Follow this blog:
RSS

Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?

By | May 4, 2010, 4:00 AM PDT

Along with drought and blight worries, stressing about future fossil fuel prices and availability keeps many farmers counting sheep at night.

Conventional farmers in the United States use a lot of fossil fuels, and not just in tractors. Through petrochemicals comprising synthetic fertilizers, weed killers and insecticides, fossil fuels can help boost crop yields. These practices allow the agricultural industry to grow food at low monetary prices (though not low environmental and health costs).

Contemplating future uncertainties such as climate legislation and oil and gas prices, agronomists at Iowa State University have spent 6 years sizing up some alternatives. In a study published yesterday in Agronomy Journal, they tested planting and fertilizing methods to see how our farmlands could produce food without relying so heavily on fossil fuels.

The results were bountiful.

Compared with the typical two-year rotations of corn and soybeans, the more diverse crop systems (more crops, more rotations, more manure) yielded as much or more corn and soybeans. Further, they required much less petrochemicals.

For a four-year rotation of corn-soybean-small grain/alfalfa-alfalfa, herbicide use decreased by 85 percent between 2003 and 2008. The amount of nitrogen-based fertilizers fell by 78 percent. Bacteria found on the roots of alfalfa plants aids nitrogen fixation in the soil.

Herbicide and fertilizer use within a three-year rotation of corn-soybean/small grain/red clover dropped by 80 and 66 percent, respectively.

Now let’s talk manure. Depending on location, this natural fertilizer can be expensive. But diversifying the farm with some livestock means free manure. Under these circumstances, the excrement might return almost $250 per acre.

Professor Matthew Liebman in a statement:

It’s hard to predict the exact details of what the future will bring us. But results of this study show that we do have options for maintaining high farm productivity and profitability while substantially reducing our dependence on fossil energy.

While these systems lowered fossil fuel costs, they are much more labor-intensive. According to the researchers, most of the extra work was not necessary during the seasonal activities for corn and soybean production.

Image: David N. Sundberg

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Melissa Mahony

About Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2010 to 2011.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Contributing Editor, Energy

Melissa Mahony has written for Scientific American Mind, Audubon Magazine, Plenty Magazine and LiveScience. Formerly, she was an editor at Wildlife Conservation magazine. She holds degrees from Boston College and New York University's Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. She is based in New York.

Follow her on Twitter.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Melissa does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers. She currently works for the Wildlife Conservation Society as an editor. Should Melissa cover a topic in which the WCS is involved, she will disclose this fact in her writing.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
20
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
The U.S. Government is stupid, we could of been farming, driving,
and doing whatever we want cheaply and environmentally safe.
Hemp is the key to our energy and gas problem. Fuel from hemp is
burned clean and is cheap to grow. END the prohibition for Hemp
and you will have an Economy that will bounce back. The problem
with the U.S. allowing the growth of hemp is not anything short of
greed by the oil companies and everyone else below them profiting
from fossil fuels.
Posted by silentc69
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Hemp is the industrial version of marijuana
Problem is, it's still the same old marijuana plant species; just not an optimized variety for THC production. Cops can't tell the difference. Heck, half the plant biologists can't tell the difference without lab analysis. And you can smoke it the same way you can smoke Columbia Red, it's just you have to smoke tons more of it to get the same high.
Posted by Dr_Zinj
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
It works... if farmers are willing to work twice as much.
Reading the paper from which this article was derived, the authors concluded that the Low External Input (LEI) 4- year rotation that they found most efficient required about twice as much labor as the conventional 2-year crop rotation. They comment that our high energy-input farming practices correspond to a high wage rate for farmers. So, what this is really saying is that farms can save a lot of energy if only farmers will accept a 50% wage cut.
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by macmcf
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
www.ewg.org - Farm Subsidy Database
Subsidies in the State of Iowa - 1995-2006

Subsidy total for all years $5,213,124,405
Average Subsidy per farmer $ 80,365

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=19000

Its correct there is no incentive to change what is working now!

Especially for the petrochemical industry, farm machinery industry, Pioneer, ConAgra, ADM, etc.
Posted by MFox1948
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
The farmer will not be taking a pay cut.
The corporate profiteer will be taking a gain cut.
Since the choices are rising oil based costs or rising labor based costs, it is probably a wash.
So, yea, bet your money that way.
Posted by mykmlr@...
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
macmcf makes a point, only due to our false economy.
The true costs of sustainable farming aren't being paid by the agribusiness operations. Manure is lagooned, not composted in a confinement operation. At what cost do we spray herbicides, fungicides and pesticides? Who pays for the contamination of wells, rivers, lakes and oceans? Not agribusiness. It's false accounting. True accounting is put upon the Organic? farmer, the sustainable farmer, the bio-dynamic farmer... and that's why prices are artificially low for conventional produce compared to local/organic produce.
I believe there's a push to end widespread organic/sustainable by any means required. Law, regulation, price pressure... it's working against small dairy, so let's push it on all non-agribusiness farming enterprises.
Posted by Yankee_Farmer
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
I agree with yankee_farmer. Dr_Zinj you are wrong about getting
high from hemp. Industrial hemp contains less than 1%(0.3% in
canada) of THC the psychoactive component of marijuana.Trying
to get high on industrial hemp is like trying to get drunk on non
alcohol beer and on top of that It's impossible, According to David
West, PhD, "The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no
one could ever get high from smoking it. Hemp contains a high
percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the
marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it
could be called 'antimarijuana.'' You can tell the difference, get
your facts straight. There is various differences between the
leaves and the entire structure of the plant.

