I thought we discovered that if we started out with "truth" our lives would end in doubt whereas if we started out with doubt we might discover some certainity.
The relationship between global temps and carbon dioxide levels has been inferred for 150 years and clearly identified in the last thirty by analysis of ice cores. We know the earth is a dynamic system and not all answers are in but prudent risk management would imply that we should try to put some upper limit on the scale of our global pyromania.
The "Enemies of the people" are not the climatologists they are those that don't want facts to cloud their bottom line.
Do I beleive those that applaud climate change denial are "Betraying the Planet",hmm difficult. The planet is on its last legs, having survived a few billion years of dim sunlight by running warm it now swims in light 30% brighter than those early days by running cool. The sun actually gets much hotter from here on so maybe the biosphere has only a few hundred million years left in it before UV starts breaking up water in the upper atmosphere. The planets in good shape but as its running out of biosphere reboots, if the mad monkeys mess it up, a second shot at intelligent primates capable of a technological civilisation is by no means certain.
I do therefore believe the denialists are calling for our premature and abrupt ejection from the wonderfull Eden of the "holocene sweet spot". But most of all I beleive that if we don't trust our greatest pointer to truth, the scientific method, we betray our whole civilisation. The debate was sullied by twenty years of misinformation, astro turfing, denial and political hardball by the owners of an energy system with an net impact on the natural planetary processes of temperature management. When we are dealing with an energy system that drives geopolitics and where control of the commanding heights of the economy are at stake the "enemy of the people" isn't likely to be a few hundred climate scientists preaching caution, its much more likely to be those with money and power who say push on, don't worry.....
I am disgusted by the arguments, methods and hubris of the denialists and those who would comprimise with them. I am therefore "an enemy of the people" in Ibsen's sense.
As for me, more than money, or fame, or anything else, I have always prized the truth.
And the truth is Krugman is right.
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Action on global warming? No new science required..
Power Struggle
by Bradford Plumer
Do we need a technological breakthrough to avert the climate crisis?
A substantial body of evidence suggests that the world can make huge emission cuts in the next few decades without needing to wait for grandiose new technologies to arrive. In 2004, two Princeton scientists, Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow, published a much-discussed paper in Science laying out 15 carbon-cutting strategies that have already been field-tested, which they dubbed "wedges." Solar power constituted one wedge, nuclear another, stricter fuel-economy standards for cars a third, reversing deforestation a fourth, and so on. The world, Pacala and Socolow showed, could cut emissions dramatically and still satisfy growing energy demand by deploying just seven of those wedges on a grand scale. (That's no mean task: One "wedge" of nuclear power, say, would mean building 21 new plants each year between now and 2050.) While some experts now believe we need even more wedges to meet the ipcc targets, several research efforts have reached similar conclusions: By combining everything we now have on hand, we can tackle a sizeable chunk of the problem at a reasonable cost. A 2008 McKinsey Global Institute analysis pegged the investments needed by 2030 at around 0.6 to 1.4 percent of global GDP and noted that the impact on the world's economic growth rate would be minimal, "even with currently known technologies."
The IPCC lists a wide array of technologies either available now or very likely to surface in the near future that could help reduce emissions. The former category includes (among other things) nuclear power, hydropower, wind power, geothermal, fuel-efficient vehicles, hybrids, biofuels, public transit, reforestation, and landfill methane recovery. The list of just-around-the- corner strategies includes carbon sequestration for coal-fired plants, advanced nuclear plants, tidal and wave power, cellulosic biofuels, and advanced electric vehicles. While no single solution will make more than a modest dent in the world's emissions--none of those items has the vast potential of, say, artificial photosynthesis--when combined together, they should steadily chip away at carbon emissions.
One particularly promising example is solar thermal power, in which large arrays of mirrors heat a liquid that can either generate electricity or be stored for when it's cloudy or dark. Such plants are being built now, and, if Congress passed a carbon price that made them more competitive with coal and natural-gas plants, they'd become even more prevalent and the price would continue nudging downward: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has already estimated that these plants will be able to compete with existing natural-gas plants by 2015, and solar-power expert Ken Zweibel has estimated that they could, in theory, supply up to 69 percent of America's electricity by 2050. It would require a fair amount of government support and infrastructure investments, as well as further R&D, but not a whole new level of science. In the short term, meanwhile, one of the biggest reductions in emissions will come from making buildings and homes more energy-efficient, which typically requires no fancy new technology at all--just smarter regulations.
It's true that, eventually, existing technologies will hit a wall. If electric cars powered by lithium-ion batteries become widespread, for instance, then world lithium supplies could conceivably dwindle. Or, at a certain point, the need for cost-effective electrical-power storage could become a serious issue. (Right now, Denmark gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from wind, but can only "store" that power by exporting the excess to Sweden and Norway, which send back hydropower when the wind isn't blowing-- a clever workaround that will prove less feasible as renewables spread.) "There are a bunch of things we know how to do now, and we want to use all the incentives we can to get those things out there," says Argonne's George Crabtree. "But, eventually, their impact will saturate, as soon as they're fully deployed--and that's where you'll need serious innovation."
By mid-century or so, we really may need the sorts of artificial leaves and futuristic batteries we can barely begin to imagine right now. And it is far less outlandish to expect that, by that time, science will be able to deliver such breakthroughs. But all of those sci-fi technologies decades from now won't mean much if we've long since blown past our carbon budget. That means doing as much as we can now--and fast.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=532df6a0-27db-420d-8480-25e229618117&p=2
by Bradford Plumer
Do we need a technological breakthrough to avert the climate crisis?
A substantial body of evidence suggests that the world can make huge emission cuts in the next few decades without needing to wait for grandiose new technologies to arrive. In 2004, two Princeton scientists, Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow, published a much-discussed paper in Science laying out 15 carbon-cutting strategies that have already been field-tested, which they dubbed "wedges." Solar power constituted one wedge, nuclear another, stricter fuel-economy standards for cars a third, reversing deforestation a fourth, and so on. The world, Pacala and Socolow showed, could cut emissions dramatically and still satisfy growing energy demand by deploying just seven of those wedges on a grand scale. (That's no mean task: One "wedge" of nuclear power, say, would mean building 21 new plants each year between now and 2050.) While some experts now believe we need even more wedges to meet the ipcc targets, several research efforts have reached similar conclusions: By combining everything we now have on hand, we can tackle a sizeable chunk of the problem at a reasonable cost. A 2008 McKinsey Global Institute analysis pegged the investments needed by 2030 at around 0.6 to 1.4 percent of global GDP and noted that the impact on the world's economic growth rate would be minimal, "even with currently known technologies."
The IPCC lists a wide array of technologies either available now or very likely to surface in the near future that could help reduce emissions. The former category includes (among other things) nuclear power, hydropower, wind power, geothermal, fuel-efficient vehicles, hybrids, biofuels, public transit, reforestation, and landfill methane recovery. The list of just-around-the- corner strategies includes carbon sequestration for coal-fired plants, advanced nuclear plants, tidal and wave power, cellulosic biofuels, and advanced electric vehicles. While no single solution will make more than a modest dent in the world's emissions--none of those items has the vast potential of, say, artificial photosynthesis--when combined together, they should steadily chip away at carbon emissions.
One particularly promising example is solar thermal power, in which large arrays of mirrors heat a liquid that can either generate electricity or be stored for when it's cloudy or dark. Such plants are being built now, and, if Congress passed a carbon price that made them more competitive with coal and natural-gas plants, they'd become even more prevalent and the price would continue nudging downward: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has already estimated that these plants will be able to compete with existing natural-gas plants by 2015, and solar-power expert Ken Zweibel has estimated that they could, in theory, supply up to 69 percent of America's electricity by 2050. It would require a fair amount of government support and infrastructure investments, as well as further R&D, but not a whole new level of science. In the short term, meanwhile, one of the biggest reductions in emissions will come from making buildings and homes more energy-efficient, which typically requires no fancy new technology at all--just smarter regulations.
It's true that, eventually, existing technologies will hit a wall. If electric cars powered by lithium-ion batteries become widespread, for instance, then world lithium supplies could conceivably dwindle. Or, at a certain point, the need for cost-effective electrical-power storage could become a serious issue. (Right now, Denmark gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from wind, but can only "store" that power by exporting the excess to Sweden and Norway, which send back hydropower when the wind isn't blowing-- a clever workaround that will prove less feasible as renewables spread.) "There are a bunch of things we know how to do now, and we want to use all the incentives we can to get those things out there," says Argonne's George Crabtree. "But, eventually, their impact will saturate, as soon as they're fully deployed--and that's where you'll need serious innovation."
By mid-century or so, we really may need the sorts of artificial leaves and futuristic batteries we can barely begin to imagine right now. And it is far less outlandish to expect that, by that time, science will be able to deliver such breakthroughs. But all of those sci-fi technologies decades from now won't mean much if we've long since blown past our carbon budget. That means doing as much as we can now--and fast.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=532df6a0-27db-420d-8480-25e229618117&p=2
Sunday, June 21, 2009
CO2 currently at highest level in 2.1 million years
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are higher than any point in the last 2.1 million years, report researchers writing in the journal Science.
Analyzing the shells of single-celled plankton buried under the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa, Bärbel Hönisch, a geochemist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and her colleagues dtermined that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million. By comparison current CO2 levels stand at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher than the long-term peak.
Annual mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm), 1850-2008 [top]; Monthly atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network 2005-June 2009 [bottom].
The findings provide new insight on the role of CO2 in global cycles of cooling and warming, suggesting that a shift towards longer glacial cycles — producing a major ice age about every 100,000 years instead of every 40,000 — some 1.2 million to 500,000 years ago was the result not of declining CO2 levels, but another factor, perhaps Earth's orbit and tilt, which determines how much sunlight falls on each hemisphere, or changes in how previous ice ages affected subsequent ice ages.
"Previous studies indicated that CO2 did not change much over the past 20 million years, but the resolution wasn't high enough to be definitive," said Hönisch. "This study tells us that CO2 was not the main trigger, though our data continues to suggest that greenhouse gases and global climate are intimately linked."
B. Hönisch et al. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition. SCIENCE VOL 324 19 JUNE 2009
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0618-co2.html
Analyzing the shells of single-celled plankton buried under the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa, Bärbel Hönisch, a geochemist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and her colleagues dtermined that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million. By comparison current CO2 levels stand at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher than the long-term peak.
Annual mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm), 1850-2008 [top]; Monthly atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network 2005-June 2009 [bottom].
The findings provide new insight on the role of CO2 in global cycles of cooling and warming, suggesting that a shift towards longer glacial cycles — producing a major ice age about every 100,000 years instead of every 40,000 — some 1.2 million to 500,000 years ago was the result not of declining CO2 levels, but another factor, perhaps Earth's orbit and tilt, which determines how much sunlight falls on each hemisphere, or changes in how previous ice ages affected subsequent ice ages.
"Previous studies indicated that CO2 did not change much over the past 20 million years, but the resolution wasn't high enough to be definitive," said Hönisch. "This study tells us that CO2 was not the main trigger, though our data continues to suggest that greenhouse gases and global climate are intimately linked."
B. Hönisch et al. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition. SCIENCE VOL 324 19 JUNE 2009
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0618-co2.html
Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey > Video Lectures
What do one mathematician, one artist, and one musician all have in common? Are you interested in zen Buddhism, math, fractals, logic, paradoxes, infinities, art, language, computer science, physics, music, intelligence, consciousness and unified theories? Get ready to chase me down a rabbit hole into Douglas Hofstadter’s Pulitzer Prize winning book Gödel, Escher, Bach. Lectures will be a place for crazy ideas to bounce around as we try to pace our way through this enlightening tome. You will be responsible for most of the reading as lectures will consist primarily of motivating the material and encouraging discussion. I advise everyone seriously interested to buy the book, grab on and get ready for a mind-expanding voyage into higher dimensions of recursive thinking.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/geb/VideoLectures/index.htm
Hat tip to Big Bazza
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/geb/VideoLectures/index.htm
Hat tip to Big Bazza
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Green Tea slows cancer? I beleive it!
Lose weight, get refreshed and slow cancer...Maybe, but fact is,imo a Twinings green tea and lemon with a half teaspoon of Logi-cane high GI sugar is just such a pleasure to drink I know it is doing me good..
Green tea 'slows prostate cancer'
A chemical found in green tea appears to slow the progression of prostate cancer, a study has suggested.
Green tea has been linked to a positive effect on a wide range of conditions, including heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
The research, in the US journal Cancer Prevention Research, found a significant fall in certain markers which indicate cancer development.
A UK charity said the tea might help men manage low-risk tumours.
“ This could mean completely avoiding, in some cases, any of the more usual medical interventions and their associated side effects ”
John Neate, The Prostate Cancer Charity
Although previous studies have shown benefits from drinking green tea - including some positive findings in relation to prostate cancer, there have been mixed results.
In this study, Philadelphia-based researchers tested a compound called Polyphenon E.
They were looking for a number of biomarkers - molecules - including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) which are indicators of developing cancer.
They also looked for prostate specific antigen (PSA) - a protein only found in the prostate. Levels can rise if cancer is present.
'12 cups'
The study included 26 men, aged 41 to 72 years, who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and who were scheduled for radical prostate surgery.
Patients took four capsules containing Polyphenon E for an average of 34 days, up until the day before surgery - the equivalent of around 12 cups of normally brewed concentrated green tea.
The study found a significant reduction in levels of HGF, VEGF and PSA, with some patients demonstrating reductions of more than 30%.
Dr James Cardelli, from the Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, who led the study, said the compound, which was provided by the company Polyphenon Pharma, "may have the potential to lower the incidence and slow the progression of prostate cancer."
There were only a few reported side effects associated with this study, and liver function remained normal.
Dr Cardelli said: "We think that the use of tea polyphenols alone or in combination with other compounds currently used for cancer therapy should be explored as an approach to prevent cancer progression and recurrence."
"There is reasonably good evidence that many cancers are preventable, and our studies using plant-derived substances support the idea that plant compounds found in a healthy diet can play a role in preventing cancer development and progression."
'Keep progression at bay'
John Neate, chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, said: "There have been several studies into green tea and its potential benefits, but there is, as yet, no conclusive evidence.
"The results of this study do suggest that there is merit in further research into the effects of extracts of green tea, both in relation to its impact on the prevention of prostate cancer and in controlling progression in men already diagnosed with the disease, as was investigated in this instance."
"These initial positive findings could indicate that green tea could have a place in 'active surveillance', where a slow-growing, low risk tumour is monitored for changes and men want to take something which could help keep progression at bay.
"Potentially, this could mean completely avoiding, in some cases, any of the more usual medical interventions and their associated side effects."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/8108831.stm
Published: 2009/06/19 23:00:53 GMT
© BBC MMIX
See my other item on green tea..
http://news.kontentkonsult.com/2009/03/green-teas-goer.html
Green tea 'slows prostate cancer'
A chemical found in green tea appears to slow the progression of prostate cancer, a study has suggested.
Green tea has been linked to a positive effect on a wide range of conditions, including heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
The research, in the US journal Cancer Prevention Research, found a significant fall in certain markers which indicate cancer development.
A UK charity said the tea might help men manage low-risk tumours.
“ This could mean completely avoiding, in some cases, any of the more usual medical interventions and their associated side effects ”
John Neate, The Prostate Cancer Charity
Although previous studies have shown benefits from drinking green tea - including some positive findings in relation to prostate cancer, there have been mixed results.
In this study, Philadelphia-based researchers tested a compound called Polyphenon E.
They were looking for a number of biomarkers - molecules - including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) which are indicators of developing cancer.
They also looked for prostate specific antigen (PSA) - a protein only found in the prostate. Levels can rise if cancer is present.
'12 cups'
The study included 26 men, aged 41 to 72 years, who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and who were scheduled for radical prostate surgery.
Patients took four capsules containing Polyphenon E for an average of 34 days, up until the day before surgery - the equivalent of around 12 cups of normally brewed concentrated green tea.
The study found a significant reduction in levels of HGF, VEGF and PSA, with some patients demonstrating reductions of more than 30%.
Dr James Cardelli, from the Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, who led the study, said the compound, which was provided by the company Polyphenon Pharma, "may have the potential to lower the incidence and slow the progression of prostate cancer."
There were only a few reported side effects associated with this study, and liver function remained normal.
Dr Cardelli said: "We think that the use of tea polyphenols alone or in combination with other compounds currently used for cancer therapy should be explored as an approach to prevent cancer progression and recurrence."
"There is reasonably good evidence that many cancers are preventable, and our studies using plant-derived substances support the idea that plant compounds found in a healthy diet can play a role in preventing cancer development and progression."
'Keep progression at bay'
John Neate, chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, said: "There have been several studies into green tea and its potential benefits, but there is, as yet, no conclusive evidence.
"The results of this study do suggest that there is merit in further research into the effects of extracts of green tea, both in relation to its impact on the prevention of prostate cancer and in controlling progression in men already diagnosed with the disease, as was investigated in this instance."
