"Closed Loop" Farms?

[Rick H.]

Very interesting discusion, Rod put it very well I think. Obviously the definition varies a bit from one person to the next. A challenge that we have is that as a society we don’t think or act as a closed unit. Each individual farm see’s itself as an island unto itself. Nature does not recognize fence lines, deeds or boundry markers. If livestock raiser Joe needs a little extra hay and some grain beyond what he’s producing, gets it from Jane who grows produce in rotation with hay, but raises no livestock [ except for work horses ], and sends the some extra manure Janes way to be spread on that ground while getting a little oats and barley from Bob, who grows more grain than he needs or has livestock for. So Joe sends some ewes to Bobs to graze and gleen the grain fields in the fall, there by depositing manure on his fields to return nutrients, and etc…. I know little in our world seems to work like this, but if we’d think of things as a complete system balance is much more obtainable. Also, my own little angle, the more ground kept in grasslands the easier the balancing in smaller units. Let the critters eat the grass, we’ll eat the product created,milk products, meat and use the wool. Take care.

[Rod]

A challenge that we have is that as a society we don’t think or act as a closed unit. Each individual farm see’s itself as an island unto itself. Nature does not recognize fence lines, deeds or boundary markers

Well said. Some of this sustainability discussion reminded me of my Civil Engineering days when certain zoning boards would pass regulations eliminating gravel extraction within their Town limits. Drove me nuts. Try and build a road, a sewer, a water line, a parking lot, a house foundation or driveway without gravel. It can’t be done but somehow the narrow thinking crowd idealistically assumed they were doing a good service for the community. In fact all they accomplished was pushing the gravel extraction into other communities and raising the costs for themselves as the material needs didn’t change but had to be trucked in from farther away.

A similar dynamic can occur if we take the sustainable agriculture model too far. As has been said our farms are not closed systems with all we need for efficient and healthy agriculture located within our own boundaries and if we act as if they are by trying to use a purest model we only detract from their potential. In addition this type of generalized and sometimes idealistic thinking if carried to an extream can effect other farm units which may need some of what we can uniquely produce. Manure comes to mind as do soil minerals which have been mention before and their are their are others I am sure.

[goodcompanion]

I agree that the closed loop bit can be taken to an extreme. But the virtue in it is that it sets conventional economics aside and strives to think along the lines of natural cycles.

What is the problem of buying in cheap hay or manure if doing so bolsters farm fertility? I would argue that the cheap hay and manure are artificially cheap. In a true solar economy no one would give those things away, or sell them cheap. If your management plan depends on constant net inflow of other peoples’ stored fertility (in the form of manure or hay) you may in fact have a problem if your future supply of these things should cease.

I’m not saying I myself would never do it–in fact my cows are munching others’ cast-off hay right now. I’ve made a compromise for the moment, out of inexperience and convenience, and allowed cheap hay to fill a gap in my planning.

Less of a problem for a home gardener who takes a single spreader load of manure from a draft-powered farm next door, more of a potential problem for a large vegetable farm that can’t function organically without manure from, say, a nearby industrial dairy that composts. While that the industrial dairy may even pay you to take the manure away, it also operates within a house-of-cards commodity economy that can’t be counted on for the future. Taking manure from them substantially involves your farm in a nitrogen cycle that encompasses the labs of cargill and adm, the topsoil of the midwest washing down the mississippi, supertankers with destroyer escorts in the Gulf of Aden, and so on.

By keeping cycles as tight as is feasible, you are also insulating your farm against commodity price swings to a large degree. I’ve noted that table-ready goods swing much less than the commodities you need to produce them.

[Howie]

Hi Geoff
We used to have a drop type spreader for lime and there are stilll a few of them around. The Amish have a neat new spreader on a manure spreader. It has two large spiners in the back.
I have mine delivered and spread. They bring 10 to 15 ton on a big spreader truck.:)

[Rod]

I think most would agree that the present farming/food system we have is seriously flawed and better models can be workable and still be sustainable at least in the larger sense of the word. But I also would contend that the best and most practical course is one of significant adjustment and not one which throws out the whole present system to be replaced by a lot of little self contained sustainable farms. Their are a lot of folks out there which need to eat and the economic system which we have is a reality that needs to be accommodated. In order to do that job we need to work as a larger community and utilize the varied strengths and resources we have and do so efficiently and sustainably. I believe this can involve doing what works best with what we have on our farms and trading with others who do the same in their areas of work.

