"Closed Loop" Farms?

[near horse]

A highly acid soil or a shallow soil ….. wetness, solar aspect, depth to rock, drainage class, slope, till ability, acidity

Rod,

You must have been to my farm!:)

[goodcompanion]

@Rod 8010 wrote:

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.

No difference at all.

To my knowledge, “sustainable” is not a club. If it’s anything, maybe it’s a broad set of principles interpreted differently by each individual. The jury will be out for a long time on what the word really means.

[jen judkins]

This has been a fascinating thread, one that has really gotten me thinking about new ways to become less dependant on external imports in regard to my own small farm. But I am still stuck…on the ‘closed loop’ farm concept.

I’m no soil biologist and you could make the argument that I’m not even a real farmer, but I am a scientist and by definition, any ‘closed loop’ environment is just that.. a ‘closed’ system….nothing in AND nothing out! So if you are exporting produce or hay or manure or whatever, your farm is, by definition an ‘open loop’…or at the very best, a ‘closed loop’ with a leak:eek:. How long that leak can be ignored will vary from farm to farm and perhaps depend abit on the creativity of its master.

I applaud the use of innovative farming techniques to make use of the hidden potential in the soil or in ways of reusing by-products of farming, but where is the balance point between unnecessary or risky reliance on outside materials and the developement of important and reliable community networks? I’m hearing from people here, that that balance is important and that the closed system is just an ideal to get close to, but not realistic in most situations…and I wholeheartedly agree. Why fight so hard to force an equation that, taken as a more complex entity implies some reliance on whatever resources we trust and can nurture. The exchange is some risk for more stability and ease of execution.

I have a hard time envisioning a way that someone like Erik with a good size CSA, will be able to develope a truly ‘closed system’ without collecting some humanure from his clients. Maybe build a ‘potty wagon’ to bring some of that bread back to your land:p.

[Hal]

@jenjudkins 8021 wrote:

I have a hard time envisioning a way that someone like Erik with a good size CSA, will be able to develope a truly ‘closed system’ without collecting some humanure from his clients. Maybe build a ‘potty wagon’ to bring some of that bread back to your land:p.

In all seriousness, I have actually wondered about the potential of “humanure” to be a useful source of fertility. I guess that there are many obstacles and considerations (not the least of which is public perception) to using composted human wastes to fertilize farm fields, but I have read that the Chinese did this for years, which contributed to their ability to feed a large population in a small area. Just an interesting thought.

[Carl Russell]

Community scale composting will be a great way for groups of people to recapture nutrients and energy and return them to the soil to support food production.

Carl

[Crabapple Farm]

@Rod 8010 wrote:

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. QUOTE]

Rod,
Yes, it makes more sense and is in a way more sustainable to amend soils where practical to enhance production, whether that amendment is buying in lime or minerals or some feed.
But I also think that this is more of an economic problem than a biological one. Any soil that supports healthy vegetation (and there are almost none in the Northeast that don’t, except where bulldozers have recently been) can be agriculturally productive without amendment. But the productivity may not be ample enough or marketable enough to sustain the farmer. It comes back to Carl’s point of asking the question of the land: what can it provide?

Jen:
The only true “closed loop” fertility-wise is the entire earth. And the earth imports energy from the sun. Carbon and Nitrogen are readily imported onto the farm from the air. The vast bulk of biomass is from air and water, not the soil. The amount of matter actually extracted from soil in an animal or vegetable is pretty small. It adds up, certainly. But erosion accounts for a heck of a lot more nutrient exportation from the average farm than the product sold.
-Tevis

[jen judkins]

@Crabapple Farm 8034 wrote:

The only true “closed loop” fertility-wise is the entire earth. And the earth imports energy from the sun. Carbon and Nitrogen are readily imported onto the farm from the air. The vast bulk of biomass is from air and water, not the soil. The amount of matter actually extracted from soil in an animal or vegetable is pretty small. It adds up, certainly. But erosion accounts for a heck of a lot more nutrient exportation from the average farm than the product sold.

OK, see that is exactly what I mean. There is NO way to isolate one’s farm, closing it, to exchange of nutrients one way or the other. Influx and eflux are happening, whether we want it to or not. Sure you can enhance one process or the other, but it seems (to me) egotistical to believe you can control natural law to any great extent.

[jen judkins]

@Hal 8023 wrote:

In all seriousness, I have actually wondered about the potential of “humanure” to be a useful source of fertility. I guess that there are many obstacles and considerations (not the least of which is public perception) to using composted human wastes to fertilize farm fields, but I have read that the Chinese did this for years, which contributed to their ability to feed a large population in a small area. Just an interesting thought.

Hal, there was a local guy using humanure up the road from me a few years ago. The neighbors put up such a ‘stink’ about it (no pun intended) that he was forced to stop.

[Rod]

Jen

The exchange is some risk for more stability and ease of execution.

Where is the risk? The market will take care of the balancing (unless of course we try and let the government do the balancing). I doubt any livestock manure producer or lime quarry would benefit by hording their resource.

[goodcompanion]

@jenjudkins 8043 wrote:

Influx and eflux are happening, whether we want it to or not. Sure you can enhance one process or the other, but it seems (to me) egotistical to believe you can control natural law to any great extent.

I prefer to think of it as “facilitating” rather than “control.” Natural law still applies, but I still believe a farmer can work within these laws to make a particular spot on earth bloom, just because I have seen careful individuals do so over decades of work (and starting with extremely average pieces of land, too)

Of course being absolute in this or any other matter is silly, and we can pick away at the extremes of any argument if we want, but I still feel there is perfectly good reason to strive one’s farm to close loops, if you will, wherever it is feasible in order to maximize soil biology and long-term fertility.

Of course the community scale matters too, and I for one care about mine, but not in the same way as I care about land and animals directly under my care.

You could think of the human in this equation as a conductor in an orchestra if you wanted to, trying to shape independent sounds and sections of instruments into something of beauty that sustains human life and spirit. And you know, that does sound egotistical in a way, doesn’t it? But there is also a semantic difference between saying, “I am trying learn and listen in order to be a good conductor someday” and saying “I am a great conductor.”

[jen judkins]

@Rod 8047 wrote:

Jen
Where is the risk? The market will take care of the balancing (unless of course we try and let the government do the balancing). I doubt any livestock manure producer or lime quarry would benefit by hording their resource.

Hah! As an farmer with a ‘surplus’ of the former, I agree wholeheartedly:D. If I could trade some manure for lime, I’d be in pretty sweet shape! I don’t think it was me who brought up the risks though…personally I don’t see any as long as my needs stay basic and my network as local as possible.

[jen judkins]

@goodcompanion 8048 wrote:

I prefer to think of it as “facilitating” rather than “control.” Natural law still applies, but I still believe a farmer can work within these laws to make a particular spot on earth bloom, just because I have seen careful individuals do so over decades of work (and starting with extremely average pieces of land, too)

Of course being absolute in this or any other matter is silly, and we can pick away at the extremes of any argument if we want, but I still feel there is perfectly good reason to strive one’s farm to close loops, if you will, wherever it is feasible in order to maximize soil biology and long-term fertility.

Of course the community scale matters too, and I for one care about mine, but not in the same way as I care about land and animals directly under my care.

You could think of the human in this equation as a conductor in an orchestra if you wanted to, trying to shape independent sounds and sections of instruments into something of beauty that sustains human life and spirit. And you know, that does sound egotistical in a way, doesn’t it? But there is also a semantic difference between saying, “I am trying learn and listen in order to be a good conductor someday” and saying “I am a great conductor.”

Well said, Erik.

[Author]

Posts