"These initial positive findings could indicate that green tea could have a place in 'active surveillance', where a slow-growing, low risk tumour is monitored for changes and men want to take something which could help keep progression at bay.
"Potentially, this could mean completely avoiding, in some cases, any of the more usual medical interventions and their associated side effects."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/8108831.stm
Published: 2009/06/19 23:00:53 GMT
© BBC MMIX
See my other item on green tea..
http://news.kontentkonsult.com/2009/03/green-teas-goer.html
Reviewing Pilmer ~ A geology giant gone off the rails on warming
David Karoly: Ian Plimer's new book Heaven + Earth claims to shed new light on the science of climate change. It states that 'human-induced global warming has evolved into a religious belief system', that 'atmospheric carbon dioxided does not create a temperature rise' and that 'global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and lengthen your life'.
Are these claims justified and based on science? They are in marked contrast to the scientific understanding of the causes of recent climate change reported in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (often referred to as the IPCC), as well as by other scientific bodies including the US National Academies, the British Royal Society and the Australian Academy of Science. They have all reached the same conclusion; that the observed increase in global-average surface temperature since the mid-20th century is mainly due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, caused by human activity.
Heaven + Earth claims that this conclusion and almost all the conclusions of the IPCC are wrong. It suggests that there is a conspiracy amongst climate scientists to hide the 'truth' and that the learned scientific societies of many countries have been hoodwinked. He implies that this conspiracy involves all the hundred-plus national governments that unanimously approved the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. Not surprisingly, the book has attracted attention from the media, politicians and some scientists, as well as the public. Nothing sells like a good conspiracy story.
But is this book the story of a conspiracy, or even a good read? Is it about science or is it science fiction? The book is impressive and possibly interesting, but very disappointing. Impressive because of the time and effort that must have been spent writing the 500 pages with 2,000-plus footnotes. Interesting because it seeks to link many aspects of geology, astronomy, biology, glaciology, oceanography and meteorology to explain climate change over the Earth's multi-billion-year history, including the last hundred years. It's disappointing because a senior professor should not have produced such a book with so many errors, so many internal inconsistencies, and with no sources for its graphs.
The average reader will find it difficult to sort the fact from the fiction, to disentangle the inconsistencies, and separate the personal opinions and interpretations of the author from the well-established science. The book is built around six sections that consider history, the Sun, earth, ice, water, and air. In these, 18 questions are considered, and many scientists would agree with some aspects of the answers presented. However, there are major errors in many of the answers, making the conclusions invalid. The best description of the problems with the book is provided by Plimer himself. He writes, 'Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists, who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.'
There are some sensible things in Heaven + Earth. Yes, it is important to 'look at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time'. Throughout Earth's history there have been natural climate variations driven by many factors, including variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, volcanic eruptions, tectonics, and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For most of Earth's history, global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have been higher than present. Plimer is wrong to claim that 'the IPCC has essentially ignored the role of natural climate variability', as natural climate variability is carefully considered in all four of the IPCC's comprehensive assessments since 1990. In its 2007 report, a whole chapter on palaeoclimate focuses on natural climate variations over Earth's history. Yes, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, as Plimer states, 'Water vapour tends to follow temperature change rather than cause it,' so water vapour changes cannot initiate climate change.
Now let me address some of the major scientific flaws in Plimer's arguments. He claims 'it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity' and 'volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined'. Both are wrong. Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no 14C, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen, exactly as observed and as Plimer states on pages 414 and 415. Scientists have estimated emissions from volcanoes on land for the last 50 years and they are small compared with total global emissions from human sources.
Plimer even argues that the recent sources must be underwater volcanoes. This is not the case, because the net movement of carbon dioxide is from the atmosphere to the ocean, based on measurements that the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean is less than in the atmosphere. In addition, measurements show that the concentrations of two other long-lived greenhouse gases with human-related sources, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased markedly over the last 200 years, at the same time as the increases in carbon dioxide. This is not possible due to sources from underwater volcanoes.
Next, he states that CO2 does not drive climate. He then contradicts himself by writing 'CO2 keeps our planet warm so that it is not covered in ice'. There is ample geological evidence of increased CO2 causing climate change, such as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum about 55 million years ago. He writes 'land and sea temperatures increased by five to ten degrees with associated extinctions of life' when methane was released into the atmosphere due to geological processes and rapidly converted to CO2.
Plimer writes repeatedly that global warming ended in 1998, that the warmth of the last few decades is not unusual, and that satellite measurements show there has been no global warming since 1979. He is correct that on time scales of the last 100 million years, the recent global-scale warmth is not unusual. However, it is unusual over at least the last 1,000 years, including the Medieval warming. Plimer makes the mistake of using local temperatures from proxy evidence rather than considering data from the whole globe at the same time. The report of the US National Academy of Sciences in 2006, cited by Plimer, states 'Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all individual locations, were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since AD 900.'
We do not expect significant warming to always occur for short periods, such as since 1998. Natural climate variations are more important over short periods, with El Nino causing hotter global-average temperatures in 1998 and La Nina cooler global temperatures in 2007 and 2008. Global-average temperature for the current decade from surface observations and from satellite data is warmer than any other decade with reasonable data coverage. Plimer is wrong to write 'Not one of the IPCC models predicted that there would be cooling after 1998'. Actually, more than one-fifth of climate models show cooling in global average temperatures for the period from 1998 to 2008.
Plimer writes that solar activity accounts for some 80% of the global temperature trend over the last 150 years. This doesn't fit the observational evidence. Increases in solar irradiance would cause more warming in the daytime, in the tropics and in summer, as well as warming in the upper atmosphere, and these are not observed. Changes in solar irradiance and cosmic rays show a large 11-year sunspot cycle and negligible trend, but observed global temperatures show a large warming trend and small 11-year cycle.
Plimer is wrong again when he writes 'An enrichment in atmospheric CO2 is not even a little bit bad for life on Earth. It is wholly beneficial.' This is contradicted when he writes that the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum was associated with mass extinctions. There are many other errors, both large and small, including volcanoes emitting CFCs and that the Sun consists mainly of the same elements as the rocky planets. Many of the figures have mistakes, either in the caption or in the data, and have no sources provided.
Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear.
Robyn Williams: David Karoly is a Federation Fellow at the University of Melbourne. He was reviewing Ian Plimer's book Heaven + Earth, now in the bestseller lists.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/06/ssw_20090613_1205.mp3
Robyn Williams: Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth has been high up in the bestseller list for three or four weeks now. His unswerving dismissal of climate change orthodoxy should come as a surprise to those of us in the general public who expect science to get its facts right, especially in matters which really count, because the stakes couldn't really be higher.
So what's going on? How could one of our best-known geologists, together with some of his like-minded colleagues, be so much at odds with all the leading journals, the academies and most of the specialists in climate studies? We've already had one review on this week in The Science Show about earth scientist Professor Malcolm Walter, and it can still be heard online.
Today, for Ockham's Razor, we have one of Australia's top scientists, whose job is to assess the merits of research across the nation.
Professor Kurt Lambeck is president of the Australian Academy of Science.
Kurt Lambeck: I'm an earth scientist whose research is directed at the interactions between the solid earth, the oceans, ice sheets and atmosphere. And this research is directed not merely to interpret the geological record, but to distinguish between cause and effect, and to understand what may happen when natural and anthropogenic forces clash. In recent years my research has been on sea level change from millions of years to recent times. And this has included geological field work in Australia, Europe, Antarctica, Greenland, amongst other areas, and has given me some insight into at least this one aspect of climate change.
I believe this allows me to conclude that Heaven and Earth is not a work of science, it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist.
There is no dispute that the geological record shows that climate change has occurred throughout the earth's history. The dispute is over whether the modern record can be understood in terms of the natural background processes or whether there is a new human factor that changes the rules about climate change.
To address this requires more than geological insight. It requires an understanding of the underlying physical, chemical and biological processes and an ability to model them so as to test alternative hypotheses. To say that geology is the only way to integrate all aspects of the environment is like saying that physicists and chemists should not get involved in biology. How can I take this advice seriously when I see other geologists proclaim with equal conviction, that the record points to imminent planetary doom because of human action?
No single discipline is equipped to handle the complex problems of climate change. Probably nowhere is it more important for the disciplines to come together than in understanding how the components of the solid earth, the oceans, atmosphere and ice sheets, feed off each other and interact in their response to internal and external forcing mechanisms. No single institution and certainly no single individual can do this alone. The problem is simply too complex and this is why processes such as the IPCC are important.
I have been part of the IPCC process and I know that's it's not a perfect one. In seeking consensus, extremes are filtered out. What happens to non-consensus views is that they get tested in the peer-reviewed literature, and if the hypothesis stands up to this probing, it becomes incorporated in subsequent analyses. If it fails to stand up, it will be ignored by the scientific community until new evidence comes to light.
Thus an important part of the synthesis process is that it is an iterative one and if one looks at the successive assessments, one can identify shifts and critiques that have led over time, to improvements in the understanding of climate change.
It is important to recognise that scientists are not consensus animals. We are all driven by our own demons: the satisfaction of being able to understand a particularly complex question, a desire to use science to improve the human condition; a search for recognition and fame and the next Nobel prize or a search for notoriety in the public gallery. Thus the concept that hundreds of researchers are conspiring to defraud the world's policy-makers requires a level of conspiracy theory that not even Dan Brown has reached.
Professor Plimer has said that Heaven and Earth is not written for the scientists but for the general public. This is an important objective but it is not an excuse for sloppy science or for the misrepresentation of science. I focus here on the section on sea level, because in his public discussions he has extensively used this to argue that all change is 'natural'.
If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!
I would then identify a number of specific issues which, while in isolation could be seen as minor, collectively indicate carelessness at best, and at worst an attempt to undermine the integrity of the science case. Here are just a few examples.
There is geological evidence that suggests that the Earth has gone through extreme glacial episodes in the distant past. Plimer states that change from extreme glacial to extreme warm conditions occurred within a few centuries. Whether this is correct or not is a legitimate point of debate. But further on, he states that to raise sea level by 4 to 6 metres from the melting of West Antarctica, in the near future, is Hollywood fantasy. That may well be true. But there is no consistency in his argument. If at one time the planet can exit from near-global glaciation conditions in a few hundred years, then why can a comparatively minor adjustment of the West Antarctica ice sheet not occur on the same time scale? Is it a case of seeing only what you want to see?
Plimer uses the example of ocean floor doming and sea floor volcanism to illustrate geological processes that have modified sea level. He states that during such events monstrous amounts of heat are released into the oceans and that huge volumes of water are displaced, causing sea level to rise. If I use his example of a 1000km x 1000km plateau raised by 1 kilometre, the volume of displaced water is about one million cubic kilometres, which when distributed over the oceans brings sea level up by about 3 metres. But the formation of these plateaux occur on a time scale of a million years and longer, and the associated rate of change is only of the order say, .03 millimetres per year, and this is about 100 times less than the rates observed today. Likewise, Plimer's monstrous amounts of heat released into the oceans do not produce a measurable global signal on the human time scale.
Much research has gone into modelling those kinds of earth deformation in order to understand the long-term, sea-level effects, and realistic order of magnitude estimates can be made. While impressive when viewed on the geological time scales, changes of 100-200 metres over 1 to 100 million years, imply rates of change that are insignificant when compared with the modern record of sea level change.
None of this research is referred to. Instead, he states that models for present sea level rise do not take them into consideration. The peer-reviewed scientific debate is extensive and combative, but there is an accepted conclusion that modern sea level rise, corrected for the geological background signals, can only be explained by a major contribution from thermal expansion of the oceans and from melting of mountain glaciers, and that both of these changes are consistent with the observed and modelled temperature changes during the past century.
Much is made in the book of the difficulty in reaching a reliable assessment of the modern sea-level rise from the instrumental record. From my own work, I agree that the analysis is difficult and not without pitfalls and that in the past different conclusions have been reached because some of these pitfalls were not recognised. But with time these have been addressed, new data has been identified, and analysis methods have improved. To argue therefore that because there are discrepancies with superseded results we cannot believe any of the results is to take a strange view of the process of science. There is in fact a quite remarkable convergence of the interpretation of the observational evidence of what has been happening to sea level in the past 100 or so years. This points to an increase in the globally averaged rates by a factor of about 2, and this is consistent with what is expected from the climate models that include both natural and anthropogenic forcing. None of this is discussed in the book.
To give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.
Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.
But why do I really care? There is no doubt that climate change has occurred from the time the planet first acquired its atmosphere. What we also learn from the geological record is that the planet's 'mood' swings are finely balanced: that the shift from one state to another can be sudden on the geological timescales. For the last million years it has swung between major glaciations and the more temperate periods like today within which homo sapiens has made its home.
Our understanding of these cycles is of a delicate balance between external forcing, in this case solar insolation caused by variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit and its rotation axis, and complex feedback mechanisms involving the oceans, ice sheets and biological and surface processes. The present climate system shows all the hallmarks of an unstable system tenuously held under control by the astronomical forcing and perturbed at intervals by other forcing such as the injection of volcanic dust and gases into the atmosphere.
We also have a good understanding of the basic physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans and of the nature of the various feedback mechanisms. What we have learned is that the changes of the past 100 years cannot be quantitatively expressed by natural processes alone. Only the addition of greenhouse gases lead to a satisfactory explanation of what has been observed and all the recent results are showing that the changes in temperature, in sea level, and in ocean acidification are tracking near the upper levels of the IPCC forecasts. This is a matter for concern whose underpinning science needs to be debated.
For us, the questions are: can 9-billion people in 2050 survive if there is a global disruption of our climate during this century? Do the costs of such disruption exceed the short-term costs of implementing technologies and practices that lead to a stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions? How can the technologies and changes in lifestyle be implemented without causing their own disruptions?
The science community has the responsibility to provide the best evidence to help our policymakers reach conclusions that are founded in science, that are based on our best current understanding. This is in the interests of society as a whole, not only of particular interest groups. Spreading confusion through poorly argued science does not help in addressing this question.
Robyn Williams: Professor Kurt Lambeck is President of the Australian Academy of Science, and as you heard, an earth scientist. The book he was discussing is Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer, who's now based at the University of Adelaide.
Next week, a talk about Memes, those genes of the mind, by Don Tinkler from Melbourne.
I'm Robyn Williams.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm#transcript
Are these claims justified and based on science? They are in marked contrast to the scientific understanding of the causes of recent climate change reported in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (often referred to as the IPCC), as well as by other scientific bodies including the US National Academies, the British Royal Society and the Australian Academy of Science. They have all reached the same conclusion; that the observed increase in global-average surface temperature since the mid-20th century is mainly due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, caused by human activity.
Heaven + Earth claims that this conclusion and almost all the conclusions of the IPCC are wrong. It suggests that there is a conspiracy amongst climate scientists to hide the 'truth' and that the learned scientific societies of many countries have been hoodwinked. He implies that this conspiracy involves all the hundred-plus national governments that unanimously approved the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. Not surprisingly, the book has attracted attention from the media, politicians and some scientists, as well as the public. Nothing sells like a good conspiracy story.
But is this book the story of a conspiracy, or even a good read? Is it about science or is it science fiction? The book is impressive and possibly interesting, but very disappointing. Impressive because of the time and effort that must have been spent writing the 500 pages with 2,000-plus footnotes. Interesting because it seeks to link many aspects of geology, astronomy, biology, glaciology, oceanography and meteorology to explain climate change over the Earth's multi-billion-year history, including the last hundred years. It's disappointing because a senior professor should not have produced such a book with so many errors, so many internal inconsistencies, and with no sources for its graphs.
The average reader will find it difficult to sort the fact from the fiction, to disentangle the inconsistencies, and separate the personal opinions and interpretations of the author from the well-established science. The book is built around six sections that consider history, the Sun, earth, ice, water, and air. In these, 18 questions are considered, and many scientists would agree with some aspects of the answers presented. However, there are major errors in many of the answers, making the conclusions invalid. The best description of the problems with the book is provided by Plimer himself. He writes, 'Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists, who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.'
There are some sensible things in Heaven + Earth. Yes, it is important to 'look at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time'. Throughout Earth's history there have been natural climate variations driven by many factors, including variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, volcanic eruptions, tectonics, and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For most of Earth's history, global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have been higher than present. Plimer is wrong to claim that 'the IPCC has essentially ignored the role of natural climate variability', as natural climate variability is carefully considered in all four of the IPCC's comprehensive assessments since 1990. In its 2007 report, a whole chapter on palaeoclimate focuses on natural climate variations over Earth's history. Yes, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, as Plimer states, 'Water vapour tends to follow temperature change rather than cause it,' so water vapour changes cannot initiate climate change.
Now let me address some of the major scientific flaws in Plimer's arguments. He claims 'it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity' and 'volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined'. Both are wrong. Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no 14C, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen, exactly as observed and as Plimer states on pages 414 and 415. Scientists have estimated emissions from volcanoes on land for the last 50 years and they are small compared with total global emissions from human sources.