http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/content/hempCharacter.ht
ml
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/44
http://www.thehia.org/facts.html
Posted by silentc69
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
I'd poop in a field for $250. sign me up!
Posted by Vailhem@...
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
@Vailhem: That's $250 per acre. Good luck with that!
Posted by zackers
4th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
I think Vailhem makes a good point though. I mean, if poop is
good fertilizer, why don't we use it? If you imagine each person in
the world makes about a fistful of excrement a day (more or less),
that's a lot of fertilizer! Even the Japanese tried to make food out
of processed human excrement years back (although the attempt
failed... the problem being that people don't seem to like the idea
of eating poop).

I know this idea can make people feel squeamish... it kind of turns
my stomach as well. However, if it is an effective resource, I think
we need to consider it. Imagine- all those people who don't like to
pick up after their dogs can pass by a field needing fertilizer and
their dogs can make a deposit there!
Posted by stonecoldfox
5th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
i remember my grandfather, long before chemical farming started, using nothing but manure we scooped out of the barn and piled up all year long plus a three year rotation and he made a ton of money (for that era). i spent every summer on the farm working with him and it did not seem like we worked all that hard. we have turned into a society that wants the money without having to work for it, ignoring the fact that we are slowly destroying the land we expect to continue feeding us. how many times have we seen a guaranteed "SAFE" chemical pop up as an environmental disaster after long term use.
Posted by butchiester
5th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
maybe not the only way, but a good way is to move farms to the consumers. Have city-based, urban farming using hydroponics in buidings that use natural sunlight, solar and wind energy.
Posted by phijef
5th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
Read the section on the Kentucky "grass farmer" (no, not hemp, just
the basis of the food chain) in "The Omnivore's Dilemma".
Posted by george@...
6th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
Hemp is definitely a good crop: you can make oil and high protein
flour from the seeds, fiber for clothing, etc.

And hemp, unlike cotton, rejuvenates the soil.

License the farmers to grow hemp, and send out inspectors to verify
it's not MJ.

It's long past time we started ignoring MJ anyway. It's not a
dangerous drug, and there's no such thing as a "gateway drug"
anyway.

There's another tip the article missed.

One of the problems is fertilizer runoff: the mouth of the Mississippi
River is a dead zone, caused by too much nitrogen runoff from
farming.

The fertilizer washes out of the soil and ends up in the rivers,
wasted.

What if we had some magical substance we could add to the soil,
that would absorb and HOLD the liquid fertilizer?

And another problem, pesticides. They too run off and end up in
our water supply.

Now, if there was a magical substance that could capture the
pesticides, HOLD them, and let Nature biodegrade the junk...

Yeah, but isn't that too much to ask ?

No.

Charcoal. Or more precisely, BioChar.

We can farm the land that's not really useful; grow trees on hilly
land, bamboo on swampy land.

In both cases you can cut and return on a yearly basis. Willow and
Black Locust trees will grow back from stumps over and over again,
year after year.

Then fire the biomass in a powerplant, making electricity, but
extinguish it with a steam bath before it burns to ash.

Save all that charcoal, and sell it to farmers as natural fertilizer.

As the charcoal builds up in the soil, they will need less artificial
fertilizer, and pesticide runoff will rapidly decrease.

The charcoal, if it's activated with steam, forms millions of tiny
cavities.

Soil bacteria move into there cavities and set up housekeeping:
they love it, as it's a protected environment.

Add the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and pesticide, if you must. The
biochar will capture and hold it in those cavities.

The bacteria will then munch on the pesticide and biodegrade it.

And when the plant roots grow through the biochar, they will find the
nitrogen trapped there right where they want it.

Oh, and BTW, hemp straw would be GREAT for making biochar.

Think about it.

Grow the hemp, harvest it for the seeds and fiber, and turn the
discards into biochar, to put back on the fields.

And since charcoal conserves CO2, it actually means we'd be
taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and putting it in the soil for a
thousand years or more.
Posted by Jkirk3279
8th May 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
@macmcf

Or, the price of food doubles. Food is cheap in comparison to what
it cost 100 years ago.
Posted by Eullman@...
20th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
This is very encouraging news. Why don't we migrate to farming
this way? Significant drop in fossil fuel use, end of
nitrogen/pesticide runoff, more jobs for farmers supplying the
extra labor.
Where's the down side? Some increase in food prices? A small
price to pay for a much less harmful way to feed ourselves. I
suspect the biggest barriers are the companies who produce
petroleum based fertilizer and pesticide. But they don't have
most people's best interests at heart. They should not drive this
decision. It's too important.
Posted by jrandall@...
20th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
Watch the BBC documentary 'A Farm For The Future' on Youtube:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
(there's also a version with Italian subtitles if anyone's interested) to see some English solutions to the same problem. Their proposal actually involves a lot LESS
Posted by bryceclendon@...
20th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
(cont.) (pressed a wrong key!) ... a lot LESS labour for a far higher yield.
Posted by bryceclendon@...
20th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Can U.S. farms produce food without relying heavily on fossil fuels?
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
Posted by birumut
9th Feb 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!