Download HERE

The Search for Systems that
Regenerate Agricultural Potential
Bob Rodale, 1987.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. food system has two components. One embodies the production,
storage and processing of food. The other concerns food selection, purchase
and use.
In this paper, I discuss the ways in which both producers and users of food
are beginning to achieve their economic, personal, and health goals by
working with natural systems, instead of trying to dominate them. The paper
is therefore divided into two parts-one focused primarily on the production of
food, and the other its use.
Particular emphasis is placed on the achievement of agricultural sustainability
by developing methods of regenerating resources, and by improving our
capacity to integrate production and consumption systems.
Presented at the Agriculture Research Institute Annual Meeting
Thursday, October 8, 1987, Washington, D.C.
CONTRASTING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS FOR A
VIABLE AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
The theoretical basis for regenerative food production systems is rooted in the
observation that degraded agricultural land, if allowed to rest or revert to wild
conditions, usually regenerates. That process can happen quickly or take
many years. But almost all agricultural lands have significant regenerative
tendencies and capacity for self-renewal.
Seven major regenerative tendencies occur when the normal agricultural
production process is ended:
1. There is a quick increase in the diversity of plant species, often
including some legumes.
2. More plant cover is present on the surface of the soil, and for the
whole year. That greatly diminishes or ends erosion, and allows
1
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
increases in microbial and "critter" populations near the surface.
The ending of biocide use-particularly herbicides-allows a greater
mass of plant and other life to exist in the soil.
More perennials, and other plants with vigorous root systems, begin to
grow.
Past patterns of weed and pest interference with growing systems are
disrupted.
Nutrients tend to either move upward in the soil profile, or to
accumulate near the surface, thereby becoming more available for use
by plants.
Soil structure begins to improve, increasing water-retention capacity.
These regenerative tendencies are powerful forces for improvement of the
plant-soil environment. They are also forces which can exert a beneficial
effect on agriculture production systems-if agricultural techniques are
redesigned so that some self-renewal capacity is built into the system.
More conventional forms of agriculture take little or no advantage of that
capacity for self-renewal within the soil-plant environment. They substitute
high levels of inputs for the soil's in-built regenerative capacity. Serious
economic problems often result, especially in the present situation of high
input costs and low commodity prices. Environmental problems also occur
when the level of input use is higher than the capacity of the soil/plant
environment to absorb and retain fertilizer and pesticide elements.
Regenerative agriculture takes advantage of the natural tendencies of
ecosystems to regenerate when disturbed. In that primary sense it is
distinguished from other types of agriculture, that either oppose or ignore the
value of those natural tendencies. Regenerative agriculture moves the
production system in these directions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
More closed nutrient cycles.
A higher state of diversity in the biological community.
A greater percentage of perennials as opposed to annuals.
More reliance on internal resources of the farm.
A good way to understand the potential of regenerative systems is to note that
everything needed for agricultural production can be expressed as both an
internal and an external resource. The following diagram is helpful for
visualizing those two sets of agricultural resources.
2
RESOURCE SYSTEMS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
Soil
Hydroponic Medium
Sun-main source of energy
Sun-energy used as "catalyst" for
conversion of fossil energy
Water-mainly rain and small
irrigation
Water-increased use of large dams
and centralized water distribution
systems
Nitrogen-collected from air and
recycled
Nitrogen-primarily from synthetic
fertilizer
Minerals-released from soil
reserves and recycled
Minerals-mined, processed, and
imported
Weed & Pest Control-biological
& mechanical
Weed & Pest Control-with pesticides
Energy-some generated and
collected on farm
Energy-dependence on fossil fuel
Seed-some produced on-farm
Seed-all purchased
Management Decisions-by
farmer and community
Management Decisions-some
provided by suppliers of inputs
Animals-produced
synergistically on farm
Animals-feed lot production at
separate location
Cropping System-rotations and
diversity enhance value of all of
above components
Cropping System-monocropping
Varieties of Plants-thrive with
lower moisture and fertility
levels to thrive
Varieties of Plants-need high input
Labor-most work done by the
family living on the farm
Labor-most work done by hired labor
Capital-initial source is family
and community any
accumulation of wealth is
reinvested locally
Capital-initial source is external
indebtedness or equity, and any
accumulation flows mainly to outside
investments
As you look at the diagram, keep in mind that agriculture is about 10,000
years old. And for the first 9,900 of those years, farmers could use only
internal resources, those listed on the left side of the diagram. That's all they
had. Until about 100 years ago, the scientific knowledge needed to create
input industries was not available widely. Nor did countries have the
3
industrial capacity to produce significant levels of inputs. But advancing
science and technology combined with the needs of a growing population
created a rush toward the use of external resources during this past century.