Plimer even argues that the recent sources must be underwater volcanoes. This is not the case, because the net movement of carbon dioxide is from the atmosphere to the ocean, based on measurements that the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean is less than in the atmosphere. In addition, measurements show that the concentrations of two other long-lived greenhouse gases with human-related sources, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased markedly over the last 200 years, at the same time as the increases in carbon dioxide. This is not possible due to sources from underwater volcanoes.
Next, he states that CO2 does not drive climate. He then contradicts himself by writing 'CO2 keeps our planet warm so that it is not covered in ice'. There is ample geological evidence of increased CO2 causing climate change, such as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum about 55 million years ago. He writes 'land and sea temperatures increased by five to ten degrees with associated extinctions of life' when methane was released into the atmosphere due to geological processes and rapidly converted to CO2.
Plimer writes repeatedly that global warming ended in 1998, that the warmth of the last few decades is not unusual, and that satellite measurements show there has been no global warming since 1979. He is correct that on time scales of the last 100 million years, the recent global-scale warmth is not unusual. However, it is unusual over at least the last 1,000 years, including the Medieval warming. Plimer makes the mistake of using local temperatures from proxy evidence rather than considering data from the whole globe at the same time. The report of the US National Academy of Sciences in 2006, cited by Plimer, states 'Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all individual locations, were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since AD 900.'
We do not expect significant warming to always occur for short periods, such as since 1998. Natural climate variations are more important over short periods, with El Nino causing hotter global-average temperatures in 1998 and La Nina cooler global temperatures in 2007 and 2008. Global-average temperature for the current decade from surface observations and from satellite data is warmer than any other decade with reasonable data coverage. Plimer is wrong to write 'Not one of the IPCC models predicted that there would be cooling after 1998'. Actually, more than one-fifth of climate models show cooling in global average temperatures for the period from 1998 to 2008.
Plimer writes that solar activity accounts for some 80% of the global temperature trend over the last 150 years. This doesn't fit the observational evidence. Increases in solar irradiance would cause more warming in the daytime, in the tropics and in summer, as well as warming in the upper atmosphere, and these are not observed. Changes in solar irradiance and cosmic rays show a large 11-year sunspot cycle and negligible trend, but observed global temperatures show a large warming trend and small 11-year cycle.
Plimer is wrong again when he writes 'An enrichment in atmospheric CO2 is not even a little bit bad for life on Earth. It is wholly beneficial.' This is contradicted when he writes that the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum was associated with mass extinctions. There are many other errors, both large and small, including volcanoes emitting CFCs and that the Sun consists mainly of the same elements as the rocky planets. Many of the figures have mistakes, either in the caption or in the data, and have no sources provided.
Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear.
Robyn Williams: David Karoly is a Federation Fellow at the University of Melbourne. He was reviewing Ian Plimer's book Heaven + Earth, now in the bestseller lists.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/06/ssw_20090613_1205.mp3
Robyn Williams: Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth has been high up in the bestseller list for three or four weeks now. His unswerving dismissal of climate change orthodoxy should come as a surprise to those of us in the general public who expect science to get its facts right, especially in matters which really count, because the stakes couldn't really be higher.
So what's going on? How could one of our best-known geologists, together with some of his like-minded colleagues, be so much at odds with all the leading journals, the academies and most of the specialists in climate studies? We've already had one review on this week in The Science Show about earth scientist Professor Malcolm Walter, and it can still be heard online.
Today, for Ockham's Razor, we have one of Australia's top scientists, whose job is to assess the merits of research across the nation.
Professor Kurt Lambeck is president of the Australian Academy of Science.
Kurt Lambeck: I'm an earth scientist whose research is directed at the interactions between the solid earth, the oceans, ice sheets and atmosphere. And this research is directed not merely to interpret the geological record, but to distinguish between cause and effect, and to understand what may happen when natural and anthropogenic forces clash. In recent years my research has been on sea level change from millions of years to recent times. And this has included geological field work in Australia, Europe, Antarctica, Greenland, amongst other areas, and has given me some insight into at least this one aspect of climate change.
I believe this allows me to conclude that Heaven and Earth is not a work of science, it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist.
There is no dispute that the geological record shows that climate change has occurred throughout the earth's history. The dispute is over whether the modern record can be understood in terms of the natural background processes or whether there is a new human factor that changes the rules about climate change.
To address this requires more than geological insight. It requires an understanding of the underlying physical, chemical and biological processes and an ability to model them so as to test alternative hypotheses. To say that geology is the only way to integrate all aspects of the environment is like saying that physicists and chemists should not get involved in biology. How can I take this advice seriously when I see other geologists proclaim with equal conviction, that the record points to imminent planetary doom because of human action?
No single discipline is equipped to handle the complex problems of climate change. Probably nowhere is it more important for the disciplines to come together than in understanding how the components of the solid earth, the oceans, atmosphere and ice sheets, feed off each other and interact in their response to internal and external forcing mechanisms. No single institution and certainly no single individual can do this alone. The problem is simply too complex and this is why processes such as the IPCC are important.
I have been part of the IPCC process and I know that's it's not a perfect one. In seeking consensus, extremes are filtered out. What happens to non-consensus views is that they get tested in the peer-reviewed literature, and if the hypothesis stands up to this probing, it becomes incorporated in subsequent analyses. If it fails to stand up, it will be ignored by the scientific community until new evidence comes to light.
Thus an important part of the synthesis process is that it is an iterative one and if one looks at the successive assessments, one can identify shifts and critiques that have led over time, to improvements in the understanding of climate change.
It is important to recognise that scientists are not consensus animals. We are all driven by our own demons: the satisfaction of being able to understand a particularly complex question, a desire to use science to improve the human condition; a search for recognition and fame and the next Nobel prize or a search for notoriety in the public gallery. Thus the concept that hundreds of researchers are conspiring to defraud the world's policy-makers requires a level of conspiracy theory that not even Dan Brown has reached.
Professor Plimer has said that Heaven and Earth is not written for the scientists but for the general public. This is an important objective but it is not an excuse for sloppy science or for the misrepresentation of science. I focus here on the section on sea level, because in his public discussions he has extensively used this to argue that all change is 'natural'.
If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!
I would then identify a number of specific issues which, while in isolation could be seen as minor, collectively indicate carelessness at best, and at worst an attempt to undermine the integrity of the science case. Here are just a few examples.
There is geological evidence that suggests that the Earth has gone through extreme glacial episodes in the distant past. Plimer states that change from extreme glacial to extreme warm conditions occurred within a few centuries. Whether this is correct or not is a legitimate point of debate. But further on, he states that to raise sea level by 4 to 6 metres from the melting of West Antarctica, in the near future, is Hollywood fantasy. That may well be true. But there is no consistency in his argument. If at one time the planet can exit from near-global glaciation conditions in a few hundred years, then why can a comparatively minor adjustment of the West Antarctica ice sheet not occur on the same time scale? Is it a case of seeing only what you want to see?
Plimer uses the example of ocean floor doming and sea floor volcanism to illustrate geological processes that have modified sea level. He states that during such events monstrous amounts of heat are released into the oceans and that huge volumes of water are displaced, causing sea level to rise. If I use his example of a 1000km x 1000km plateau raised by 1 kilometre, the volume of displaced water is about one million cubic kilometres, which when distributed over the oceans brings sea level up by about 3 metres. But the formation of these plateaux occur on a time scale of a million years and longer, and the associated rate of change is only of the order say, .03 millimetres per year, and this is about 100 times less than the rates observed today. Likewise, Plimer's monstrous amounts of heat released into the oceans do not produce a measurable global signal on the human time scale.
Much research has gone into modelling those kinds of earth deformation in order to understand the long-term, sea-level effects, and realistic order of magnitude estimates can be made. While impressive when viewed on the geological time scales, changes of 100-200 metres over 1 to 100 million years, imply rates of change that are insignificant when compared with the modern record of sea level change.
None of this research is referred to. Instead, he states that models for present sea level rise do not take them into consideration. The peer-reviewed scientific debate is extensive and combative, but there is an accepted conclusion that modern sea level rise, corrected for the geological background signals, can only be explained by a major contribution from thermal expansion of the oceans and from melting of mountain glaciers, and that both of these changes are consistent with the observed and modelled temperature changes during the past century.
Much is made in the book of the difficulty in reaching a reliable assessment of the modern sea-level rise from the instrumental record. From my own work, I agree that the analysis is difficult and not without pitfalls and that in the past different conclusions have been reached because some of these pitfalls were not recognised. But with time these have been addressed, new data has been identified, and analysis methods have improved. To argue therefore that because there are discrepancies with superseded results we cannot believe any of the results is to take a strange view of the process of science. There is in fact a quite remarkable convergence of the interpretation of the observational evidence of what has been happening to sea level in the past 100 or so years. This points to an increase in the globally averaged rates by a factor of about 2, and this is consistent with what is expected from the climate models that include both natural and anthropogenic forcing. None of this is discussed in the book.
To give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.
Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.
But why do I really care? There is no doubt that climate change has occurred from the time the planet first acquired its atmosphere. What we also learn from the geological record is that the planet's 'mood' swings are finely balanced: that the shift from one state to another can be sudden on the geological timescales. For the last million years it has swung between major glaciations and the more temperate periods like today within which homo sapiens has made its home.
Our understanding of these cycles is of a delicate balance between external forcing, in this case solar insolation caused by variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit and its rotation axis, and complex feedback mechanisms involving the oceans, ice sheets and biological and surface processes. The present climate system shows all the hallmarks of an unstable system tenuously held under control by the astronomical forcing and perturbed at intervals by other forcing such as the injection of volcanic dust and gases into the atmosphere.
We also have a good understanding of the basic physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans and of the nature of the various feedback mechanisms. What we have learned is that the changes of the past 100 years cannot be quantitatively expressed by natural processes alone. Only the addition of greenhouse gases lead to a satisfactory explanation of what has been observed and all the recent results are showing that the changes in temperature, in sea level, and in ocean acidification are tracking near the upper levels of the IPCC forecasts. This is a matter for concern whose underpinning science needs to be debated.
For us, the questions are: can 9-billion people in 2050 survive if there is a global disruption of our climate during this century? Do the costs of such disruption exceed the short-term costs of implementing technologies and practices that lead to a stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions? How can the technologies and changes in lifestyle be implemented without causing their own disruptions?
The science community has the responsibility to provide the best evidence to help our policymakers reach conclusions that are founded in science, that are based on our best current understanding. This is in the interests of society as a whole, not only of particular interest groups. Spreading confusion through poorly argued science does not help in addressing this question.
Robyn Williams: Professor Kurt Lambeck is President of the Australian Academy of Science, and as you heard, an earth scientist. The book he was discussing is Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer, who's now based at the University of Adelaide.
Next week, a talk about Memes, those genes of the mind, by Don Tinkler from Melbourne.
I'm Robyn Williams.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm#transcript
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Month One: A Look Back at Wolfram Alpha
“How long does it take to get to Saturn at, say, the speed of light? With Wolfram|Alpha, the online ‘computational knowledge engine’ that launched Monday, the answer–75 minutes–can be found in a fraction of a second.”
“Wolfram|Alpha: A New Kind of Search Engine,”
The Los Angeles Times
“Wolfram|Alpha is not a search engine. Perhaps it will one day become one, but currently it’s exactly that its tagline says: a computational knowledge engine.”
“Five Things Wolfram|Alpha Does Better (and Vastly Different) Than Google,”
Mashable
“The latest dilemma facing professors is whether to let students turn to a web site called Wolfram|Alpha, which not only solves complex math problems, but also can spell out the steps leading to those solutions. In other words, it can instantly do most of the homework and test questions found in many calculus textbooks.”
“A Calculating Website Could Ignite a New Campus ‘Math War’,”
The Chronicles of Higher Education
“[The] Wolfram|Alpha site automates arithmetic drudgery for students, but teachers worry it does homework, too”
“Sum Help: New Search Engine for Mathletes,”
The Wall Street Journal
“Today, I want to talk about why Wolfram|Alpha is very, very important to watch. It’s not an iPhone, but it is changing the rules of search in a very significant way.”
“Why Wolfram|Alpha Is Important,”
Media Post Publications
see the video
use the engine
“Wolfram|Alpha: A New Kind of Search Engine,”
The Los Angeles Times
“Wolfram|Alpha is not a search engine. Perhaps it will one day become one, but currently it’s exactly that its tagline says: a computational knowledge engine.”
“Five Things Wolfram|Alpha Does Better (and Vastly Different) Than Google,”
Mashable
“The latest dilemma facing professors is whether to let students turn to a web site called Wolfram|Alpha, which not only solves complex math problems, but also can spell out the steps leading to those solutions. In other words, it can instantly do most of the homework and test questions found in many calculus textbooks.”
“A Calculating Website Could Ignite a New Campus ‘Math War’,”
The Chronicles of Higher Education
“[The] Wolfram|Alpha site automates arithmetic drudgery for students, but teachers worry it does homework, too”
“Sum Help: New Search Engine for Mathletes,”
The Wall Street Journal
“Today, I want to talk about why Wolfram|Alpha is very, very important to watch. It’s not an iPhone, but it is changing the rules of search in a very significant way.”
“Why Wolfram|Alpha Is Important,”
Media Post Publications
see the video
use the engine
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
DR MAARTEN STAPPER Hero of the planet, to be...
MARGARET FULTON, PRESENTER: Hello I’m Margaret Fulton. Food has been my life, and I like to see true food on our tables, that is food grown and produced without chemicals. So I’m delighted to introduce tonight’s program about a scientist who wants to cut down the use of chemicals on our farms, and use biological methods instead.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: My father was actually driving back from a field trip.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And I looked at the clock and it was four o’clock, and I just thought, oh well, I just relax and go home and then I drove to Canberra, and there was a truck going slow, and I was backing up behind that.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: He was overtaking a truck on an overtaking lane, but the lane ran out, I guess you could say, and another car on the other side, they had a head on collision, quite high speeds and it was a very violent crash.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Yes I nearly died. After the accident I was re-evaluating my person, I was trying to find myself again, because my whole life was shattered, so I had to restructure my life to find my future, my destiny from the future.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: I do clearly remember though that there was this little I guess fire inside of him, this determination, you know, that he was given a second chance at life and he really needed to do something with that second chance.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: I didn’t know then what to do, just to start again with my research and my drive in life was food production for the world.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well the idea here is to replace our chemical addiction to solve problems on our farms. If we don’t go this path, then we can’t feed nine billion people on this planet, more soil will blow away, wash away and we lose life on our planet.
PETER COOK, FARMER: I believe he could be viewed as a new messiah, to be able to recognise what we’re doing to this country, what we’re doing to the human beings, what we’re doing to the animals, and to come up with an answer, I think, is nothing short of a miracle, and the man's brilliant. And I think the exciting part is that we are going to lift the health of the soil, we are going to lift the health of what is growing in the soil, we are going to lift the health of the animals that are grazing on the land, and we are going to lift the health of the humans who are eating that product.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: Biological farming now is about rebuilding a biological balance in our soils, well there’s farmers that have grown 20 per cent better crop this year as an outcome of their foray into biological farming, as an outcome of listening to DR MAARTEN STAPPER, that’s good enough for me.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: When we were little we used to go often with my father to a farm to his field trips, and he would give us some little notebooks and we would all kind of tag behind him, just really try to impersonate him because he has always been, I guess I’ve always had a very special bond with him.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: The real key to our life on planet earth is the soil. The soil is the skin of planet earth, and that skin, that soil, provides us with the living plants that give us the food. Well the skin of our planet earth has now been decimated over the last decades.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: From a very young age we’ve always been taught to question things. My father is always interested in kind of shaking things up a bit, he’s really driven by changing people’s opinions and really making them see another side of the story.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well I grew up in the Netherlands, in Holland, in the dairy country, and I was every day after school, after kindergarten already, on the dairy farm, always helping with the animals. Then I went to the agricultural university and after my first year I went to Canada for three months to pick tobacco and that was one of my first signs of that agriculture was going the wrong direction. They had been using DDT for 20 years, so all the little bugs had gone, the beetles had gone, the birds had gone, and then on the farm there was this eerie silence, and yeah, what does it do to our environment?
DR TONY FISCHER, CROP SCIENTIST: I first met DR MAARTEN STAPPER when he was a young graduate student in Texas, we got on very well, we collaborated and actually published several papers together, and I could see that in CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) he would be a very useful addition to the team.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Maarten came to CSIRO in the late 80s. He was hired as a plant scientist, up and coming, very bright young plant scientist to come into CSIRO plant industry. In the later years in particular he was working on irrigated wheat and that work is highly regarded.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And in the first weeks I was there I went with the local district agronomist to visit farms, and that was unheard of, because that was the first time that he had a scientist going with him to farms. But for me that was always my way of thinking, my holistic way of thinking. To participate, to have the farms participating in research projects.
