The Call, Column 91 – Low-Impact Urban Farming

25 02 2018

(February 25, 2018)

The Urban Farmer

Low-Impact Urban Farming

I love urban farming, let’s get that out of the way first. I love the smell of the soil; I love the process of growing things; I love the calmness and serenity of nature; I love the act of creating sustainable food with the labor of my own hands. I love chickens, plants, and insects, soil microbes, and human beings. And I love the rebellious act of using land in the city not for passive consumption, but for active production.

As ideas, I love all of these things. And in practice, when I am able to do them successfully, and when I am able to dedicate enough of my time to them to bring them to fruition, and when I am in the right mindset to weather little difficulties like a woodchuck eating my cabbages and lettuce for the sixth time in one year, then I love all of these things.

But rarely is anything as perfect as I just described. Ignoring the mostly unavoidable Acts of Nature, I would guess that many of you suffer from the same types of frustrations as I do in your garden every year – intending, early in the season, to put in as much effort as is required to make it really awesome…and starting an elaborate garden that would require this effort…but then spreading your time so thin with other things that you end up not devoting the time and energy you need, and being frustrated with minor failures and setbacks.

This is a special shout-out to my fellow P-types (for those of you who are familiar with the Myers-Briggs test, I am an ENFP in the best and worst definitions); you, like me, probably have a dozen or so very important projects at any one time, that all require enormous amounts of your attention, and which are all very important to you…which unavoidably leads to frustration and disappointment when things don’t get done. Add in the fact that urban farming is supposed to be fun, calming, and productive, and so much of it is so lovable (see the above)…and it’s totally reasonable that this can leave some of us feeling disheartened at a certain point each year.

What’s the solution to this? Well, at first glance, it would seem that we should design our urban farming systems with the singular goal of maximizing production while minimizing labor inputs. But you know what you get when you approach something as sacred and inherently holistic as food production with that singular mindset? Factory farming. You get factory farming…and I know you don’t want that.

So today, I want to talk about my idea of low-impact urban farming. This combines two basic motivations: maximizing productive output while minimizing human input (time, labor, and money), but also reducing strain on the environment by considering it as another form of input that needs to be minimized. Now, it’s generally not good practice to maximize/minimize on more than one variable – what produces the most tomatoes or eggs per unit of human time/labor/money (which can be considered the same thing for these purposes) doesn’t necessarily produce the most tomatoes or eggs per unit of stress on the environment. And this logic, combined with the cold profit motive of industrial agriculture, is what dictates that chickens be kept in battery cages and cows should be fed chicken feces and expired Skittles.

But on the scale of urban farming, it is actually often true that those practices which minimize stress on the humans doing them, also minimize stress on the environment in which they’re being done. And there’s the remainder of this column: what types of practices have I learned, either by doing or intending to do, that accomplish this? Let’s find out.

Starting your plants: Each of the past 7 years or so, I have started all of my longer-season plants (tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, brassicas, etc) inside, under grow lights, in late February. I enjoy doing this, watching as life springs forth from a seemingly lifeless seed, and nurturing it to the point where it can be planted outside. But, I realized last year, the amount of effort and time that I devote to this aspect of my garden is enormous, and it generally yields plants that are less healthy than if I had bought them (organic, sustainable ones) from a professional greenhouse. And by exerting so much effort, so early in the season, I have often burned myself out by the time the garden really picks up in June.

I’m not saying not to do this. But I think the benefits and drawbacks of raising everything from seed, as opposed to buying starts sometime in early May, should be considered in the context of maximizing output while minimizing human and environmental strain.

In my experience, it takes a lot of time to seed, tend to, plant up, and harden off plant starts when they’re done at home; it actually costs quite a pretty penny, with all of the equipment required and the energy needed for the grow lights; and there is a lot of mental effort (especially for a flighty P-type like myself) that goes into keeping track of all of this and remembering to do it all, correctly, on time, on a regular basis. And beyond all of that, the grow lights use a huge amount of energy and this setup uses a lot of plastic, neither of which are great for the environment.

All things considered, the inputs required to start your own seeds are much, much higher than if you were to buy equivalent plants (i.e. organic, sustainably-raised, from non-GMO seed) from a professional greenhouse. This is absolutely true of the mental effort, human labor/time, and environmental impact; and though I haven’t crunched the numbers, I spend so much money on this part of the garden every year that I suspect it would be cheaper just to buy them.

