread alternative to IA: can it feed our growing masses? An updated definition of
PC coined by David Holmgren in 2006 says it all: “landscapes which mimic natural
patterns .. while yielding an abundance of food, fibre, and energy for provision of local
needs” (King. 2008. emphasis added). Permaculture is not designed so that one farm can
produce all the food for the county. It is designed so that the smallest amount of land and
its resources are used to support a community. Eco-villages based on permaculture
systems have sprung up around the globe. These systems are self-sustaining
communities which produce most, if not all, food and energy consumed at the site.
Farming permaculture communities such as the Rosneath Farm in Dunsborough, Western
Australia, have no problem providing food for its 30 to 40 residents. These residents
have also spent about $200,000 australian dollars employing each other (Newman. 2001),
a stark contrast to the $800 million that is leached out Minneapolis communities relying
on industrial systems. Food, employment, and housing are all practical and integral parts
of permaculture communities, inherently supporting and feeding all members of the local
social unit. If the local unit is always fed under this system, the key to feeding the globe
is to spread the system.
Many obstacles stand in the way of the spread of permaculture. A major hurdle is a
lack of widespread acceptance. It has been shown that PC can provide an array of
sustainable economic, environmental, and social benefits, but other issues, such as its
inherently long time frame and the incorrect association of a more primitive lifestyle with
PC, prevent global adoption. The first step is education. People must know a) that a
sustainable system such as permaculture exists, b) that it is beneficial for themselves,
their environment, and their community, c) that it is an economically viable system and
d) that the lifestyle change necessary is not extremely radical.
Let’s first examine the need and methods for PC education. In a study conducted
by Parr et. al regarding the design of a sustainable agriculture program at a land grant
college, the claim is made that “the focus of agricultural education needs to be
broadened... [he calls] for the inclusion of diverse frameworks and approaches found
within social sciences and farmers’ own fields and working communities” (Parr, et. al.
2007). This broadening to include multidisciplinary approaches to farming is integral to
a change in agricultural practices. What about young children, rather than just college
students? Henry morris had a vision of youth education similar to PC vision of
agriculture. He desired village colleges where “all the educative systems in a community
could interact” (lewis. 2006). Lewis (2006) also realizes that “sustainability is required
in terms of our environment, our social arrangements, and our economic activity.” His
notion of extended school programs would allow active involvement of children and their
teachers in “projects aimed at building sustainable communities and environments”
(lewis. 2006). This incorporation of sustainability is the educational jumpstart PC and
other similar systems need to gain acceptance.
What about the image that permaculture involves a primitive lifestyle? The
Greenacres eco-village in Welland, Western Australia clearly demonstrates that this is not
the case. 70 houses are built on 670 square meter plots, but the use of integrated PC
systems has maximized this community’s food security and minimized energy use.
Despite relying on permaculture principles and practices for food, energy, and social
management, “residents at Greenacre Village will have access to local schools, major
shopping centres, beaches, nature reserves, restaurants, and cinema just 10 minutes away
by car” (Newman. 2001). All the houses have electricity and running water, and public
transportation is available from the village center. This community is unique in its blend
of urban and rural aspects, which make it an attractive living space for conscious home
owners. Permaculture is in place, along with its benefits, but there is still access to the
modern world and its comforts and conveniences. In fact, Mollison (1988) provides a
design for a sustainable swimming pool that is filled by greywater filtered by reeds, with
lower E. Coli counts than some chlorinated pools. Lifestyle change can be minimal
while social, economic, and environmental protection is maximized.
Unfortunately, permaculture does require an extensive start-up time in which to
refurbish damaged ecosystems and integrate working systems among environment, living
space, and food production. The tree crops that PC is so reliant on in the multi-layered
canopy system can take as long as 20 years to be productive, in the case of pistachios and
other nuts. Fruit trees take on average 7-10 years to become fully productive. Land must
be laid fallow to regenerate lost resources if it was previously farmed or otherwise used.
Structures to utilize natural systems must be built and established. Annemarie and
Graham Brookham (2005), two permaculture farmers in South Australia, “slaved at
growing and picking gherkins for short term income” while their farm’s systems took
root. This time lag between start-up and realized profits can deter many, but the benefits
of patience and hard work will pay off in the long term. The Brookmans now run a
certified organic “Food Forest” and sell over 160 varieties of organic produce, speak at
lectures, and host workshops on permaculture. If one can stick through the hard times,
PC’s benefits will outweigh its drawbacks. If one started a farm now, it could be
productive before food and energy prices peak, saving one’s community money and
stress.
Permaculture clearly benefits society, the local economy, and the environment. It
creates a long-term, productive food and energy consumption/production cycle that
usually ends in a small surplus. Local economies benefit from increased circulation of
capital within the community. Society benefits when people live in a healthier
environment, eat healthier foods, and work together to plan, build, and run their
communities in a sustainable manner. The environment benefits from reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, reduced biocide and nutrient pollutants, reduced erosion,
increased carbon sequestraion, and numerous other services provided by a permaculture
system. Permaculture will, by definition, feed the community that it is placed within.
Permaculture can therefore feed a growing population if it is widely adopted by
communities. This adoption will only occur if education regarding sustainable lifestyles
and PC is begun at a young age and continued through higher education. The time to
establish these long-term investments is now, before the peak oil crisis hits every aspect
of our lives. If people could realize that the investment will pay off over time, will
continue to pay off for posterity, and will help us weather the upcoming energy and
global warming crisis, then perhaps PC will become widely adopted. If permaculture
does become widely adopted, then it will replace industrial agriculture as the dominant
food production system. Permaculture, therefore, if accepted as a small, working system
by a large number of communities, can be a solution to the burgeoning environmental,
social, and economic problems in our civilization.
REFERENCES
Halweil, Brian. 2004. Eat Here. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company
Scully, Matthew. 2002. Dominion. NY, NY: St. Martin's Griffin
Meter, Ken and Jon Rosales. 2001. Finding Food in Farm Country: The Economics of Food and Farming
in Southeast Minnesota. Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability, University of
Minnesota
Mollison, Bill. 1988. Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual. NSW, Australia: Tagari Publications
King, Christine A. 2008. “Community Resilience and Contemporary Agro-Ecological Systems:
Reconnecting People and Food, and People with People.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science.
25:111-124
Newman, Letisha. 2002. “Permaculture: Designing for a Sustainable Future.” Case Studies of Murdoch
Univeristy. http://www.sustainability.dpc.wa.gov.au/CaseStudies/permaculture/Permaculture.htm
Accessed on 5.10.08
Parr, Damian M. et. al. 2007. “Designing sustainable agriculture education: Academics’ suggestions of an
undergraduate curriculum at a land grant university.” Agriculture and Human Values. 24:523-533
Lewis, Jeff. 2006. “Extended Schools.” Support for Learning. 21:175-182
Brookman, Annemarie and Graham. 2005. Commercial Scale Permaculture at the Food Forest. Presented
at the 2005 national Peermaculture Convergence, Melbourne
Sando, Steven K. et al. 2006. “Occurrence of organic wastewater compunds in drinking water, wastewater
effluent, and the Big Sioux River,” Scientific Investigations Report. SIR 2006-5118: 178pp