DR TONY FISCHER, CROP SCIENTIST: One of Maarten’s strengths was that he was good to explaining things to farmers. He had that knack of relating to them, and explaining things like crop physiology and crop growth and crop yield.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: I believe he started reasonably conventionally, but I think he always had a much bigger picture idea in mind. I think there was always a part of him that wanted to do more, and question what he was doing and what the establishment was doing.
(Excerpt of footage from ABC News 1987)
REPORTER: CSIRO scientists describe it as magic, a gene that when introduced into the plants makes them disease resistant.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Genetic modification was right from the start a point that I was questioning, the policy of CSIRO plant industry was completely on the track of genetically modified, so all the funding went into that direction of, put a foreign gene into a host to get some characteristic of that foreign gene into our crops.
(Excerpt of footage from ABC News 1992)
REPORTER 2: The first to benefit will be the humble potato, genetic engineering will make it resistant to a virus disease that can devastate the crop.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And I question that as a system because we have to start with the soil, the genes don’t make the crops better, it's the soil. I seemed to be the only one that was asking questions in the system. With the whole GM silence surrounding me, and me speaking up, I felt like a voice in the wilderness. That I wasn’t heard of. After two years with CSIRO, I had 4 children, in October 89 my wife got a job in CSIRO as technical officer in the genetic engineering group, working on GM crops. At the same time I was questioning the direction of genetic engineering. So that was the classic home-work problem that stared to build up, build up, build up.
PROF VALERIE BROWN, FMR CSIRO ADVISORY COUNCIL: Once the decision had been made that genetic engineering was indeed the strength of CSIRO and the direction the country should go in, there was a whole troop of people, either what is it? Jumped or pushed, whose work was no longer seen as relevant. Maarten was frustrated and there’s no doubt that he had cause to be frustrated because he was a victim of a huge swing in CSIRO to make all services, public good services earn their keep. So suddenly there wasn’t even a place for an argument about a public goods service for your research, it had to show that it was commercially viable.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: So the situation in Canberra became very negative for me, because in the building completely surrounded by people that think other ways, where my thinking was not allowed.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: For him it was his life, and I think that probably did take its toll on the marriage, perhaps because of the dedication that my father had to his work, he didn’t really quite notice that that other aspect of his relationship was faltering. I never until much later really understood how it was for my mother, but I think she felt quite lonely in the relationship.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And then my promotion case was blocked by the boss, and that shattered my life, that was a stab in the back for me. I felt that they, like a stab in the back. The pressure was building up more and more. I started to feel it was building up to something, but I didn’t know what that something would be, so the next day, I drove back to Canberra, and I never got there. I had a frontal car collision, the negatives of the previous day must have gone to my head and I had a blackout, but I don’t remember those things, and that was a big shock to me, because I was the cause of the accident.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: He was in intensive care for seven weeks and it was very much a question of will he get through, and when he did and he came home, he was really just a shell of his former self and the roles sort of became reversed. It was very evident that he just couldn’t do things he used to be able to do, he wasn’t the same strong, confident man that he used to be and I almost felt like I was his guardian and I had to look after him.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: In that period after the accident I wanted to build a new relationship with my wife, to start again, and to start a new life together. Marianne told me that she didn’t want me anymore as her husband and then to be knocked down by your love, is very difficult, my first love.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: The relationship between my parents was already a little rocky before the accident, but the accident just compounded everything. I think it was very difficult for my mother to leave, because my father was still so vulnerable in many ways but I think it was for the best and I know that my father, that there’s much bigger things for him and had he not been through that he would not be where he is now.
(Excerpt of footage of DR MAARTEN STAPPER speaking to a group of people in Narrabri, NSW)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Thank you very much for coming here to this paddock because we will look at the indicators of fertility in the soil.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: It took me six or seven years to redevelop myself, in 2001 I became aware of biological farming and it was a revelation of everything I had seen before was now all connecting.
(Excerpt continued)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Because the more batches you have, the more you get like the hard soil, and we drain, the water just starts to stream away rather than infiltrate.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: The 15 years that I had worked on crops, on pastures, on paddocks, on farms, to improve the management on the farm the big missing part of that research was the soil biology that drives the whole system. We have to care for the soil biology to make the system work.
(Excerpt continued)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: A soil that's not good, when you squeeze a clump like this it becomes dust.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: So instead of chemicals we use the soil organisms, the microbes to feed the plant and to protect the plant and those microbes make minerals from the soil available to the plant and they feed the plant. It’s a wonderful system of nature where everything is balanced.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: I run my own biological farm and business and I started organising for Maarten to speak to groups of farmers. He was literally like a beacon in the sky, in a grey sky of where do we go next to get some solid information about biological farming.
PETER COOK, FARMER: We noticed that there was an advert in the paper, that this guy Dr Maarten Stapper was going to be speaking on biological farming, the problems that were in the soil, in the plants, in the livestock, so my son and I went along. And when we got out of it, my son looked at me and I looked at him and we said, well this is exactly what is happening on our farm, he’s answered all our questions. Well about four years ago, we were amazed at how downhill everything was going, and our production was dropping, livestock were not looking like they should and our chemical bills were just huge. After I listened to Dr Maarten Stapper that day, I felt good. There was a way to overcome all the harm that had been done, and I was excited about getting away from chemicals and starting to look at nature, starting to look at the soil.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: Maarten’s method is about helping us farmers build the carbon levels in our soil, it is very similar to what the home gardener is doing in the city, in that in small areas we can easily go and put on some compost. Well that’s probably equivalent to 200 tonnes a hectare in farm language, so a farmer can’t do it. But Maarten is bringing in to Australian agriculture the technology of microbes, humic acids and minerals to grow stronger, healthier plants.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well the microbes are the same species of microbes that are already indigenous in our systems, we just brew them up again to introduce them to the paddocks, to the soils, so they can start colonising and reinvigorating the soil with new life, because the chemicals have killed that life in the soil.
(Excerpt of footage of Peter Cook and wife walking through crop with DR MAARTEN STAPPER)
PETER COOK, FARMER: Maarten this is unbelievable, four years ago we could not grow a crop on this part of the paddock, it was drift sand from one end to the other, but after this biological treatment we’ve given it, look at it, we've now got a crop.
(End of Excerpt)
PETER COOK, FARMER: From that time on, we did away with chemicals. I did away with my agronomist. So we really started by putting humates in with the fertiliser and that cut the rate of the fertiliser way back. And we brewed our own microbes and we sprayed those microbes onto the foliage and onto the soil and they have brought life back into the soil.
(Excerpt continued)
PAM COOK: Oh look, there’s a worm.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Did you see worms before in the paddock?
PETER COOK, FARMER: Yeah, no, there was no worms, there was no life whatsoever.
(End of Excerpt)
PETER COOK, FARMER: There’s ladybirds, unbelievable ladybirds, everybody else is out spraying for aphids, our ladybirds are eating the aphids. We’ve even got the kangaroos having taken a liking to it, we’re probably averaging a tonne to the acre which is pretty good. And it’s just amazing the changes, the changes that we’ve seen. The soil its soft, the soil smells good, I’m excited, and I’m getting pretty old, but I’m excited.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And then I was invited more and more to come talk about those issues by farmer groups, during those years there was a building up of tension between management and my own directions.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Maarten’s interest in biological farming was a personal interest, it was a private passion. Maarten was employed to work in the irrigated wheat and you know he had a hobby, we don’t employ people in a sense to work on things that are not things we employ them to work on.
(Excerpt of footage from Human Ecology Forum, ANU)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: These days you're not allowed to design an experiment that might give the wrong answers, it’s avoided and you're not allowed to talk about it.
(End of Excerpt)
PROF VALERIE BROWN, FMR CSIRO ADVISORY COUNCIL: Maarten reported that CSIRO were not interested in his results, didn’t even want to look at them, and yet the scientists around the table at the forum were satisfied.
(Excerpt continued)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And in our current science we haven't stopped digging.
(End of Excerpt)
PROF VALERIE BROWN, FMR CSIRO ADVISORY COUNCIL: Maarten has been a regular attendant at a discussion forum, the human Ecology Forum is based at ANU and it’s a discussion forum where people who have important things to say or new discoveries, or not being heard somewhere else can come, and there’s a huge range of scientists from all fields. By this time, as time went on, he became more and more frustrated, more and more passionate in his arguments, even more single-minded himself.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: He is quite stubborn. I guess stereotypical Dutch character trait, very stubborn, a lot of people could call him arrogant. But for him, you know it’s his passion.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: As I came to the realisation of the power of biological farming as a sustainable farming system that led in May 2006 with the annual review, for my boss to tell me that I was not allowed to talk in public about biological farming as a CSIRO scientist.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: I was generally surprised that he continued to speak out in the manner that he did because I knew that it had to come at a pretty high inward personal cost, because you can’t serve two masters, and he had to be caught up inside, and I believe he was, but he didn’t show it.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: My last activity in CSIRO was to try to get funding for testing to compare the best practice, biological farming with the best of conventional farming, that project proposal was rejected, I didn’t get funding.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Certainly when Maarten was showing quite a strong interest in biological farming, his division of plant industry did engage with Maarten at length, and asked him to provide data and asked him to provide peer reviewed material, that’s the basis on which we make scientific decisions and Maarten was unable to do that.
DR TONY FISCHER, CROP SCIENTIST: I had a chance to listen to what Maarten thought about soil biology when I went to a seminar he gave about a decade ago, and I wasn’t convinced because there wasn’t very much evidence presented, or very little evidence presented at that seminar. And so that did impact on his reputation as a scientist, it is a nice idea that you can add things to the soil and build up the organic matter and reduce the need for fertilisers and reduce the weeds, it is what I would call fringe scientific literature, they make all those claims but there isn’t any evidence in the published literature to support it.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: Yeah there was very much a collision course, he was really on a collision course with CSIRO, with all of his colleagues there, because they just didn’t share his vision.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well in the end I got the ultimatum that if I don’t change now, I would be made redundant, surplus to requirements, but I kept persisting, because I’m a bloody Dutchman, and that led to the final exit procedure.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Towards the more recent years the funding for that particular area ceased and we needed, we tried to redeploy Maarten into other areas using his very valuable skill set, and we were unable to do that.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: The final packing of my room, I felt relieved because that was the end of all the pain, and like that whole building to me had become toxic box, and I couldn’t live any more in that toxicity. And then I got invitations from groups and individuals to come and talk, initially I thought, yeah well I go to this meeting and I talk and if I don’t hear any more, well that’s it. But from one talk came more talks, and word started to spread and I got more and more invitations. Yeah so I’ve been working now for the whole year across the whole country on talks about biological farming that was a new life for me.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: After he was let go, every time I had him on the phone there was this lively enthusiastic voice on the other line, so it was immediately evident to us that this was a great thing. That he can now do his thing, he doesn’t have any constraints, any negativity.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: So I would expect that he has inspired 5 - 600 farmers, and I would say 2 or 300 of those have got enough confidence to immediately begin biological farming. Is Maarten Stapper a loss to the CSIRO? Their loss is the Australian farmers gain, he’s just a gift to the Australian farmer because he brings passion, he brings science and he’s a farmers’ man, he’s not somebody else’s man, he is a farmers’ man.
PETER COOK, FARMER: I believe that the biological way was getting back to what was done probably 50 years ago, in dollar terms I don’t really know how much we’ve saved, but probably in the vicinity of $20,000 a year in chemicals but the exciting thing is that we’re looking after the property, then if we’ve got good plants, then people are eating good food. There are good minerals passing from that food into the people. I’ve got a totally different outlook on it now, and I want everything I sell to be as clean and green as I possibly can.
PAM COOK: And the wheat that we were growing was virtually chemical free, so I wanted to find a way to eat it ourselves so I decided to get a grain mill and use our own wheat and make bread from that. The information we got from Maarten Stapper is life changing, it makes us question all the things we’re doing farming, and the food we eat, and health wise as well he tells it how it is, which is really good, and the world needs lots more Maarten Stapper’s to get the message across.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: Seeing the change in my dad it’s been amazing, he’s so much happier, he really is becoming a bit more of his old self now.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: I feel a new man, so finally after like 15 years in the wilderness it feels great to hear from them that I changed their lives, that’s absolutely astounding, to see that happening. I am dedicating the next 10 years of my life to keep teaching and talking about these issues to stimulate people, also in the cities. In 2000 we had a ripple, biological farming was a ripple, that ripple is now a wave, and that wave will be a flood, and that flood is coming.
END CAPTIONS:
Maarten Stapper now supports himself by giving talks to farmers and rural groups.
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/stapper/default.htm
Problems
The long recommended use of fertilisers, pesticides and other synthetic chemicals to address problems in agricultural production has been leading to poor soil health and resistance in insects, diseases and weeds. More soluble nitrogen fertiliser makes plants more susceptible to diseases and insects, and increases weed problem. As renowned holistic scientist Dr William Albrecht said “insects and diseases are the symptoms of a failing crop not the cause of it”. The petrochemical solution is not working – all such production systems in the world are on a treadmill, needing more and more chemicals and fertilisers to keep yields up as natural soil processes are increasingly weakened in their role of supporting plant growth. This makes soils and plants dependent on these inputs. Such production systems are not sustainable and we currently harvest the outcomes of the gross oversimplification of fertilisation and ‘plant protection’ practices.
Agricultural systems have become addicted to the soluble acidic-based NPK fertilisers and this addiction, supported with the then required pesticides and herbicides, leads to soil degradation; thus keeping producers on the ‘production treadmill’ with ‘more on’ farming. The humic substances which are pivotal in soil fertility and plant nutrition have gradually been destroyed (Pettit 2006). Humus is the bond between living and non-living parts in soil and is part of the soil organic carbon that has severely declined since cultivation started. Curing any addiction is a slow process, requiring understanding, patience and commitment. This, however, has not yet been accepted by a science world which seems driven by commercial interests. Those in organic-biological farming remain the exception.
The problems arising from the petrochemical approach were first exemplified in Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' (1962), which exposed the effects of indiscriminate use of pesticides, and eventually resulted in the banning of DDT. Nevertheless, in spite of this warning, industrial manufacturing and widespread agricultural use of chemicals continue to affect our environment. Consequently, many registered chemicals have since been taken off the market when negatives of long-term use became apparent. Consumers concerned about effects of chemicals on food quality and health will increasingly demand food free of chemical residues. Science is becoming aware that one part per million or even one per billion could be one part too much for many.
To improve soils, farming methods in annual cropping are changing from intensive cultivation to minimum tillage and no-till systems as being environmentally better and with good returns. Such ‘sustainable’ systems, however, are empirical as they are developed without a full understanding of long term outcomes. Impact of associated intensive chemical use is the unknown factor. It is the combined and repeated impact of chemical use that affects the system – factors not tested in product registration process or long-term field research. Negative soil-related developments in these ‘new’ systems have already been identified in Queensland (Bell 2005). Brown (2004) formulated these phenomena as “For every action on a complex, interactive, dynamic system, there are unintended and unexpected consequences. In general, the unintended consequences are recognised later than those that are intended”.
Current practices continue with the use of harsh chemicals and ignore the delicate balance of humus, microbes, trace minerals and nutrients in the soil. Such management has resulted in marked losses in soil organic carbon (including humus) and greatly reduced diversity and abundance of microbes (algae, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa) and larger organisms (e.g. mites, ants, beetles, worms) in the soil foodweb (see e.g. Ingham 2006). This exposes roots to harsh conditions, greatly diminishing the capacity of the soil to feed plants, as well as making roots more sensitive to saline and acid condition and the whole plant susceptible to pests and diseases, and requiring plants to be spoon-fed with fertilisers and protected by chemicals (Anderson 2000). Disruption of soil biological and chemical processes usually leads to physical problems, such as reduced infiltration, compaction and erosion. As a result, conventional farming is now searching for answers to increasing soil organic matter and microbial biomass (Bell 2005, Fisher 2005, Kirkby et al. 2006).
Ecosystem
A sustainable farming system is a complex ecosystem with non-linear dynamics that can exist in alternate stable states, each state having it’s own threshold for change from one state to another. When a critical threshold is breached, recovery to a sustainable system will become difficult or impossible. For unstable farming systems to again become sustainable, we have to understand ecosystems before we can take the right remedial steps.
Sustainable ecosystems are resilient, having the capacity to absorb disturbance and re-organise over a wide range of conditions before ever reaching a critical threshold. They are characterized by many interactive components within and between scales. Adaptability and transformability are two other characteristics of how ecosystems respond to change. Adaptability is the capacity of ‘actors’ in the system to manage system resilience, while transformability is the capacity to become a fundamentally different system when the existing system becomes unsustainable (Resilience Alliance 2006).
The underlying strategies for moving towards sustainable farming systems are conservation of soil, water and energy resources to maximise food production. This goes back to the functioning of ecosystems, the dynamics of interactions between a community and its non-living environment. Agroecology is an approach in agricultural development which draws on modern ecological knowledge and methods. It is defined as the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems (Gliessman, 2000).