[goodcompanion]

I totally agree, Rod. In making such exchanges in the community, farmers who have a broader view of sustainability can differentiate between exchanges that are worthy and durable and those that may cause more harm than good, near or far, in the long term.

I also agree that we must work in the economy we have, to a point. What kind of economy will come next, nobody knows. I would guess though that farms that build very local, close, tight networks of exchange will fare better in the future than those who depend on exchanges on a regional, national or global scale. And to cultivate the former type of network requires a kind of deliberateness much the same as cultivating a so-called closed loop farm. Conventional economics usually pulls you in the opposite direction, until it’s too late to change strategy.

So for instance it may be one thing to buy in some hay from a neighbor who has more pasture than stock, while you have more stock than pasture. Quite another to buy in truckloads of hay from Alberta on an ongoing basis because, say, your whole community is a net consumer of hay and there is none extra available. Even if the truckload of hay was cheaper than the neighbor’s hay, a wise farm planner might not wish to depend on it remaining cheap and plentiful forever.

[near horse]

Caveat- Please take no offense at my thoughts. They are just that.

If your management plan depends on constant net inflow of other peoples’ stored fertility (in the form of manure or hay) you may in fact have a problem if your future supply of these things should cease.

I have to agree with Rod on this one. How is the excess hay your neighbor has any more reliable than the commercial dairy or the Alberta hay supplier? If you don’t want to support oil companies by paying extra for transport, that’s one thing but as far as being more or less protected from economic swings, I don’t see the difference. In fact, many idealist small farms meet the reality of a public that doesn’t want to “play that game” – they want cheap food from the grocery store and would rather the govt. just regulate production to ensure its safety. Without markets, we are toast regardless of our good intentions.

Our area is a great example. Plenty of folks in our area want to have small organic farms and sell at the local/even regional farmer’s markets, coops, etc. Not surprisingly, most end up producing the same items (same climate, soil ….) and you see a glut of the same product with limited buyers.

To add insult to injury, both local universities have jumped on the bandwagon and now have “sustainable farming programs” – in which students grow and produce on university owned land and using their equipment and get to compete and market the same products w/o any of the overhead (no land cost or taxes, they GET credits rather than pay wages… not sure where the $$ goes but they can afford to sell cheap – not a real source of personal income). AND they get to use the university system (department e-mails, school paper, on campus sales) to market their stuff. They are “playing farmer” without any risk and hurting the folks they supposedly wish to become. Go figure.

Anyway, it is panacea that agriculture can exist as a closed loop or even closed community. Production of foodstuffs by its very nature removes nutrients from the soil to be consumed by us or our livestock to grow, live, work … Those nutrients can not be replaced by just adding manure from you or your animals back to your soil. While that might increase tilth by increasing organic matter which in turn can help maximize availability of nutrients present, the nutrient profile of manure is very different than that of the original feedstuff – usually much lower in protein (N), higher in minerals (salts).

I feel very presumptious to think that in 2-4 thousand previous years of agriculture, noboby thought to try to operate as closed or tight agricultural community. From what I have seen and read on the history of ag, communities that employed isolated closed systems eventually died out or moved to greener pastures – neither of which I consider to be sustainable.

In a true solar economy

Good companion – what is a true solar economy and why do we want that? I just don’t understand.

[goodcompanion]

Geoff,

It’s not a question of what anybody wants or doesn’t want. Nobody is willing the upheaval in global markets that is now occurring. It is a question of seeing change as likely, trying to guess what it will be, and adapting accordingly.

A solar economy is one in which our energy derives from sunshine striking the earth now or recently. All energy ultimately is derived from the sun of course but fossil fuels are ancient sunshine while hay is more or less contemporary sunshine. Up until the industrial revolution all economies, for good or bad, were solar economies in the sense that their fuel and food were produced with the plants and animals alive and at hand at the time. In the U.S. today our livelihoods are largely derived from petroleum, whether we are talking about food, shelter, or clothing. We consume a huge amount of energy per capita mostly in the form of ancient sunshine. I myself am no exception.

Taking the long view of human history I see the last fifty years in the West as an anomaly and I guess that the future will look more like the past as far as the sources and quantities of energy available to us.