The line separating the two resource systems can therefore move either to the
left or to the right. For 9,900 years it was almost all the way to the right side.
Where is the line today in the U.S.? There is no way to say with certainty, but
my opinion is that the line is now a short way from the left side of the page.
In other words, the internal resources available to American farmers are being
used lightly. Farmers are relying much more on external inputs to provide the
driving force for agricultural production.
Those of us working on regenerative agricultural methods are encouraging
farmers to move their personal line to the right. We are not asking them to
avoid the use of all external inputs. But we point out that the way such inputs
have been introduced into agricultural production during the past century has
often diminished unnecessarily the vitality of internal agricultural resources.
Internal resources verge on being free, we tell farmers. You get them when
you inherit a farm. Or you pay for them once when you buy a farm. After that
initial investment is made, the cost of internal resources is extremely low.
Even more important is the fact that often the internal resources are made
stronger through use. Just the opposite happens to the utility of external
inputs. As soil quality declines, more inputs are needed. And the cost per unit
for those inputs keeps increasing.
Nitrogen is the usual starting point for discussion of the value of internal
resources. All soils need infusions of nitrogen to maintain high levels of
production. More money is spent on nitrogen fertilizer world-wide than on
any other fertilizer element.
Yet the air is 78 percent nitrogen, we tell farmers. You can get some of that
nitrogen into your soils and plants through the greater use of legumes. And
you can encourage free-living nitrogen-fixing organisms, plus take more
steps to retain and cycle nitrogen within your soil. Those are appealing and
practical arguments.
Similar statements can be made about all the other internal resources of
agricultural systems. When the farm management approach is looked at
carefully, ways can almost always be found to make more use of any of the
internal resources, and by doing so to help them regenerate.
Some of those management methods are old and well known, like crop
rotations and integration of animals into the system where possible or desired.
Integrated pest management also has the potential to be a practical
4
regenerative method. High standards of observation of farm conditions,
combined with generally efficient management, also are important.
Other regenerative methods are either new or have not been widely adapted
for use in American agriculture. Allelopathic interactions are extremely
promising for use in regenerative weed control systems. Interplanting is of
course an old technique, but research at The Rodale Research Center is
developing new ways to use it for grain production on American farms.
Overseeding with legumes, often using aerial application methods, is also
important.
Selection of plant varieties that produce well with lower levels of inputs, such
as amaranth, is also an important step in designing low input systems. But
that is only the beginning. In the future, it may be important to search for or
create plants that have especially vigorous root systems, and therefore can be
useful in improving soil structure. Farmers could use such plants to
regenerate subsoil quality, thereby improving infiltration capacity and
drainage.
Most regenerative of all are perennial plants. They have vigorous root
systems and are especially useful for soil improvement. If higher-yielding
perennial cereals could be developed, the need for tillage could be reduced
greatly, and steep slopes could be used for grain production without fear of
erosion damage. Work on that challenge has been underway for several years
at the Rodale Research Center.
The Potential to Marry Conservation and Agriculture
1. To reiterate, the three goals of regenerative agriculture are:
2. To develop farming systems that can produce large amounts of food
and fiber.
3. To be more profitable to operate than conventional systems-because
they are able to make greater use of internal resources.
4. While accomplishing goals one and two, to also regenerate the quality
of land and water. (A closely related goal is to regenerate rural
communities tied closely to agriculture, by improving both the natural
and economic environment in the region. See Appendix for references
to publications in that area.)
To the degree to which the third goal is achieved, the line between agriculture
and conservation becomes blurred. A big step in that direction has been taken
with the development of conservation tillage techniques. But much more can
be done. Eventually, we may be able to find or selectively breed legumes that
will form a protective sod into which corn and other grains can be planted.
And which will also supply nitrogen to soil and crop plants. We may be able
to learn how to operate a conservation tillage system on that pattern without
5
the use of herbicides.
A large scale series of experiments aimed at that goal is now being
established at the Rodale Research Center. Our plan is to maintain the series
of plots for at least 10 years, and to provide ample area for additional
experiments to be superimposed by collaborators who would like to use this
site.