Understanding the functioning of ecosystems requires a ‘big picture’ holistic approach. The knowledge of different groups in the living world and how they interact with other groups is here more important than in-depth knowledge of individual species. Studying the latter, however, and single issues in general, seems to be more popular and advanced. Unfortunately, we can’t understand a system by combining available knowledge of component single issues. That is, the holistic ‘whole’ is not the sum of reductionist ‘detail’. This also needs to be recognised in simulation modelling of systems.
Symbiosis – the balanced, mutual interdependence of different species – is a protective mechanism in nature, which develops in response to compatible needs. Self-organisation keeps natural biological systems in balance. Interactions between organisms are powerful evolutionary forces. Increased complexity and diversity of species and interactions within the soil foodweb promote balance and higher plant productivity. The whole should be considered as an integrated system being resistant and resilient to change through an abundant diversity of organisms.
Plants depend on beneficial soil organisms to protect them from pathogens, to help them obtain nutrients from the soil, and to break down toxic compounds that could inhibit growth. Soil organisms create a living, dynamic system that needs to be understood and managed properly for best plant growth. If the balance of micro-organisms is wrong, fertilisers and pesticides can’t help recover plant vigour. Understanding soil health requires knowing which organisms occur, which ones are working, how many are present and whether they are the right kinds for the desired plants (Ingham 2006).
Soil health thus requires improvement of biodiversity in paddocks and catchments to enhance natural predation in a functional soil foodweb (FAO 2006). This can be achieved by doubling soil organic carbon (the foundation for a living soil), minimising use of chemicals, and the establishment of shelterbelts for improvement of soil surface microclimate and provision of a ‘home’ for an important part of the soil foodweb. Paddock soil then becomes resistant to change and, being resilient, is able to recover from disturbances caused by extremes in weather or management. Such soils will remain more productive with climate change as living soil organisms can adapt. It will also help slow climate change by sequestering carbon (Leu 2006a, Carbon Coalition 2006).
Further ecosystems improvement may be achieved by managing natural energies with permaculture (PRI 2006), Yeomans’ Keyline Designs (Yeomans 2006) or Natural Sequence Farming (NSF 2006) to fit paddocks into a sustainable landscape. Natural Sequence Farming is a rural landscape management technique aimed at restoring natural water cycles that allow the land to flourish and be less sensitive to drought conditions (Newell 2006). This goes back to the natural balance of water cycles as pioneered by Peter Andrews in conjunction with biological farming principles (Andrews 2006, NSF 2006).
Another strategy in the move towards sustainability and ecosystem protection is reducing the vulnerability of farming to the economic impact of diminishing oil availability (Peak Oil 2006) by decreasing its reliance on petrochemical products.
Science
Current specialisation in agricultural science has resulted in research within very narrow boundaries. This has induced linear, mechanistic thinking, which doesn’t allow room for synergies, and results in confusion between cause and effect. Soils, for example, have become partitioned into separate isolated fields of chemistry, physics and biology, with further specialisation within each. Unfortunately, soil degradation and the issue of how to restore healthy soils cannot be solved with many individual research projects conducted by various specialists. It needs a big-picture approach. In nature everything is linked with everything else. These circular, web-of-life phenomena have to guide our applied field research.
Much current ‘sustainability’ research is fiddling at the margins of entrenched methods, working on symptoms rather than the primary cause of problems – as evidenced by appearance of new problems after implementing ‘solutions. It is not simply a matter of doing better what we do. ‘Best practice’ locks us in status quo which is still not good enough!
If agricultural research is to deliver anything approaching sustainability, therefore, we need to change the science paradigm (Jackson 1985). Or as Dr Albert Einstein said: “No problem will be solved with the same level of thinking that created it in the first place”. Over generations research has become increasingly “reductionist”, that is, reducing and outlining systematically the area of interest to be studied and the disciplines to be used. While this approach of fragmentation has delivered a lot of knowledge about the workings of particular crops, pastures, livestock, insect pests, chemicals, etc, focussing too intensely on closed systems with narrow boundaries – on single, isolated components of the bigger “real-world” system – means we are blind to larger cycles and patterns within which component parts exist (Stapper 2002). In this way, the biological sciences themselves fragment our understanding by creating false divisions that break the cycle of life.
New problems keep emerging as each of them are dealt with as single issues, resulting in partial solutions that don’t necessarily solve the problem, for example, acidity (with lime) and salinity (with lowering ground water). Partial solutions tend to equate a single solution with the cause of the problem but lime and ground water, for example, are not always directly related with acidity (Anderson 2000) and dryland salinity (Jones 2001, 2006), respectively. Soil management related causes for dryland salinity have been derived from practical experiences in, for example, New South Wales (Wagner 2005), Victoria (Nathan 1999) and Western Australia (Paulin 2002).
Experimental results dealing with isolated individual components are thus difficult to apply to paddocks, which are complex systems in time and space. What does an ‘average’ mean in a paddock? Other management factors are likely to be working against the application of individual research results, thereby inhibiting change. Hence, problems continue to emerge in agricultural production systems. Science is now proposing genetic engineering as ‘the’ solution for many of these problems – risking yet another oversimplification in our fragmented agricultural science (Stapper 2002), a ‘techno-fix’ with more band-aids over the real cause of our problems – degrading soils.
The standard multi-factorial research methodology seems ill-suited to studying complex biological systems where everything is linked with everything else. To obtain functional outcomes, no factors may be considered ‘constant’ in trials while varying a few ‘important’ factors to quantify their impact. Also the boundary conditions of research objects chosen by specialists (e.g. pots and small plots in a growth chamber, green house or research station) are often not appropriately representative of real ecosystems (especially microclimate) and generate results not transferable to the farming-system level. Comparative analysis is needed on a commercial production scale. Questions arising from such studies then need answers through reductionist science.
New methodologies and directions of research are required in the search for resilience, to achieve reproducible and predictable outcomes in farming systems across agroecological zones. Such research needs to be planned, executed and analysed by a transdisciplinary team working across ecosystems at representative scales, that is, in agroecology (Gliessman 2000, Altieri 2006). This is to allow observation and measurement of expressions of the multitude of interacting components within and between different scales of the farming system. Plant health (Anderson 2000) and animal health (Voison 1958), for example, are dependent on availability in the right balance of minerals, but this is still regarded as ‘alternative’ thinking.
To reach sustainability in agriculture we have to look at the whole system and develop holistic tools within agricultural science that bring together, from across disciplines, the knowledge obtained through analytic reductionism, without getting lost in small component details of ‘what single factor? – the how? and why?’ Such tools are unlikely to be quantitative, hard systems, as dynamic interactions by soil organisms are too complex and too affected by small spatial and temporal changes in management and climate. Therefore, a soft systems approach is required, synthesising knowledge into management guidelines for sustainable land use combined with careful monitoring of status.
Australia’s public R&D in this direction is minimal, and seems to be one of the lowest of OECD countries as was evident at the recent International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Congress in Adelaide (ISOFAR 2005). Nevertheless, we must search for productive agricultural systems with reduced usage of petrochemicals and energy, and not rely on ‘Techno-Fantasy’ to help us out. As we face a future without cheap oil, science must play a role in dealing with the profound socioeconomic change now gathering momentum around us (Heij 2006).
Management
As managers using the soils, what do we look at, what do we (want to) see? After decades of regular use of single-super phosphate some farmers and graziers stopped using it when they became aware of the detrimental impact it had on soils and trees, caused by the acidic nature of the fertiliser; use of muriate of potash (potassium chloride) has similar impact and also needs to be avoided.
We can learn to use the power of nature rather than fighting it with synthetic chemicals and unproven new technologies in a war we can’t win. Organic Farming is surging and Biological Agriculture (Anderson 2000, Zimmer 2006) is emerging as a sophisticated farming system in transition between current and organic. Both benefit from reintroduction and enhancement of humic and soil biological activity, components already fundamental in Biodynamic Farming (ATTRA 2006). In contrast to the Organic standard, Biological farming allows for minimal use of the most microbe-friendly fertilisers and herbicides with humic additives and molasses or sugar to enhance effectiveness and reduce damage to microbes. This requires ever smaller quantities as the system is balancing and moving towards Organic, a process that occurs much more quickly when actively managed with biological inputs.
Management aims to balance chemistry, physics and biology in the soil aided by improved organic carbon content, appropriate mineral balance and a diverse and abundant soil life. Thus stabilising our fragile soils and creating a sponge that stores and makes available required plant foods and facilitates prolific root growth. Soil biology helps with building and maintaining soil structure to secure aeration and prevent compaction. A balanced biological soil will have the maximum levels of available minerals coinciding with maximum demand by plants.
The farming system is intended to enhance biological activity in soil and on foliage, enabling a balanced supply of required minerals for effective plant growth, providing energy to plants and grazing animals. Soils are actively re-mineralised, inoculated with soil microbes and supplied with food for microbes, all required in order to achieve and maintain an energetic balance.
Cover – With cropping and in orchards, the soil should be covered most of the time by green plants or at least stubble to protect from high temperature and water loss. A litter layer as cover will be a continuous source of carbon for soil organisms and also provide temperature insulation and water retention. Green manuring provides opportunities to convert rainfall into soil fertility.
Weeds – Weed growth is minimised with soil minerals being in balance and with lowest levels of freely available nitrogen. Mineral availability provides conditions that produce certain weeds, which can be used as an indicator of mineral deficiencies (Walters 1999). The weed spectrum changes immediately when soils are balanced using appropriate materials. For example, from stinging nettle domination (sign of calcium unavailability) one year to no nettles and some shepherd’s purse as the main weed the next. This is the ecological concept of succession, with different suites of species supported on the same area of land as soil conditions change over time (see e.g. Ingham 2006).
Insects and diseases – Biological farming is non-pesticidal management (NPM) and uses natural techniques to prevent insect and disease damage. This is a major step ahead of integrated pest management (IPM) which aims to minimise pesticide use to prevent or delay resistance. Preventative measures are important before and after sowing but start with a healthy soil where biological activity builds internal plant resistance to diseases and insects (Callaghan 1975, Anderson 2000, Ingham 2006). Depending on the risks and size of operation, the management options are crop sequence, inter-cropping, trap crops/weeds, seed and foliage inoculation, neem and other natural repellents. Plant sap sugar content can be used as a guideline for protective sprays (see ‘Tools’ below).
Variety choice – Most current varieties have been selected to produce well in high-input management systems and require such treatment to perform as expected. New varieties need to be developed under organic-biological conditions to optimise production with low input on healthy soils. The first step is to evaluate ‘old’ varieties that were selected before nitrogen availability became a priority for plants. A variety will improve with successive seasons if the seed is retained and used again as it keeps adjusting to local soil biology.
Rhizosphere – The rhizosphere is the area of intense biological and chemical activity close to the root inhabited by soil microbes feeding off exudates from the root, thus facilitating nutrient supply to the root and protecting it from pathogens. Fertiliser applied with the seed at sowing decreases root growth, root branching and the number of root hairs. Applying microbes, humic substances and food for microbes with the seed (ie inoculation) generally results in a vigorous seedling with many roots, a thick rhizosphere, prolific branching and many root hairs, without the need for conventional seed-dressing. Such annual plants when pulled out of the ground at flowering still show a vigorous rhizosphere. Microbes keep colonising the roots as they grow, thus providing a continuation of that good rhizosphere. It has been demonstrated that an active rhizosphere can be created in degraded, acid or saline soils, with that neutral zone around the root allowing vigorous plant growth. Such a ‘carbon pump’ into the soil will improve that soil and the increasingly active soil biology will segregate negative compounds. Carbon may thus help stop dryland salinity (Jones 2006).
Inputs – The most important inputs are foods for the soil microbes, with the most effective one being carbon exudates from roots of growing plants. Maximising the time of active plant growth is therefore most important. Rotational, cell, or planned grazing (large number, small area, short time), for example, facilitates root growth and delivers more carbon to the soil than set-stock grazing. Another example is pasture-cropping where winter crops are sown into summer-active perennial pasture (Bruce 2005, Jones 2006, Seis 2006).
Residual stubble and roots are also important sources of carbon. Stubble, however, needs to be broken down to be available for soil organisms. To facilitate this if breakdown is slow, a stubble digest, containing cellulose-digesting fungi and some urea to lower the C:N ratio, can be sprayed onto slashed, spread and rolled stubble with or without incorporation. Such management decisions depend on the amount and kind of stubble, paddock history and soil biological activity – i.e. whether or not such bugs are already present.
Carbon can be applied as molasses, sugar, humates or brown coal (in order of decreasing availability). Humic substances, such as humus, humate, humic acid, fulvic acid and humin, are important forms of carbon for plants, playing a vital role in soil fertility and plant nutrition. Plants grown on soils which contain adequate humin, humic acid and fulvic acid are healthier and less subject to stress, and the nutritional quality of harvested foods and feeds are said to be superior (Pettit 2006).
Soil microbes, food for microbes and minerals can be applied as required by spreading, down the tube, or as foliar or soil spray with possible micronised minerals. To provide an optimum start of plant growth through the creation of a vigorous rhizosphere, the standard practice is to inoculate seed with microbes. This can be done by tickling some 10 l/ha of microbe containing liquid on the seed at transfer from silo (needing less then 20 minutes to dry before sowing), or dripping a liquid containing microbes and minerals in the soil on the seed while sowing.
Microbes can be applied as compost tea (Ingham 2006) or as a commercial mix (e.g. the internationally well known ‘EM’ (Effective Microbes) or ‘4/20’). These mixes may contain free-living nitrogen fixers (e.g. Azotobacter), bacteria that establish in the litter layer and can provide 20 to 70 kg N per ha per year depending on moisture and carbon availability. Phosphorus solubilisers are another bacterial group that may be included to make available the P applied in the past and locked up in soil clays. The importance of Biodynamic preparations (e.g. 500, 501, Cow Pat Pit) and application (time and method) does not just rely on bacterial content, but also on their stimulation of the activity of other soil bacteria and fungi.
Other inputs can be organic in nature, such as seaweed, fish protein, guano, soft rock phosphate, lime and rock dust, or in biological farming, inorganic microbe-friendly fertilisers in small amounts, such as sulphate of ammonia, calcium nitrate or mono-ammonium phosphate (MAP). Lime is regularly applied (0.4 to 1 t per ha) for calcium to be available – a very important mineral requiring fungi for availability to roots (e.g. Ingham 2006).
Compost is an important and effective method for delivering carbon, organic compounds, minerals and microbes to the field as a readily available organic fertiliser. The best compost contains up to 90% of the carbon in microbial biomass, that is, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes (Ingham 2006). Compost tea can be extracted from good compost and sprayed in orchards and on broadacre crops and pasture. Vermicomposting is the process by which worms are used to convert organic materials into a highly effective humus-like material known as ‘vermicast’ and its effluent ‘vermiculture’.
Trials – It is good to do trials on your own property to find out how things work. It is best to leave test strips on the paddocks, including a nil strip to see what would have happened if you hadn’t done something. It is important to keep good records and markers in the field to be able to keep track of a treatment in one season and over subsequent years. Current yield monitors are providing grain growers with a good tool to quantify differences.
Monitoring – “you can’t manage what you don’t measure” – Monitoring of soil and plants is important to be able to see improvements when changing management, and to allow early detection of required management. It is important to monitor different paddocks and use these records to try to quantify different solutions to a problem. Monitoring is a great learning tool, especially when comparing a similar crop across different paddocks or on a given paddock over seasons. Keeping good records facilitates discussion with other landholders and advisors. For example, a Soil Health Card with recording instructions was developed by a Landcare group in the Northern Rivers region of NSW (NR 2006).
A home-made penetrometer (see tools) is the great tool to monitor progress in and between paddocks as an improving soil biology alleviates soil compaction, making soils more aerated and easier to penetrate by roots.
Pulling plants out of the soil is a test to help assess microbial activity. Naked roots usually mean a dense soil with little microbial activity. A thick soil layer stuck to roots (i.e. the rhizosphere) with prolific branching of the roots is an indication of a well aerated soil with active soil biology. Plants will have more solid stems, especially perennials like lucerne. Keep records of weeds as indicators of movements in soil mineral availabilities.
Smell the soils and discover the sweet smell of a healthy soil. Lab soil tests are the classic tool to get some chemistry numbers on what’s in the soil. However, it is important to also assess the biological availability of essential elements and their balance, as provided by special labs. Deficiencies are relative, as productivity can be adversely affected by excess. Soil minerals can work together or be antagonistic to each other. An excess of one will create a deficiency of another.
Tools – Descriptions of home-made equipment are given with the Soil Health Card (NR 2006). A wire quadrat is used for soil cover estimates or weed/plant population densities, a penetrometer (from fence wire) to monitor hardness of soil, and an infiltrometer tube to measure rate of water infiltration.
Plant sap will reflect improvement in mineral availability and sugar content, and can be monitored in the field with a refractometer giving a brix reading, which needs to be above a crop-specific minimum to keep insects and diseases away (Anderson 2000). Increasing fussiness of the measurement line indicates increased presence of minerals (e.g. Calcium).