As for the openness or closedness of agricultural systems, it is all a matter of degree. And I’d agree that there are limits to what you can accomplish, as an individual or as a community, just by wanting the world to work in a certain way. On the whole, there will not be a closing of loops on a societal level until hard realities compel it. Maybe not even then, who knows.

[Hal]

@near horse 7948 wrote:

Production of foodstuffs by its very nature removes nutrients from the soil to be consumed by us or our livestock to grow, live, work … Those nutrients can not be replaced by just adding manure from you or your animals back to your soil. While that might increase tilth by increasing organic matter which in turn can help maximize availability of nutrients present, the nutrient profile of manure is very different than that of the original feedstuff – usually much lower in protein (N), higher in minerals (salts).

While I agree with most of what you say in your previous post, I do not know what you are suggesting that we do now to make farms as sustainable as is practical. If you do not think that adding manure back to the soil can compensate for the nutrients taken out, what do you think farmers should do to replace those nutrients? I am not trying to argue with you here, I am just looking for some ideas about what might be a sensible course of action when I am trying to start my own farm.

[Rod]

Hi Hal

Thats almost a question that can’t be answered until you have your farm because farms and farm soils and farm crops all vary so widely. What might be recomended for a certain soil and climate and crop type might be inapproprate for a diffrent situation. The best thing to do now as you prepare is learn about soils and agronomy so that when you are ready you will have a useful knowledge base from which to make your decisions.

[Robert MoonShadow]

Hal; I would agree with Rod’s advice, except to add one important thing: practice! Even if all you have is a half-dozen large plantpots, take the knowledge & information gleaned from the studies that Rod suggested, and experiment –> try different soils, composts, natural fertilizers, with the same & different strains of seeds, such as four different types of radishes, etc., and see what grows best, what dies, what improves with additional care & inputs… then comes an equally important step: think it through. Comtemplate what differences occurred & why. Come up with not one, but at least 3 answers, list in descending likelihood of accuracy, then – only then – check the books, experts & mentors (if you’re lucky enough to have any) for accuracy of your evaluations. Because, as Rod insinuated, much of this learning process is about your own observations of the local aspects you’re dealing with. Teaching yourself to learn is an important skill in gaining the ability to develope your own answers over time. It’s also (IMO) one of the most enjoyable parts of farming = figuring out the ‘whys’ of my successes… and mistakes. {Um, personally, I’m still working on having more of the former than the latter} 😮

[Rick H.]

I did not mean to imply that since we don’t have a completely cooperative system that it gives us the o.k. to do whatever. At the minimum everyone, no matter the size of the ground we work can manure the ground,be it fresh spread,composted,green soiling crops or all. We can rotate the crops planted and types of crops grown. This alone will pay at least small dividends to the farms well being, if we buy in feed or inputs or not. Read, ask questions and observe. The fact that you care and are interested in a proper balance will help you to find the answers you’ll need in your situation. Good luck.

[Carl Russell]

In my mind the beauty of a farming enterprise is that we can, with some cultivation and manipulation, use a natural process that accumulates organic material and energy in to a biological community that we then can access to meet our needs. The natural relationships between sun, soil, plant, and biological organisms, is the basis for the supposed “closed loop” farm. True there is some transportation and loss of biomass and energy, but the natural process is the ultimate example of such efficiency.

The problems arise for us as we tend to not see ourselves fitting into the food web that is available in a particular region, or if considering commercial endeavor the need to produce salable products for viable markets, we institute a system that breaks up the natural relationships, and is designed to deliver products to outside consumers.

There is an assumption that as farmers we should be thinking about the rest of our culture, and their needs for the items that we can produce, but I see this as a bill of goods we have been sold to get us to mine the energy and nutrients out of our ecosystems. The reality is that even when you are grazing beef to sell, you are in fact managing an ecosystem that supports the flow of energy to those beeves. Energy will flow to the animals regardless of the residual balance of productivity asset.

The challenge that we face is learning how the manage our demand on the ecosystem so that we can accumulate biomass and energy into a site in surplus of our need to harvest. This is a really huge challenge in the face of incredibly depleted soil systems, and the largest demand from human consumers that the Earth has ever had to meet.