Efforts of that type are by their nature more ambitious than what we now
think of as conservation. The conventional view is that agriculture is a
method of production and conservation is a technique of protection.
Regenerative agricultural systems combine production and protection into
one method. But they add still another goal-the improvement over time of the
level of soil and water quality.
From a strategic point of view, there are two important reasons why the
marriage of conservation and agriculture into a regenerative production
system should be given very serious consideration:
1. Having two separate systems divides authority and responsibility, and
fosters either inaction or ineffective action.
2. The concept of conservation has unnecessary self-imposed
constraints. Its central theme is to save, to conserve for future use. But
often soil has the potential to be improved well beyond its current
state of fertility and usefulness. In that sense soil is different than
water and air, which can only be rendered pure. Soil is a mixture of
numerous elements, qualities and forms of life, most of which can be
improved, increased in volume or quality, or regenerated. That
potential for improvement should be recognized. It should be
incorporated into strategic planning for agricultural research. And
eventually the idea that the American land can be improved in quality
while it is being used productively should supplant the present goal of
protection.
The process of at least discussing that goal was begun at a meeting held on
March 26-28, 1985, under the joint sponsorship of the Rodale Research
Center and the Soil Conservation Society of America. A report of that
meeting, "Agriculture and Conservation: What prospects for a merger into
Regenerative Production Systems?" is available from the SCSA..
The Importance of Food Consumption Systems to Strategic
Planning of Agricultural Research.
The division between agriculture and conservation is one unnecessary
6
conceptual separation that has limited the benefits that can be gained from
agricultural research. Another such division is the separate thinking and
planning that occurs in the areas of food production and food consumption.
Agriculture and nutrition are two separate sciences. At the very least, that
separation leads to an unfortunately long lag time for the sharing of important
information. At worst, the separate thinking that characterizes agriculture and
nutrition wastes important food and health resources. In addition, at least part
of the high cost of present world-wide farm subsidy programs can be blamed
on a poor match between the things people want to eat and the products
farmers want to (or are led to) produce.
It wasn't always so. And by going back into ancient history-of agriculture, of
food, and of ourselves-we may be able to gain some insights that will be
useful in sharpening our agricultural research goals.
Agriculture, as I said above, is about 10,000 years old. But we human beings
are older. Genetically, we have not changed in any significant way for 50,000
years, perhaps longer. Clearly, we evolved in a nutritional environment that
had nothing to do with agriculture. We are tuned by our evolutionary history
to thrive on a diet typical of a hunting-gathering food economy.
The best recent review of the implications of our evolutionary history to
nutrition (and, I contend, also to agriculture) is the article "Paleolithic
Nutrition," by Eaton and Konner, published in The New England Journal of
Medicine, January 31, 1985.
To focus on only one important manifestation of that evolutionary history, I
will discuss our taste preferences.
In pre-agricultural times, our taste preferences were not merely senses to be
gratified for pleasure. They were guides to survival, and incentives to action.
In a diet of wild foods, fiber was relatively abundant. So was starch. Fats and
oils, essential sources of vitally needed energy, were difficult to find. We
therefore evolved with a taste preference for fats-a continual motivation to
find energy-rich foods.
Our taste for sweets, which we perceive at the tip of our tongues, was a
helpful guide to determining the ripeness of fruits. When they became ripe,
they were digestible and nutritious. We needed that sweet taste at the tip of
our tongues to be able to sample fruits without getting them back into the
mouth, where they would be swallowed.
A preference for salt has similar utility. Salt was hard to get in a diet of
hunted and gathered foods. If people had not developed a taste for salt, they
7
might not have survived, or thrived.
The life of a pre-agricultural person was dominated by the success or failure
of his or her food consumption system. Taste preferences played an important
role in that system. Also vital were, of course, geography, climate, and the
natural systems within which people lived. But there was a consumption
system, one that was intuitive, not scientific. No food production system at all
existed for most of our history.
As agriculture began to develop, people worked hard to put into their
evolving food production system the qualities they wanted from their food
gathering system. It took time. Progress didn't occur rapidly. But in time
people bred animals that could produce large amounts of fat, and selected rich
oil-bearing plants as well. Salt became a cheap commodity. So did sugar.
Processing methods to reduce fiber content were created..