A pH-meter can provide you with information as to whether plant sap is at the healthy neutral level, meaning the soil is in balance energetically. In Biological Agriculture a pH-meter should also be used to make sure any herbicides are applied with a pH as low as 4, and with fulvic acid as additive, to greatly increase effectiveness.
Outcomes
Farms that have achieved healthy soils look and smell good, with dung beetles present in pastures and no slugs or snails in crops. Plants growing on such farms have less disease and insect damage, less frost damage (high sugar content or ‘brix’ in plant sap), have great root systems, and taste better. For example, canola and lucerne having no to minimal insect damage without pesticides after commencement of biological farming. Animals show the most extraordinary health (e.g. lack of foot rot, bloat, pink eye, mastitis), fertility (e.g. +25% lambing), and longevity. They need less fodder and graze for shorter periods compared with available conventional feed systems. Think of what could happen to humans if we ate such food!
Biological farming can reduce fertiliser use by up to 50% and eliminate fungicides and insecticides within three years of commencing. Such personal statements about achieved outcomes are available in company newsletters and articles in rural magazines but independent quantification is rare (Stapper 2004). Most methods haven’t been proven scientifically, failures are experienced if methods or conditions are not right, and are therefore rubbished by many.
Improved soil biological activity becomes visible through the presence of earthworms and many ‘creepy crawlers’. Common soil problems have been alleviated such as acidity, salinity, compaction, water logging and wind erosion (no dust behind sheep). Water-holding capacity has been improved, which shows, for example, on irrigated farms through a 2-3 day extension between irrigations. The retention of water also seems greatly improved as topsoil remains moist longer. Improved soil organic carbon manifests itself through many factors, but the overall benefit can be great. For example, one study in NSW quantified the value of soil organic carbon as $116 per one percent increase, resulting from better water holding capacity and nitrogen availability (Ringrose-Voase et al. 1997).
As in current systems, not all inputs are always effective. Success in biological systems depends on many factors working together. Soil organic carbon formation from roots and stubble, for example, requires not only the presence of microbes but also availability of important nutrients as the C:N:P:S ratio of organic carbon is similar across the world (Kirkby et al. 2006). Something can fail if a catalyst is missing. Nevertheless, when everything connects, we can get responses beyond expectation as synergies (‘1+1=3’) start to occur. We are, however, on the right track. An organic farmer from the UK, a Nuffield Scholar having visited the USA regularly, stated in February 2006: “I have seen some truly exceptional farmers who are light years ahead of anything I saw in America, particularly where it really counts, in the practical application and making it work on farm.”
Lal (2006) found that enhancing soil quality and agronomic productivity per unit area through improvement in the soil organic carbon pool will increase food production in developing countries, with numerous ancillary benefits. Adoption of recommended management practices on agricultural lands and degraded soils would improve soil quality including water holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, soil aggregation, and susceptibility to crusting and erosion.
Many have studied the impacts of farming methods on environment and food production. For example, studies have shown reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced denitrifier activity and efficiency in organically fertilised soils (Kramer et al. 2006). Impacts of herbicides on rhizobium survival and recovery with reductions of up to 60% in nitrogen fixation have been reported by Drew et al. (2006). Organic agriculture often is a proven good producer of food with yields comparable to those of conventional agriculture both in poor (Parrott and Marsden 2002) and rich (Maeder et al. 2002) countries. Gala (2005) and Leu (2006b) provide detailed accounts of studies from many countries.
With acquired knowledge, NPM is becoming successful in poor and rich countries in a move away from petrochemicals. India, for example, with three-quarters of farmers on less than 1.4 ha, is increasingly going back to traditional knowledge, which, combined with current knowledge and logistics, is leading to productive, profitable systems (Rupela et al. 2006, CSA 2006)
Organic technologies have been developed over about 6000 years to feed mankind while conserving soil, water, energy and biological resources. We are now able to increase yields for these low-input systems by using our breeding knowledge and methods to select higher yielding varieties adapted to local conditions (e.g. to improve harvest index). Among the benefits of organic technologies are higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil fuel energy inputs, yields similar to those of conventional systems, and conservation of soil moisture and water resources – the latter being especially advantageous under drought conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005).
Cuba is the first country to develop agroecological systems nationwide – as a result of the disintegration and collapse of the Socialist Bloc and tightening of the US trade embargo which prevented access to petrochemicals. Cuba successfully turned to self-reliance, organic farming, animal traction, biofertilisers and biological pest-control, while retaining agricultural productivity – a remarkable paradigm shift (Funes et al. 2002).
The road to sustainability
While ‘sustainable agriculture’ has been defined in many ways, it is fundamentally a process of social learning, not led by a science that overemphasises production and neglects maintenance functions within agroecosystems. Hill (1998) sees this blind spot as one of a number of indicators of our undeveloped and distressed psychosocial state. Habits, perception and assumptions determine what we see and want to see, and correlation is not cause. This realisation is another aspect of the change that will be required in our paradigm – the way we learned to see the world.
How do we find the road to a sustainable agriculture producing healthy food in a healthy landscape? How do we turn our ‘Clean and Green’ image into reality? Minerals and microbes are the key, in both soil and human health. Over the past 60 years, mineral density of foods has declined to less than half of former levels (Bergner 1997, McCance and Widdowson 2000). We need to increase it again through improved production systems, and keep it available with proper food processing, so that good nutrition returns to the way our foods are grown, processed and prepared. Real medicine must start with the patient’s diet and, ultimately, the nutrition on the farm (Anderson 2000, 2004). Worthington (2001) and the Soil Association (2002) found genuine differences in nutrient content of organic and conventional crops – improvements which could be even greater if all organic crops are actively managed with microbes and minerals. Farmers and graziers need to be paid for such quality.
Active management of the soil foodweb, remineralisation, and substantial increase of soil organic carbon are essential to reaching ecologically sustainable production systems and a (less-un)sustainable agriculture. Such a system produces healthy food with good taste and structure (i.e. availability calcium and silica), and extended shelf-life.
Trees are important as shelterbelts in a dry, wind-swept continent. There are examples in many districts where farmers have converted a proportion (say 10%) of their property to trees and wetlands (often from say 0.5%), resulting in improved productivity through improved water use efficiency and decreased sensitivity to droughts. This will especially be the case when appropriately combined with Natural Sequence Farming which rehydrates the landscape and makes soils healthy when following Peter Andrews’ principles that include biological farming (Andrews 2006). Healthy, living soils will be able to adapt to a changing climate.
Organic-biological farming methods seem promising on a landscape and catchment scale, as they result, through minimizing the use of synthetic chemicals, in farming systems that stimulate biodiversity, stabilise the soil, and balance the hydrology, thereby reducing off-farm impacts. It is important to mix and match such systems with landscape changing initiatives such as permaculture (PRI 2006), Keyline Design (Yeomans 2006) and Natural Sequence Farming (Andrews 2006, Newell 2006, NSF 2006) – thus increasing the knowledge intensity in farming.
In most districts today, there are properties applying sustainable practices as outlined above. These practices have been achieved with persistence by the manager – through trial and error, under financial pressure, and on fragile soils in our highly variable climate. It is now the task of science, using participatory research, to connect up these ‘dots’ in the landscape using appropriate concepts and principles. A typical agricultural manager is both time poor and cash poor – thereby, of necessity, readily following advise from (trusted) outsiders. Action research is needed to develop indicators that conceptualise farmer knowledge of natural resource management. This, in turn, will feed the required information-exchange networks, allowing knowledge to be transferred in time and space to achieve and maintain soil health, optimise production and minimise risk to achieving profitable farms in sustainable rural communities.
References (NB. All internet references are to their July 2006 content)
Altieri, M. A. 2006. Agroecology: principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming systems. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/principles_and_strategies.html
Anderson, A. B. 2000. Science in Agriculture. ACRES, Austin.
Anderson, A. B. 2004.Part III – Health & The Holistic View, Soil-Crop-Food-Human Health Connection. In: Real Medicine, Real Health. Holographic Health Press, Waynesville, N.C.
Andrews, P. 2006. Back from the Brink. How Australia’s landscape can be saved. ABC Books.
ATTRA 2006. Biodynamic Farming & Compost Making. http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/biodynamic.html
Bell, M.J. 2005. Chemical fertility and soil health in northern systems. GRDC Ground Cover, issue 56 http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/gc/gc56/supplement/chemfert.htm
Bergner, P. 1997. The Healing Power of Minerals. Prima Publishing.
Brown, A.D. 2004. Feed or Feedback. International Books, Utrecht.
Bruce, S. 2005. Pasture cropping, benefits revealed. Australian Farm Journal, September 2005.
Callaghan, P.S. 1975. Tuning in to Nature.ACRES, Austin.
Carbon Coalition 2006. The Soil Carbon Manisfesto. http://www.carboncoalition.com.au/#carbon_forums
CSA 2006. Down to Earth, May 2006. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture: http://www.csa-india.org/downloads/NPM/down%20to%20earth%20npm.pdf
Drew, E., Gupta, V. and Roget, D. 2006. Identifying herbicide impacts on nitrogen fixation of legumes. GRDC Updates. http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/south/s06/drew.htm
FAO 2006. Soil Biodiversity Portal. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/soilbiod/index_en.stm
Fisher, P. 2005. Using organic matter to maintain the productivity of soils under intensive cropping. GRDC Updates. http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i05/fisher.htm
Funes, F., Garcia, L., Bourque, M., Perez, N. and Rosset, P. 2002. Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance. Transforming food production in Cuba. Food First Books, Oakland.
Gala, R. 2005. Sustainable World Coming. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SustainableWorldComing.php
Gliessman, R. 2000. Agroecology, Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Heij, E. 2006. Making us “Future-Proof” – The Evolving Role in Horticulture. In: CSIRO Sustainability Network, No.57, 4-9. http://intranet.csiro.au/intranet/multi/sustnet/newsletters/NetwkL57.pdf
Hill, S.B. 1998. Redesigning agroecosystems for environmental sustainability: a deep systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science issue. Syst.Res., 15, 391-402.
Ingham, E.R. 2000. Soil Biology Primer. Soil and Water Conservation Society. alewand@soils.umn.edu
Ingham, E.R. 2006. Understanding the Soil Foodweb. – first of twelve sub-points. http://www.soilfoodweb.com.au/index.php?pageid=274
ISOFAR 2005. Researching Sustainable Systems. First scientific Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research (ISOFAR). Adelaide, September 2005. info@isofar.org
Jackson, W. 1985. New Roots for Agriculture. The Failure of Success. UNI Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Jones, C.E. 2001. The great salinity debate: parts I, II & III. Australian Farm Journal. Oct. 2000-May 2001.
Jones, C.E. 2006. Carbon stops salt. Australian Farm Journal, May 2006. http://carbonandsalt.blogspot.com/
Kirkby, C., Fattore, A., Smith, D. and Meyer, M. 2006. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated maize. Stubble treatments and plant/soil responses. In: Proc. 6th Triennial Conf. of Maize Association of Australia. Griffith, NSW. February 2006.
Kramer, S.B., Reganold, J.P., Glover, J.D., Bohannan, B.J.M. and Mooney, H.A. 2006. Reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced denitrifier activity and efficiency in organically fertilized soils. Proc. National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Vol.103, 4522-4527.
Lal, R. 2006. Enhancing crop yields in developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation & Development, 17, 197-209.
Leu, A.F. 2006a. Organics’ gift to the environment and climate change. In: Proceedings 3rd OFA National Organic Conference, July 2006, Sydney. pp.4-12.
Leu, A.F. 2006b. Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World. http://www.ofa.org.au/papers/Organic%20Agriculture%20Can%20Feed%20the%20WorldOFA.htm
Maeder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. and Niggli, U. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science 296, 1694-1697.
McCance, R.A. and Widdowson, E.M. 2000. A study on the mineral depletion of the foods available to use as a nation over the period 1940 to 1991. Summary of 1st to 5th Edition “The Chemical Composition of Foods”, RSC/MAFF.
Nathan, E. 1999. Dryland salinity on the Dundas Tableland: a historical appraisal. Aust.Geographer, Vol.30, 295-310.
Newell, P. 2006. NSF – Principles & Applications. http://www.nsfarming.com/Principles/principles2.html
NR 2006. Northern Rivers Soil Health Card, A soil management tool developed by farmers for farmers. http://www.lis.net.au/~tuckland/
NSF 2006. Natural Sequence Farming. http://www.nsfarming.com/index.html
Parrott, N. and Marsden, T. 2002. The Real Green Revolution: Organic and Agroecological Farming in the South, Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London pp 147
Paulin, S. 2002. Why Salt? Harry Whittington and WISALTS: Community Science in Action. Indian Ocean Books, Joondalup WA.
Peak Oil 2006. http://www.ASPO-Australia.org.au
Pettit, R.E. 2006. The Wonderful World of Humus and Carbon. http://humusandcarbon.blogspot.com/
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D. and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55, 573-582.
PRI 2006. Permaculture Research Institute. http://www.permaculture.org.au/index.php
Resilience Alliance 2006. Key Concepts. http://www.resalliance.org/564.php
Ringrose-Voase, A.J., Geeves, G.W., Merry, R.H. and Wood, J.T. 1997. Adjusting valuations of agricultural land using indicators of soil degradation: Some results from the Wagga Wagga region. In: Proc. Ecological Economics Conference. Melbourne, November 1997. pp 259-268.
Rupela, O.P., Gowda, C.L.L., Wani, S.P. and Hameeda Bee 2006. Evaluation of crop production systems based on locally available biological inputs. In: Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems (N. Uphoff et al. eds.) pp. 501-515. CRC Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida.
Seis, C. 2006. Pasture-cropping: a land management technique. In: Proceedings 3rd OFA National Organic Conference, July 2006, Sydney. pp.59-61. http://www.winona.net.au
Soil Association 2002. Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health – A review of the evidence. Soil Association, Bristol. 87 pp.
Stapper, M. 2002. Complex systems science in food production. In: CSIRO Sustainability Network, No.15, 10-13.
Stapper, M. 2004. Improve your soils: healthy soils – healthy plants. GRDC Updates. http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/hirain/h04/stapper2.htm
Voisin, A. 1958. Soil, Grass and Cancer. The link between human and animal health and the mineral balance in the soil. ACRES, Austin.
Wagner, R. 2005. If the salt loses its savor…? Farm Policy Journal, Vol. 2, No.4, 7-16.
Walters, C. 1999. Weeds: Control without Poisons. ACRES, Austin.
Worthington, V. 2001. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables and grains. J. Altern. Complement Med. 7, 161-173.
Yeomans, K. 2006. Keyline Designs. http://www.keyline.com.au/
Zimmer, G.F. 2006. Biological Agriculture. http://www.midwesternbioag.com/homepage.html
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: My father was actually driving back from a field trip.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And I looked at the clock and it was four o’clock, and I just thought, oh well, I just relax and go home and then I drove to Canberra, and there was a truck going slow, and I was backing up behind that.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: He was overtaking a truck on an overtaking lane, but the lane ran out, I guess you could say, and another car on the other side, they had a head on collision, quite high speeds and it was a very violent crash.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Yes I nearly died. After the accident I was re-evaluating my person, I was trying to find myself again, because my whole life was shattered, so I had to restructure my life to find my future, my destiny from the future.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: I do clearly remember though that there was this little I guess fire inside of him, this determination, you know, that he was given a second chance at life and he really needed to do something with that second chance.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: I didn’t know then what to do, just to start again with my research and my drive in life was food production for the world.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well the idea here is to replace our chemical addiction to solve problems on our farms. If we don’t go this path, then we can’t feed nine billion people on this planet, more soil will blow away, wash away and we lose life on our planet.
PETER COOK, FARMER: I believe he could be viewed as a new messiah, to be able to recognise what we’re doing to this country, what we’re doing to the human beings, what we’re doing to the animals, and to come up with an answer, I think, is nothing short of a miracle, and the man's brilliant. And I think the exciting part is that we are going to lift the health of the soil, we are going to lift the health of what is growing in the soil, we are going to lift the health of the animals that are grazing on the land, and we are going to lift the health of the humans who are eating that product.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: Biological farming now is about rebuilding a biological balance in our soils, well there’s farmers that have grown 20 per cent better crop this year as an outcome of their foray into biological farming, as an outcome of listening to DR MAARTEN STAPPER, that’s good enough for me.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: When we were little we used to go often with my father to a farm to his field trips, and he would give us some little notebooks and we would all kind of tag behind him, just really try to impersonate him because he has always been, I guess I’ve always had a very special bond with him.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: The real key to our life on planet earth is the soil. The soil is the skin of planet earth, and that skin, that soil, provides us with the living plants that give us the food. Well the skin of our planet earth has now been decimated over the last decades.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: From a very young age we’ve always been taught to question things. My father is always interested in kind of shaking things up a bit, he’s really driven by changing people’s opinions and really making them see another side of the story.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well I grew up in the Netherlands, in Holland, in the dairy country, and I was every day after school, after kindergarten already, on the dairy farm, always helping with the animals. Then I went to the agricultural university and after my first year I went to Canada for three months to pick tobacco and that was one of my first signs of that agriculture was going the wrong direction. They had been using DDT for 20 years, so all the little bugs had gone, the beetles had gone, the birds had gone, and then on the farm there was this eerie silence, and yeah, what does it do to our environment?