In my view, and in my personal context, all of this is a good argument for buying high-quality plant starts in May, rather than spending more time and money and electricity, and burning myself out by the real planting season, in order to do it myself. If at some point I am planting a much larger area, or began to place more of a value on the effective self-sufficiency of my endeavor, my view would absolutely change. And on the flip side, shorter-season and smaller-sized crops, like leafy greens and root vegetables, are much easier (and cheaper, and lower impact) to direct-seed in the spring than buy as starts…at least in my context.

Irrigation. If you have a big garden, watering can easily become a huge time commitment. And the penalty for doing it too infrequently is a huge reduction in your garden’s productivity. Mine requires like 45 minutes to water fully, and should be watered every second or third day; in my experience, it’s very easy to not have time to do this.

The solution: drip irrigation! I have intended to install a drip irrigation system for the past two years, but because I was already kind of burned out by when it came time to do that in late April (because of 2 months of seed-starting), I delayed and eventually didn’t do it. Not this year! By installing a system like this, you could conceivably not have to water your garden at all, instead just monitoring it to make sure soil moisture is good. This would reduce the time and labor impact on you, the busy gardener, and also reduce the amount of water used. Now, this system costs more than just the hose required to water manually, so that’s an assessment that you have to make individually. But in my context, saving a few hours per week in labor, and the mental effort of keeping track of a watering schedule, and reducing my water usage is all worth the cost and initial time investment of setting up the system. And my garden will be watered more, and more regularly, which will maximize production.

Mulching. This is one I’ve talked about a lot, so I won’t give it too much space here. There should always be a layer of mulch on your soil, short of when you’ve direct-seeded smaller crops like spinach, that need a few weeks to sprout and become established. But in general, you can find organic mulching materials (like leaves, grass clippings, straw) for free or very low price-per-area-of-coverage, and it takes very little time to apply mulch, and doing so minimizes the growth of weeds that would otherwise dominate uncovered soil. I’m slowly getting better at this, but if this year goes as planned, I won’t have to weed at all and my garden’s productivity will be all the better for it.

Regular maintenance. If you’re like me, you simultaneously hate tightly-scheduled activities, but also don’t have the organizational wherewithal to make sure those activities would get done if you tried to do them freely. God, I’m such a P-type. What are we to do?

I think the best solution is to schedule a very small amount of time – say 10 minutes a day, right after waking up/coffee/breakfast in the morning – in which to do basic garden maintenance tasks, combined with the other suggestions above. Without having to regularly weed and water, it is totally conceivable that 10 minutes per day is enough to take good care of your garden. Check that the irrigation is working; pull any weed-lings that have broken through the mulch (since they’re easier and quicker to pull at that size) and just throw them on top off the mulch; tie up staked plants like tomatoes; and harvest anything that needs to be. None of this takes very long, and when you do it as little bits of time every day, rather than larger amounts (say) once per week, it is less overwhelming, more likely to get done, and more effective at keeping your garden healthy and productive.

My column appears every other Sunday in The Woonsocket Call (also in areas where The Pawtucket Times is available). The above article is the property of The Woonsocket Call and The Pawtucket Times, and is reprinted here with permission from these publications. These are excellent newspapers, covering important local news topics with voices out of our own communities, and skillfully addressing statewide and national news. Click these links to subscribe to The Woonsocket Call or to The Pawtucket Times. To subscribe to the online editions, click here for The Call and here for The Times. They can also be found on Twitter, @WoonsocketCall and @Pawtuckettimes.


The Call, Column 90 – Flip the Switch on Renewable Energies

11 02 2018

(February 11, 2018)

The Urban Farmer

Flip the Switch on Renewable Energies

            Climate change is scientific fact. It is predominantly caused by excess carbon dioxide, which has been released by industrial activity – the use of fossil fuels – over the last century and a half. And it will have far-reaching effects, which will make life on Earth, for us and many other species, very uncomfortable.

These are all true statements, so we don’t need any further qualifiers. And today, I want to talk about a very important, timely issue that stems from the above.

In the past, we’ve discussed the science of climate change, and the science of renewable energy technologies. We’ve talked about the actions required by individuals, collective societies, and the whole world, in order to fix this problem that we have caused.