In affluent countries where the richest fruits of that effort could be harvested,
people tended to become fatter. Many became vulnerable to diseases related
in some way to overnutrition of good-tasting food components. The low
levels of exertion possible in an affluent society often compounded
nutritional problems. So-called "diseases of civilization" related to diet, lack
of fitness, and environmental factors related to industry and agriculture either
surfaced or became more common.
Many of the discoveries of nutritional science of the past century-especially
the findings of the last few decades-confirm the fact that we are tuned to life
on a diet similar to that of paleolithic people. Of course, there remains much
controversy. But I see a pattern in the nutrition discoveries of recent years-a
pattern that points to the value of a low fat diet, rich in fresh fruits and
vegetables, with adequate fiber, not too much salt, and perhaps low in sugar
as well. Just the kind of food that was common before the invention of
agriculture.
Some groups of people are more aware of that set of acts than others, and
some are motivated to eat not primarily what their taste buds suggest, but
what they think is reasonable given their knowledge of nutrition. The first to
do that were branded fanatics at worst, or merely odd at best. Health
enthusiasts of various stripes have been inventing and following diet patterns
that in a general way mirror gathered food. They started to create food
consumption systems that were different from the norm.
Those first systems of consumption have now expanded in size and have
begun to influence the processing and marketing of food within mainstream
channels. Look at canned soup, for example. Years ago there was basically
one kind of canned chicken soup available. Now, even one company may
produce a handful of versions of chicken soup, to attempt to satisfy the
8
preferences of people with varying food consumption preferences. The same
kind of proliferation affects almost every category of food produced and sold.
It is likely to continue, and in fact to increase.
There are other food consumption systems as well. Some religions specify
particular foods, or foods prepared in special ways. Large institutions like
hospitals, prisons and schools create food purchasing and preparation systems
that can have a significant impact on agriculture. And many food processing
companies purchase crops and commodities from farmers under contract,
creating systems that connect users with producers.
Because more people are using convenience food, eating in restaurants, and
buying prepared food for home consumption, important changes are taking
place in food consumption patterns and systems. Little systematic study has
been done of those changing patterns, particularly as they influence the
welfare of farmers. The Cornucopia Project of Rodale Press conducted
systematic studies of state-wide and regional food consumption systems
during the period 1980 to 1986. Those reports are available, but the analyses
made are not now being updated.
Organic Farming-Example of a Combined Food
Production/Consumption System
Organic farming is not necessarily a form of regenerative agriculture, and
vice versa. Depending upon the situation and the crops produced, there can be
both profound differences, as well as important similarities, between the two
methods.
Generally speaking, organic farming is today a consumer-driven form of
agriculture. Consumers tell small-scale food marketers that they want to
purchase food that has been produced entirely without the use of artificial
fertilizers or synthetic pesticides. Organic farms produce that kind of food,
often using methods quite different from conventional production in an effort
to meet the constraints imposed by the market. They are sometimes paid more
than standard prices for their products. Some states have regulations defining
organically produced food, and creating production standards.
Regenerative agriculture, in contrast, is at this point almost entirely producerdriven. Producers are interested in regenerative agriculture because they feel
it can help them reduce their costs, improve the quality of their land, and
insulate them from health and environmental problems caused by the high use
of certain fertilizers and pesticides.
I mention organic farming in this paper for two reasons. First, to distinguish it
clearly from regenerative agriculture. Second, and perhaps more importantly,
to point out that closely linked producer/consumer systems like organic
9
farming (and also including organic gardening) may become considerably
more important to American agriculture in the future.
Most farmers today are producing commodities. The price of commodities
always tends to be low, but in today's markets commodity prices are often
insanely low. You need look no further than the low prices for farm
commodities to see why the farm economy is in such poor shape.
However, not all farmers are in that box. Some have always found ways to
get around the fact that if they produce commodities they will receive only a
few pennies of every food dollar spent by consumers. Those fortunate
farmers have developed special marketing relationships that allow them to
put value into their products by either processing them, or by providing a
special service. Or even by eliminating a service, in the case of pick-yourown operations.
Farmers who are effective at marketing, and who are getting higher prices for
their products, are good businessmen. They can also be viewed from a
different perspective-as pioneers in the creation of combined food
production/consumption systems. When seen in that light, their efforts
become models worth studying in the search for solutions to the age-old
problem of how agriculture can escape the straight-jacket of low commodity
prices.