DR TONY FISCHER, CROP SCIENTIST: I first met DR MAARTEN STAPPER when he was a young graduate student in Texas, we got on very well, we collaborated and actually published several papers together, and I could see that in CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) he would be a very useful addition to the team.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Maarten came to CSIRO in the late 80s. He was hired as a plant scientist, up and coming, very bright young plant scientist to come into CSIRO plant industry. In the later years in particular he was working on irrigated wheat and that work is highly regarded.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And in the first weeks I was there I went with the local district agronomist to visit farms, and that was unheard of, because that was the first time that he had a scientist going with him to farms. But for me that was always my way of thinking, my holistic way of thinking. To participate, to have the farms participating in research projects.
DR TONY FISCHER, CROP SCIENTIST: One of Maarten’s strengths was that he was good to explaining things to farmers. He had that knack of relating to them, and explaining things like crop physiology and crop growth and crop yield.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: I believe he started reasonably conventionally, but I think he always had a much bigger picture idea in mind. I think there was always a part of him that wanted to do more, and question what he was doing and what the establishment was doing.
(Excerpt of footage from ABC News 1987)
REPORTER: CSIRO scientists describe it as magic, a gene that when introduced into the plants makes them disease resistant.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Genetic modification was right from the start a point that I was questioning, the policy of CSIRO plant industry was completely on the track of genetically modified, so all the funding went into that direction of, put a foreign gene into a host to get some characteristic of that foreign gene into our crops.
(Excerpt of footage from ABC News 1992)
REPORTER 2: The first to benefit will be the humble potato, genetic engineering will make it resistant to a virus disease that can devastate the crop.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And I question that as a system because we have to start with the soil, the genes don’t make the crops better, it's the soil. I seemed to be the only one that was asking questions in the system. With the whole GM silence surrounding me, and me speaking up, I felt like a voice in the wilderness. That I wasn’t heard of. After two years with CSIRO, I had 4 children, in October 89 my wife got a job in CSIRO as technical officer in the genetic engineering group, working on GM crops. At the same time I was questioning the direction of genetic engineering. So that was the classic home-work problem that stared to build up, build up, build up.
PROF VALERIE BROWN, FMR CSIRO ADVISORY COUNCIL: Once the decision had been made that genetic engineering was indeed the strength of CSIRO and the direction the country should go in, there was a whole troop of people, either what is it? Jumped or pushed, whose work was no longer seen as relevant. Maarten was frustrated and there’s no doubt that he had cause to be frustrated because he was a victim of a huge swing in CSIRO to make all services, public good services earn their keep. So suddenly there wasn’t even a place for an argument about a public goods service for your research, it had to show that it was commercially viable.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: So the situation in Canberra became very negative for me, because in the building completely surrounded by people that think other ways, where my thinking was not allowed.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: For him it was his life, and I think that probably did take its toll on the marriage, perhaps because of the dedication that my father had to his work, he didn’t really quite notice that that other aspect of his relationship was faltering. I never until much later really understood how it was for my mother, but I think she felt quite lonely in the relationship.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And then my promotion case was blocked by the boss, and that shattered my life, that was a stab in the back for me. I felt that they, like a stab in the back. The pressure was building up more and more. I started to feel it was building up to something, but I didn’t know what that something would be, so the next day, I drove back to Canberra, and I never got there. I had a frontal car collision, the negatives of the previous day must have gone to my head and I had a blackout, but I don’t remember those things, and that was a big shock to me, because I was the cause of the accident.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: He was in intensive care for seven weeks and it was very much a question of will he get through, and when he did and he came home, he was really just a shell of his former self and the roles sort of became reversed. It was very evident that he just couldn’t do things he used to be able to do, he wasn’t the same strong, confident man that he used to be and I almost felt like I was his guardian and I had to look after him.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: In that period after the accident I wanted to build a new relationship with my wife, to start again, and to start a new life together. Marianne told me that she didn’t want me anymore as her husband and then to be knocked down by your love, is very difficult, my first love.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: The relationship between my parents was already a little rocky before the accident, but the accident just compounded everything. I think it was very difficult for my mother to leave, because my father was still so vulnerable in many ways but I think it was for the best and I know that my father, that there’s much bigger things for him and had he not been through that he would not be where he is now.
(Excerpt of footage of DR MAARTEN STAPPER speaking to a group of people in Narrabri, NSW)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Thank you very much for coming here to this paddock because we will look at the indicators of fertility in the soil.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: It took me six or seven years to redevelop myself, in 2001 I became aware of biological farming and it was a revelation of everything I had seen before was now all connecting.
(Excerpt continued)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Because the more batches you have, the more you get like the hard soil, and we drain, the water just starts to stream away rather than infiltrate.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: The 15 years that I had worked on crops, on pastures, on paddocks, on farms, to improve the management on the farm the big missing part of that research was the soil biology that drives the whole system. We have to care for the soil biology to make the system work.
(Excerpt continued)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: A soil that's not good, when you squeeze a clump like this it becomes dust.
(End of Excerpt)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: So instead of chemicals we use the soil organisms, the microbes to feed the plant and to protect the plant and those microbes make minerals from the soil available to the plant and they feed the plant. It’s a wonderful system of nature where everything is balanced.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: I run my own biological farm and business and I started organising for Maarten to speak to groups of farmers. He was literally like a beacon in the sky, in a grey sky of where do we go next to get some solid information about biological farming.
PETER COOK, FARMER: We noticed that there was an advert in the paper, that this guy Dr Maarten Stapper was going to be speaking on biological farming, the problems that were in the soil, in the plants, in the livestock, so my son and I went along. And when we got out of it, my son looked at me and I looked at him and we said, well this is exactly what is happening on our farm, he’s answered all our questions. Well about four years ago, we were amazed at how downhill everything was going, and our production was dropping, livestock were not looking like they should and our chemical bills were just huge. After I listened to Dr Maarten Stapper that day, I felt good. There was a way to overcome all the harm that had been done, and I was excited about getting away from chemicals and starting to look at nature, starting to look at the soil.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: Maarten’s method is about helping us farmers build the carbon levels in our soil, it is very similar to what the home gardener is doing in the city, in that in small areas we can easily go and put on some compost. Well that’s probably equivalent to 200 tonnes a hectare in farm language, so a farmer can’t do it. But Maarten is bringing in to Australian agriculture the technology of microbes, humic acids and minerals to grow stronger, healthier plants.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well the microbes are the same species of microbes that are already indigenous in our systems, we just brew them up again to introduce them to the paddocks, to the soils, so they can start colonising and reinvigorating the soil with new life, because the chemicals have killed that life in the soil.
(Excerpt of footage of Peter Cook and wife walking through crop with DR MAARTEN STAPPER)
PETER COOK, FARMER: Maarten this is unbelievable, four years ago we could not grow a crop on this part of the paddock, it was drift sand from one end to the other, but after this biological treatment we’ve given it, look at it, we've now got a crop.
(End of Excerpt)
PETER COOK, FARMER: From that time on, we did away with chemicals. I did away with my agronomist. So we really started by putting humates in with the fertiliser and that cut the rate of the fertiliser way back. And we brewed our own microbes and we sprayed those microbes onto the foliage and onto the soil and they have brought life back into the soil.
(Excerpt continued)
PAM COOK: Oh look, there’s a worm.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Did you see worms before in the paddock?
PETER COOK, FARMER: Yeah, no, there was no worms, there was no life whatsoever.
(End of Excerpt)
PETER COOK, FARMER: There’s ladybirds, unbelievable ladybirds, everybody else is out spraying for aphids, our ladybirds are eating the aphids. We’ve even got the kangaroos having taken a liking to it, we’re probably averaging a tonne to the acre which is pretty good. And it’s just amazing the changes, the changes that we’ve seen. The soil its soft, the soil smells good, I’m excited, and I’m getting pretty old, but I’m excited.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And then I was invited more and more to come talk about those issues by farmer groups, during those years there was a building up of tension between management and my own directions.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Maarten’s interest in biological farming was a personal interest, it was a private passion. Maarten was employed to work in the irrigated wheat and you know he had a hobby, we don’t employ people in a sense to work on things that are not things we employ them to work on.
(Excerpt of footage from Human Ecology Forum, ANU)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: These days you're not allowed to design an experiment that might give the wrong answers, it’s avoided and you're not allowed to talk about it.
(End of Excerpt)
PROF VALERIE BROWN, FMR CSIRO ADVISORY COUNCIL: Maarten reported that CSIRO were not interested in his results, didn’t even want to look at them, and yet the scientists around the table at the forum were satisfied.
(Excerpt continued)
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: And in our current science we haven't stopped digging.
(End of Excerpt)
PROF VALERIE BROWN, FMR CSIRO ADVISORY COUNCIL: Maarten has been a regular attendant at a discussion forum, the human Ecology Forum is based at ANU and it’s a discussion forum where people who have important things to say or new discoveries, or not being heard somewhere else can come, and there’s a huge range of scientists from all fields. By this time, as time went on, he became more and more frustrated, more and more passionate in his arguments, even more single-minded himself.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: He is quite stubborn. I guess stereotypical Dutch character trait, very stubborn, a lot of people could call him arrogant. But for him, you know it’s his passion.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: As I came to the realisation of the power of biological farming as a sustainable farming system that led in May 2006 with the annual review, for my boss to tell me that I was not allowed to talk in public about biological farming as a CSIRO scientist.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: I was generally surprised that he continued to speak out in the manner that he did because I knew that it had to come at a pretty high inward personal cost, because you can’t serve two masters, and he had to be caught up inside, and I believe he was, but he didn’t show it.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: My last activity in CSIRO was to try to get funding for testing to compare the best practice, biological farming with the best of conventional farming, that project proposal was rejected, I didn’t get funding.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Certainly when Maarten was showing quite a strong interest in biological farming, his division of plant industry did engage with Maarten at length, and asked him to provide data and asked him to provide peer reviewed material, that’s the basis on which we make scientific decisions and Maarten was unable to do that.
DR TONY FISCHER, CROP SCIENTIST: I had a chance to listen to what Maarten thought about soil biology when I went to a seminar he gave about a decade ago, and I wasn’t convinced because there wasn’t very much evidence presented, or very little evidence presented at that seminar. And so that did impact on his reputation as a scientist, it is a nice idea that you can add things to the soil and build up the organic matter and reduce the need for fertilisers and reduce the weeds, it is what I would call fringe scientific literature, they make all those claims but there isn’t any evidence in the published literature to support it.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: Yeah there was very much a collision course, he was really on a collision course with CSIRO, with all of his colleagues there, because they just didn’t share his vision.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: Well in the end I got the ultimatum that if I don’t change now, I would be made redundant, surplus to requirements, but I kept persisting, because I’m a bloody Dutchman, and that led to the final exit procedure.
DR JOANNE DALY, HEAD CSIRO AGRIBUSINESS: Towards the more recent years the funding for that particular area ceased and we needed, we tried to redeploy Maarten into other areas using his very valuable skill set, and we were unable to do that.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: The final packing of my room, I felt relieved because that was the end of all the pain, and like that whole building to me had become toxic box, and I couldn’t live any more in that toxicity. And then I got invitations from groups and individuals to come and talk, initially I thought, yeah well I go to this meeting and I talk and if I don’t hear any more, well that’s it. But from one talk came more talks, and word started to spread and I got more and more invitations. Yeah so I’ve been working now for the whole year across the whole country on talks about biological farming that was a new life for me.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: After he was let go, every time I had him on the phone there was this lively enthusiastic voice on the other line, so it was immediately evident to us that this was a great thing. That he can now do his thing, he doesn’t have any constraints, any negativity.
ADRIAN LAWRIE, FARMER AND SUPPLIER: So I would expect that he has inspired 5 - 600 farmers, and I would say 2 or 300 of those have got enough confidence to immediately begin biological farming. Is Maarten Stapper a loss to the CSIRO? Their loss is the Australian farmers gain, he’s just a gift to the Australian farmer because he brings passion, he brings science and he’s a farmers’ man, he’s not somebody else’s man, he is a farmers’ man.
PETER COOK, FARMER: I believe that the biological way was getting back to what was done probably 50 years ago, in dollar terms I don’t really know how much we’ve saved, but probably in the vicinity of $20,000 a year in chemicals but the exciting thing is that we’re looking after the property, then if we’ve got good plants, then people are eating good food. There are good minerals passing from that food into the people. I’ve got a totally different outlook on it now, and I want everything I sell to be as clean and green as I possibly can.
PAM COOK: And the wheat that we were growing was virtually chemical free, so I wanted to find a way to eat it ourselves so I decided to get a grain mill and use our own wheat and make bread from that. The information we got from Maarten Stapper is life changing, it makes us question all the things we’re doing farming, and the food we eat, and health wise as well he tells it how it is, which is really good, and the world needs lots more Maarten Stapper’s to get the message across.
MARIEKE RODENSTEIN, DAUGHTER: Seeing the change in my dad it’s been amazing, he’s so much happier, he really is becoming a bit more of his old self now.
DR MAARTEN STAPPER: I feel a new man, so finally after like 15 years in the wilderness it feels great to hear from them that I changed their lives, that’s absolutely astounding, to see that happening. I am dedicating the next 10 years of my life to keep teaching and talking about these issues to stimulate people, also in the cities. In 2000 we had a ripple, biological farming was a ripple, that ripple is now a wave, and that wave will be a flood, and that flood is coming.
END CAPTIONS:
Maarten Stapper now supports himself by giving talks to farmers and rural groups.
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/stapper/default.htm
Problems
The long recommended use of fertilisers, pesticides and other synthetic chemicals to address problems in agricultural production has been leading to poor soil health and resistance in insects, diseases and weeds. More soluble nitrogen fertiliser makes plants more susceptible to diseases and insects, and increases weed problem. As renowned holistic scientist Dr William Albrecht said “insects and diseases are the symptoms of a failing crop not the cause of it”. The petrochemical solution is not working – all such production systems in the world are on a treadmill, needing more and more chemicals and fertilisers to keep yields up as natural soil processes are increasingly weakened in their role of supporting plant growth. This makes soils and plants dependent on these inputs. Such production systems are not sustainable and we currently harvest the outcomes of the gross oversimplification of fertilisation and ‘plant protection’ practices.
Agricultural systems have become addicted to the soluble acidic-based NPK fertilisers and this addiction, supported with the then required pesticides and herbicides, leads to soil degradation; thus keeping producers on the ‘production treadmill’ with ‘more on’ farming. The humic substances which are pivotal in soil fertility and plant nutrition have gradually been destroyed (Pettit 2006). Humus is the bond between living and non-living parts in soil and is part of the soil organic carbon that has severely declined since cultivation started. Curing any addiction is a slow process, requiring understanding, patience and commitment. This, however, has not yet been accepted by a science world which seems driven by commercial interests. Those in organic-biological farming remain the exception.
The problems arising from the petrochemical approach were first exemplified in Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' (1962), which exposed the effects of indiscriminate use of pesticides, and eventually resulted in the banning of DDT. Nevertheless, in spite of this warning, industrial manufacturing and widespread agricultural use of chemicals continue to affect our environment. Consequently, many registered chemicals have since been taken off the market when negatives of long-term use became apparent. Consumers concerned about effects of chemicals on food quality and health will increasingly demand food free of chemical residues. Science is becoming aware that one part per million or even one per billion could be one part too much for many.
To improve soils, farming methods in annual cropping are changing from intensive cultivation to minimum tillage and no-till systems as being environmentally better and with good returns. Such ‘sustainable’ systems, however, are empirical as they are developed without a full understanding of long term outcomes. Impact of associated intensive chemical use is the unknown factor. It is the combined and repeated impact of chemical use that affects the system – factors not tested in product registration process or long-term field research. Negative soil-related developments in these ‘new’ systems have already been identified in Queensland (Bell 2005). Brown (2004) formulated these phenomena as “For every action on a complex, interactive, dynamic system, there are unintended and unexpected consequences. In general, the unintended consequences are recognised later than those that are intended”.
Current practices continue with the use of harsh chemicals and ignore the delicate balance of humus, microbes, trace minerals and nutrients in the soil. Such management has resulted in marked losses in soil organic carbon (including humus) and greatly reduced diversity and abundance of microbes (algae, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa) and larger organisms (e.g. mites, ants, beetles, worms) in the soil foodweb (see e.g. Ingham 2006). This exposes roots to harsh conditions, greatly diminishing the capacity of the soil to feed plants, as well as making roots more sensitive to saline and acid condition and the whole plant susceptible to pests and diseases, and requiring plants to be spoon-fed with fertilisers and protected by chemicals (Anderson 2000). Disruption of soil biological and chemical processes usually leads to physical problems, such as reduced infiltration, compaction and erosion. As a result, conventional farming is now searching for answers to increasing soil organic matter and microbial biomass (Bell 2005, Fisher 2005, Kirkby et al. 2006).