Carl

[Crabapple Farm]

I want to argue the idealistic viewpoint:
I think that it is possible, and hence should be the ideal, for a farm to be a net fertility and energy producer, not consumer.
It is of course highly dependent upon soil and climate, but I think is basically true in all instances. But on many soils the systems that would work from a fertility sustainability point of view wouldn’t work from a human economic point of view.
The top six feet of soil, which is to say the biologically active area that is accessible to plant roots, contains a store of nutrients that could, if used wisely, maintain production for millenia, functionally limitless on a human time frame. Most of that fertility is in mineral compounds (silt, sand, gravel, and in my fields stones and boulders) that are not accessible to plants as is, and so are discounted in normal fertility analyses. But over time, biological, chemical, and physical activity break them down and convert them to a form that is useful to plants. So for a sustainable closed loop farm system, nutrient exports must not exceed the rate at which nutrients in the parent soil are being converted into a useable form.
Option one is to reduce exports, option two is to increase the rate at which nutrients are made available. The best option is to do both.
Since active biological activity is the best way to enhance the conversion of minerals into useful fertility in soil, farm systems based on maximizing biological activity are most sustainable.
Undisturbed soil is way more active than plowed soil, hence the emphasis on livestock and grass-based farming systems. Well managed grassland is a net producer of fertility. The same is true of a well managed forest. Animals are in no way necessary from a fertility standpoint – they just provide an economic reason for and way of harvesting that fertility.
Plowed cropland if done really really well might break even, but most forms of tillage are going to result in a fertility drain, because the soil biology gets disrupted to the extent that it cannot replenish the nutrients lost. If combined with grass-based farming, the fertility of the undisturbed grass land can be harvested, transfered to the cultivated land (in space or time, by rotation) and turned into marketable crops. On the Vegan Farming question, there’s no theoretical reason why domesticated animals need to be in the equation (we’ll ignore the rodents and invertebrates and such that ought to be in the field, because most vegans seem to) – but maintaining undisturbed soil and then harvesting fertility from it to feed your cropland becomes pretty uneconomic without them.
The ratio of undisturbed soil to plowed ground is key, to keep the fertility balanced. I haven’t yet figured out how to determine how much fertility is being produced in our fields, and hence what acreage of tillage our farm can support. But my rough sense is that I want at least four times as much pasture and hay land as I’m plowing, and maybe a fair bit more. And I’ll keep buying in minerals and lime and some feed, because, well, it’s more economically advantageous to pillage from elsewhere than live within your means. And I’m not good enough yet to resist that temptation.
On the energy question, as Erik points out, all energy (well, except nuclear and geothermal) is solar in origin. And the best damn way that’s ever been invented to capture solar energy and store it for future use is photosynthesis. And metabolism is the best way to convert photosynthetically stored solar energy into useable kinetic energy. I’m talking horses and oxen eating grass, people eating food, doing work. Farms can and should capture solar energy, convert it into useable forms, and export it. That’s the basic premise that only fell apart about fifty years ago, when farms started importing more energy than they produced. Nitrogen and carbon are free for the taking from the air, the role of the farmer is to bioaccummulate them.
-Tevis

[Rod]

It is of course highly dependent upon soil and climate

Thank you Tevis, for a very succinct, accurate, well written and explained argument, I love it and wish it would work on every farm because it does work where things are right and it’s a great design.
The problem arises however, as you infer that you need to start with the right soil and it needs to work economically. In case’s where for one reason or another the farm may not posses all the ideal conditions then we need to cooperate with others who can supply what we lack. A highly acid soil or a shallow soil come to mind. There are so many soil variables, wetness, solar aspect, depth to rock, drainage class, slope, till ability, acidity, etc. It seems to me that many farms need to cooperate and import for the very reasons you mention, ie: economic viability or to supply minerals which cannot be retrieved from a soil or for reasons of practicality.Personally do not see the problem with this. What is the difference between owning a small vegetable farm and buying manure from your neighbors livestock operation or buying out your neighbor and doing the two practices yourself and thus qualifying as sustainable.
I wish all our farms had prime agricultural soils, got fair pricing from appreciating consumers and were easy to work and provided a good living for the farmers and any help that might work at the farm. It’s possible in a perfect world that this could be the case but we have to live in the one we have and use our wits to make it work. It is nice to see how it can work however and to strive to get closer to that model spurs us on and keeps us from feeling like agricultural factory workers. Thanks for the good explanation.

[Author]

Posts