Booker T. Whaley of Alabama has created one of the most popular models
for an agricultural production/consumption system. He shows farmers how to
make up to 100,000 dollars a year on 25 acres, provided their farm is located
within 40 miles of a city or town, and is on a paved road. Strong emphasis is
placed on production of foods and food products that can be marketed
directly to people who have a contractual relationship with the producer. A
new book by Whatley explaining his system is being published by The
Rodale Institute. Whatley also publishes a newsletter for producers.
Conclusion
I believe that American agriculture has a bright future that can be enjoyed and
shared by large numbers of people. We have in this country some of the best
land in the world, located in favorable climatic regions, and a highly educated
and hard-working population with a sincere desire to work on, protect and
improve that land.
Whether that future will be realized or not could depend primarily on how
well American farmers and rural people use their internal resources. Our
farms and their people have an abundance of assets and capacity which can
be used in regenerative ways. Much more research is needed to understand all
the dimensions and uses of that capacity, and to test the practical ways in
10
which it can be used.
Lastly, the invention of new producer/consumer systems is also likely to play
a large role in the future of U.S. agriculture.
APPENDIX
RODALE RESEARCH CENTER COOPERATING FARMER
RESEARCHERS
Tom Culp, Lexington, Ohio.
Carmen Fernholz, Madison, Minnesota.
Bob and JoAnn Fogg, Leslie, Michigan.
Ken Gehringer, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
Ron Harmon, Salisbury, Missouri.
Terry Holsapple, Greenup, Illinois.
Donn and Susan Klor, Buffalo, Illinois.
Lloyd Lefever, Conestoga, Pennsylvania.
Paul Martin, Topton, Pennsylvania.
Jim Nissley, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
Hank Spies, Jr. and Hank Spies, III, Longwood, Maryland.
Karl Steiglitz, Greenwood, Wisconsin.
Dick and Sharon Thompson, Boone, Iowa.
Dave and Quentin Williamson, Richmond, Indiana.
Gary Zicafoose, Mead, Nebraska.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE RODALE RESEARCH CENTER AND
RODALE INSTITUTE
"A Comparison of Low-Input and Conventional Farming Systems,"
Liebhardt, Radke, Peters, and Janke. Presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Agronomy, 1986.
Amaranth Grain Production Guide, Weber and Kauffman, Rodale Research
Center, 1987.
Enough Food, Francis and Harwood, The Rodale Institute, 1985.
Experiences in Success, Sands and Tull, The Rodale Institute, 1987.
Farmer's Fertilizer Handbook (The), The New Farm Editors, The Rodale
Institute, 1986.
How to Make $100,000 Farming 25 Acres, Booker T. Whatley, The Rodale
Institute, 1987.
Kutztown Farm Report (The): A Study of a Low-Input Crop/Livestock Farm,
11
Culik, McAllister, Palada, Rieger, The Rodale Research Center, 1983.
"Nitrogen Cycling in Low-Input and Conventional Farming Systems," Radke,
Liebhardt, Peters, and Janke. Presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Agronomy, 1986.
Proceedings of Workshop on Resource-Efficient Farming Methods for
Tanzania, Rodale Press, Inc., 1983.
Profitable Farming Now, The New Farm Editors, The Rodale Institute, 1985.
"Regenerative Agriculture: A Strategy for Sustainable Rural Development,"
Wagner and Sands, published in VITA News, Vol. 1/87.
Regenerative Farming Systems: A Workshop Report. Proceedings of a
USAID-sponsored workshop, December 10, 11, 1985.
"Research Needs for Regenerative Agriculture in the Developing World,"
Sands, Liebhardt, Francis, and Hart. Proceedings of a Workshop on
Regenerative Agriculture, Rodale Research Center, August 27, 18, 1987.
"Soil Fertility Changes in Low-Input and Conventional Farming Systems,"
Peters, Janke, Liebhardt, and Radke. Presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Agronomy, 1986.
Soy Bean Interseeding: A Technical Report, Rodale Research Center, 1986.
Summary of Research: Development of Perennial Grain Cropping Systems at
the Rodale Research Center (1983-1986), Wagoner.
The Thompson Farm-Nature's Ag School, The Rodale Institute, 1984.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE REGENERATION PROJECT
Community Options: Projects You Can Do to Regenerate Your Community
Greenfield, Iowa: America's #1 Regeneration Town
New Visions: Success Stories of Personal and Community Regeneration
Regenerating America: Opportunities to Build On
REGENERATION Newsletter, published bi-monthly, Rodale Press, Inc.
12