So today, I think it’s worth talking about the two most basic actions that must be taken by our federal government in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

The first is to stop subsidizing environmentally-damaging fuel sources.

These primarily include coal, oil, and natural gas; also, the process required to manufacture artificial fertilizer uses natural gas, and releases carbon dioxide from it is if it were being burned. So in our economic production system as it exists, our electricity, our cars, our heat, and our food all contribute directly to harmful climate change.

The government subsidizes environmentally-damaging sources of energy: directly, of course; but also indirectly, by abusing their control of our military, in order to strong-arm oil-producing countries and guarantee a flow of cheap petroleum to our shores. This puts our brave men and women in uniform into unnecessary danger, and artificially drives down the price of oil, making it appear limitless. In many ways, this is even worse than a direct subsidy.

This all needs to stop. We need to stop artificially propping-up industries and technologies – coal, oil, natural gas, industrial agriculture – that literally and figuratively strip-mine our Earth, that would otherwise be barely economically feasible, and that are literally causing our planet’s atmosphere to become less inhabitable…all for the sake of what, money?

Try to think about this from the perspective of another end good – let’s say paper. Imagine if the government, in order to prevent America’s paper from being made out of sustainably-logged wood from within our borders, occupied (say) Greece in order to drive down the price of (say) papyrus, though it would make lower-quality paper. This would be an obvious misstep, right?

The second step is to encourage and subsidize renewable energies and sustainable technologies.

Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energies should absolutely be subsidized by the government. Some state governments, like Rhode Island’s, tend to be pretty good at this. But as a whole, the federal government has really lost the momentum that it was building up until recently.

We need to subsidize research in the up-and-coming aspects of renewable energy, like battery technologies and carbon-neutral biofuels. We need to subsidize companies that would like to build solar farms, wind farms, anaerobic digesters, electric cars, low-footprint hydropower generators, and everything in between (including alternatives to industrial agriculture, which is a whole other monster). We need to subsidize residential and corporate energy-efficiency programs, distributed generation systems, electric vehicle charging stations, and the updates to our electric grid that are necessary for a green energy future.

These things don’t actually cost very much. But it is absolutely imperative that we invest in them, to further the scientific research and technological implementation that are necessary at this point. It is much more important that, battery banks and solar panels and wind turbines, for example, be installed on as many well-oriented properties as possible in our country, than it is that they are made in the United States. That is why, though it should be our goal to be able to manufacture renewable energy systems cost-effectively here at home, it doesn’t make any sense at all to levy import tariffs on companies that manufacture them outside the U.S…because all that does is make it harder to actually generate clean energy here!

To take that analogy from earlier a little further: now let’s say that the government levies tariffs on imports of foreign-grown, sustainably-logged wood, under the guise of protecting American loggers. Well, when combined with the other interventionist policies that drive down the price of papyrus, this really leaves the wood-to-paper economy dead in the water. That’s absurd!

The basic reason that these two primary actions – stop subsidizing dirty fuels, start subsidizing clean ones – are so important, is because the free market cannot select for this type of progress otherwise.

On the supply side, government subsidization of fossil fuels makes them appear cheaper, more plentiful, and easier-to-obtain than they actually are, which artificially signals the market to take advantage of them.

On the demand side, consumers’ perception of fossil fuels is completely out-of-whack. Because gas prices are relatively stable, electricity is dirt-cheap, and because we seem to have an unlimited supply of energy, many people see no reason to opt for cleaner sources of energy even when given the opportunity.

The free market fails to provide for the true collective good when it comes to sustainable energy. Correcting for that is one of the founding purposes of our government. The greatest common welfare is achieved when we get all of our energy from renewable, environmentally-friendly, inexhaustible sources. The market will not allow this to happen in general, but especially not while it is bamboozled by government subsidies in the lower-collective-good option. Therefore, we have to change our tune…and sooner, rather than later.

My column appears every other Sunday in The Woonsocket Call (also in areas where The Pawtucket Times is available). The above article is the property of The Woonsocket Call and The Pawtucket Times, and is reprinted here with permission from these publications. These are excellent newspapers, covering important local news topics with voices out of our own communities, and skillfully addressing statewide and national news. Click these links to subscribe to The Woonsocket Call or to The Pawtucket Times. To subscribe to the online editions, click here for The Call and here for The Times. They can also be found on Twitter, @WoonsocketCall and @Pawtuckettimes.