Ecosystem
A sustainable farming system is a complex ecosystem with non-linear dynamics that can exist in alternate stable states, each state having it’s own threshold for change from one state to another. When a critical threshold is breached, recovery to a sustainable system will become difficult or impossible. For unstable farming systems to again become sustainable, we have to understand ecosystems before we can take the right remedial steps.
Sustainable ecosystems are resilient, having the capacity to absorb disturbance and re-organise over a wide range of conditions before ever reaching a critical threshold. They are characterized by many interactive components within and between scales. Adaptability and transformability are two other characteristics of how ecosystems respond to change. Adaptability is the capacity of ‘actors’ in the system to manage system resilience, while transformability is the capacity to become a fundamentally different system when the existing system becomes unsustainable (Resilience Alliance 2006).
The underlying strategies for moving towards sustainable farming systems are conservation of soil, water and energy resources to maximise food production. This goes back to the functioning of ecosystems, the dynamics of interactions between a community and its non-living environment. Agroecology is an approach in agricultural development which draws on modern ecological knowledge and methods. It is defined as the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems (Gliessman, 2000).
Understanding the functioning of ecosystems requires a ‘big picture’ holistic approach. The knowledge of different groups in the living world and how they interact with other groups is here more important than in-depth knowledge of individual species. Studying the latter, however, and single issues in general, seems to be more popular and advanced. Unfortunately, we can’t understand a system by combining available knowledge of component single issues. That is, the holistic ‘whole’ is not the sum of reductionist ‘detail’. This also needs to be recognised in simulation modelling of systems.
Symbiosis – the balanced, mutual interdependence of different species – is a protective mechanism in nature, which develops in response to compatible needs. Self-organisation keeps natural biological systems in balance. Interactions between organisms are powerful evolutionary forces. Increased complexity and diversity of species and interactions within the soil foodweb promote balance and higher plant productivity. The whole should be considered as an integrated system being resistant and resilient to change through an abundant diversity of organisms.
Plants depend on beneficial soil organisms to protect them from pathogens, to help them obtain nutrients from the soil, and to break down toxic compounds that could inhibit growth. Soil organisms create a living, dynamic system that needs to be understood and managed properly for best plant growth. If the balance of micro-organisms is wrong, fertilisers and pesticides can’t help recover plant vigour. Understanding soil health requires knowing which organisms occur, which ones are working, how many are present and whether they are the right kinds for the desired plants (Ingham 2006).
Soil health thus requires improvement of biodiversity in paddocks and catchments to enhance natural predation in a functional soil foodweb (FAO 2006). This can be achieved by doubling soil organic carbon (the foundation for a living soil), minimising use of chemicals, and the establishment of shelterbelts for improvement of soil surface microclimate and provision of a ‘home’ for an important part of the soil foodweb. Paddock soil then becomes resistant to change and, being resilient, is able to recover from disturbances caused by extremes in weather or management. Such soils will remain more productive with climate change as living soil organisms can adapt. It will also help slow climate change by sequestering carbon (Leu 2006a, Carbon Coalition 2006).
Further ecosystems improvement may be achieved by managing natural energies with permaculture (PRI 2006), Yeomans’ Keyline Designs (Yeomans 2006) or Natural Sequence Farming (NSF 2006) to fit paddocks into a sustainable landscape. Natural Sequence Farming is a rural landscape management technique aimed at restoring natural water cycles that allow the land to flourish and be less sensitive to drought conditions (Newell 2006). This goes back to the natural balance of water cycles as pioneered by Peter Andrews in conjunction with biological farming principles (Andrews 2006, NSF 2006).
Another strategy in the move towards sustainability and ecosystem protection is reducing the vulnerability of farming to the economic impact of diminishing oil availability (Peak Oil 2006) by decreasing its reliance on petrochemical products.
Science
Current specialisation in agricultural science has resulted in research within very narrow boundaries. This has induced linear, mechanistic thinking, which doesn’t allow room for synergies, and results in confusion between cause and effect. Soils, for example, have become partitioned into separate isolated fields of chemistry, physics and biology, with further specialisation within each. Unfortunately, soil degradation and the issue of how to restore healthy soils cannot be solved with many individual research projects conducted by various specialists. It needs a big-picture approach. In nature everything is linked with everything else. These circular, web-of-life phenomena have to guide our applied field research.
Much current ‘sustainability’ research is fiddling at the margins of entrenched methods, working on symptoms rather than the primary cause of problems – as evidenced by appearance of new problems after implementing ‘solutions. It is not simply a matter of doing better what we do. ‘Best practice’ locks us in status quo which is still not good enough!
If agricultural research is to deliver anything approaching sustainability, therefore, we need to change the science paradigm (Jackson 1985). Or as Dr Albert Einstein said: “No problem will be solved with the same level of thinking that created it in the first place”. Over generations research has become increasingly “reductionist”, that is, reducing and outlining systematically the area of interest to be studied and the disciplines to be used. While this approach of fragmentation has delivered a lot of knowledge about the workings of particular crops, pastures, livestock, insect pests, chemicals, etc, focussing too intensely on closed systems with narrow boundaries – on single, isolated components of the bigger “real-world” system – means we are blind to larger cycles and patterns within which component parts exist (Stapper 2002). In this way, the biological sciences themselves fragment our understanding by creating false divisions that break the cycle of life.
New problems keep emerging as each of them are dealt with as single issues, resulting in partial solutions that don’t necessarily solve the problem, for example, acidity (with lime) and salinity (with lowering ground water). Partial solutions tend to equate a single solution with the cause of the problem but lime and ground water, for example, are not always directly related with acidity (Anderson 2000) and dryland salinity (Jones 2001, 2006), respectively. Soil management related causes for dryland salinity have been derived from practical experiences in, for example, New South Wales (Wagner 2005), Victoria (Nathan 1999) and Western Australia (Paulin 2002).
Experimental results dealing with isolated individual components are thus difficult to apply to paddocks, which are complex systems in time and space. What does an ‘average’ mean in a paddock? Other management factors are likely to be working against the application of individual research results, thereby inhibiting change. Hence, problems continue to emerge in agricultural production systems. Science is now proposing genetic engineering as ‘the’ solution for many of these problems – risking yet another oversimplification in our fragmented agricultural science (Stapper 2002), a ‘techno-fix’ with more band-aids over the real cause of our problems – degrading soils.
The standard multi-factorial research methodology seems ill-suited to studying complex biological systems where everything is linked with everything else. To obtain functional outcomes, no factors may be considered ‘constant’ in trials while varying a few ‘important’ factors to quantify their impact. Also the boundary conditions of research objects chosen by specialists (e.g. pots and small plots in a growth chamber, green house or research station) are often not appropriately representative of real ecosystems (especially microclimate) and generate results not transferable to the farming-system level. Comparative analysis is needed on a commercial production scale. Questions arising from such studies then need answers through reductionist science.
New methodologies and directions of research are required in the search for resilience, to achieve reproducible and predictable outcomes in farming systems across agroecological zones. Such research needs to be planned, executed and analysed by a transdisciplinary team working across ecosystems at representative scales, that is, in agroecology (Gliessman 2000, Altieri 2006). This is to allow observation and measurement of expressions of the multitude of interacting components within and between different scales of the farming system. Plant health (Anderson 2000) and animal health (Voison 1958), for example, are dependent on availability in the right balance of minerals, but this is still regarded as ‘alternative’ thinking.
To reach sustainability in agriculture we have to look at the whole system and develop holistic tools within agricultural science that bring together, from across disciplines, the knowledge obtained through analytic reductionism, without getting lost in small component details of ‘what single factor? – the how? and why?’ Such tools are unlikely to be quantitative, hard systems, as dynamic interactions by soil organisms are too complex and too affected by small spatial and temporal changes in management and climate. Therefore, a soft systems approach is required, synthesising knowledge into management guidelines for sustainable land use combined with careful monitoring of status.
Australia’s public R&D in this direction is minimal, and seems to be one of the lowest of OECD countries as was evident at the recent International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Congress in Adelaide (ISOFAR 2005). Nevertheless, we must search for productive agricultural systems with reduced usage of petrochemicals and energy, and not rely on ‘Techno-Fantasy’ to help us out. As we face a future without cheap oil, science must play a role in dealing with the profound socioeconomic change now gathering momentum around us (Heij 2006).
Management
As managers using the soils, what do we look at, what do we (want to) see? After decades of regular use of single-super phosphate some farmers and graziers stopped using it when they became aware of the detrimental impact it had on soils and trees, caused by the acidic nature of the fertiliser; use of muriate of potash (potassium chloride) has similar impact and also needs to be avoided.
We can learn to use the power of nature rather than fighting it with synthetic chemicals and unproven new technologies in a war we can’t win. Organic Farming is surging and Biological Agriculture (Anderson 2000, Zimmer 2006) is emerging as a sophisticated farming system in transition between current and organic. Both benefit from reintroduction and enhancement of humic and soil biological activity, components already fundamental in Biodynamic Farming (ATTRA 2006). In contrast to the Organic standard, Biological farming allows for minimal use of the most microbe-friendly fertilisers and herbicides with humic additives and molasses or sugar to enhance effectiveness and reduce damage to microbes. This requires ever smaller quantities as the system is balancing and moving towards Organic, a process that occurs much more quickly when actively managed with biological inputs.
Management aims to balance chemistry, physics and biology in the soil aided by improved organic carbon content, appropriate mineral balance and a diverse and abundant soil life. Thus stabilising our fragile soils and creating a sponge that stores and makes available required plant foods and facilitates prolific root growth. Soil biology helps with building and maintaining soil structure to secure aeration and prevent compaction. A balanced biological soil will have the maximum levels of available minerals coinciding with maximum demand by plants.
The farming system is intended to enhance biological activity in soil and on foliage, enabling a balanced supply of required minerals for effective plant growth, providing energy to plants and grazing animals. Soils are actively re-mineralised, inoculated with soil microbes and supplied with food for microbes, all required in order to achieve and maintain an energetic balance.
Cover – With cropping and in orchards, the soil should be covered most of the time by green plants or at least stubble to protect from high temperature and water loss. A litter layer as cover will be a continuous source of carbon for soil organisms and also provide temperature insulation and water retention. Green manuring provides opportunities to convert rainfall into soil fertility.
Weeds – Weed growth is minimised with soil minerals being in balance and with lowest levels of freely available nitrogen. Mineral availability provides conditions that produce certain weeds, which can be used as an indicator of mineral deficiencies (Walters 1999). The weed spectrum changes immediately when soils are balanced using appropriate materials. For example, from stinging nettle domination (sign of calcium unavailability) one year to no nettles and some shepherd’s purse as the main weed the next. This is the ecological concept of succession, with different suites of species supported on the same area of land as soil conditions change over time (see e.g. Ingham 2006).
Insects and diseases – Biological farming is non-pesticidal management (NPM) and uses natural techniques to prevent insect and disease damage. This is a major step ahead of integrated pest management (IPM) which aims to minimise pesticide use to prevent or delay resistance. Preventative measures are important before and after sowing but start with a healthy soil where biological activity builds internal plant resistance to diseases and insects (Callaghan 1975, Anderson 2000, Ingham 2006). Depending on the risks and size of operation, the management options are crop sequence, inter-cropping, trap crops/weeds, seed and foliage inoculation, neem and other natural repellents. Plant sap sugar content can be used as a guideline for protective sprays (see ‘Tools’ below).
Variety choice – Most current varieties have been selected to produce well in high-input management systems and require such treatment to perform as expected. New varieties need to be developed under organic-biological conditions to optimise production with low input on healthy soils. The first step is to evaluate ‘old’ varieties that were selected before nitrogen availability became a priority for plants. A variety will improve with successive seasons if the seed is retained and used again as it keeps adjusting to local soil biology.
Rhizosphere – The rhizosphere is the area of intense biological and chemical activity close to the root inhabited by soil microbes feeding off exudates from the root, thus facilitating nutrient supply to the root and protecting it from pathogens. Fertiliser applied with the seed at sowing decreases root growth, root branching and the number of root hairs. Applying microbes, humic substances and food for microbes with the seed (ie inoculation) generally results in a vigorous seedling with many roots, a thick rhizosphere, prolific branching and many root hairs, without the need for conventional seed-dressing. Such annual plants when pulled out of the ground at flowering still show a vigorous rhizosphere. Microbes keep colonising the roots as they grow, thus providing a continuation of that good rhizosphere. It has been demonstrated that an active rhizosphere can be created in degraded, acid or saline soils, with that neutral zone around the root allowing vigorous plant growth. Such a ‘carbon pump’ into the soil will improve that soil and the increasingly active soil biology will segregate negative compounds. Carbon may thus help stop dryland salinity (Jones 2006).
Inputs – The most important inputs are foods for the soil microbes, with the most effective one being carbon exudates from roots of growing plants. Maximising the time of active plant growth is therefore most important. Rotational, cell, or planned grazing (large number, small area, short time), for example, facilitates root growth and delivers more carbon to the soil than set-stock grazing. Another example is pasture-cropping where winter crops are sown into summer-active perennial pasture (Bruce 2005, Jones 2006, Seis 2006).
Residual stubble and roots are also important sources of carbon. Stubble, however, needs to be broken down to be available for soil organisms. To facilitate this if breakdown is slow, a stubble digest, containing cellulose-digesting fungi and some urea to lower the C:N ratio, can be sprayed onto slashed, spread and rolled stubble with or without incorporation. Such management decisions depend on the amount and kind of stubble, paddock history and soil biological activity – i.e. whether or not such bugs are already present.
Carbon can be applied as molasses, sugar, humates or brown coal (in order of decreasing availability). Humic substances, such as humus, humate, humic acid, fulvic acid and humin, are important forms of carbon for plants, playing a vital role in soil fertility and plant nutrition. Plants grown on soils which contain adequate humin, humic acid and fulvic acid are healthier and less subject to stress, and the nutritional quality of harvested foods and feeds are said to be superior (Pettit 2006).
Soil microbes, food for microbes and minerals can be applied as required by spreading, down the tube, or as foliar or soil spray with possible micronised minerals. To provide an optimum start of plant growth through the creation of a vigorous rhizosphere, the standard practice is to inoculate seed with microbes. This can be done by tickling some 10 l/ha of microbe containing liquid on the seed at transfer from silo (needing less then 20 minutes to dry before sowing), or dripping a liquid containing microbes and minerals in the soil on the seed while sowing.
Microbes can be applied as compost tea (Ingham 2006) or as a commercial mix (e.g. the internationally well known ‘EM’ (Effective Microbes) or ‘4/20’). These mixes may contain free-living nitrogen fixers (e.g. Azotobacter), bacteria that establish in the litter layer and can provide 20 to 70 kg N per ha per year depending on moisture and carbon availability. Phosphorus solubilisers are another bacterial group that may be included to make available the P applied in the past and locked up in soil clays. The importance of Biodynamic preparations (e.g. 500, 501, Cow Pat Pit) and application (time and method) does not just rely on bacterial content, but also on their stimulation of the activity of other soil bacteria and fungi.
Other inputs can be organic in nature, such as seaweed, fish protein, guano, soft rock phosphate, lime and rock dust, or in biological farming, inorganic microbe-friendly fertilisers in small amounts, such as sulphate of ammonia, calcium nitrate or mono-ammonium phosphate (MAP). Lime is regularly applied (0.4 to 1 t per ha) for calcium to be available – a very important mineral requiring fungi for availability to roots (e.g. Ingham 2006).
Compost is an important and effective method for delivering carbon, organic compounds, minerals and microbes to the field as a readily available organic fertiliser. The best compost contains up to 90% of the carbon in microbial biomass, that is, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes (Ingham 2006). Compost tea can be extracted from good compost and sprayed in orchards and on broadacre crops and pasture. Vermicomposting is the process by which worms are used to convert organic materials into a highly effective humus-like material known as ‘vermicast’ and its effluent ‘vermiculture’.
Trials – It is good to do trials on your own property to find out how things work. It is best to leave test strips on the paddocks, including a nil strip to see what would have happened if you hadn’t done something. It is important to keep good records and markers in the field to be able to keep track of a treatment in one season and over subsequent years. Current yield monitors are providing grain growers with a good tool to quantify differences.
Monitoring – “you can’t manage what you don’t measure” – Monitoring of soil and plants is important to be able to see improvements when changing management, and to allow early detection of required management. It is important to monitor different paddocks and use these records to try to quantify different solutions to a problem. Monitoring is a great learning tool, especially when comparing a similar crop across different paddocks or on a given paddock over seasons. Keeping good records facilitates discussion with other landholders and advisors. For example, a Soil Health Card with recording instructions was developed by a Landcare group in the Northern Rivers region of NSW (NR 2006).
A home-made penetrometer (see tools) is the great tool to monitor progress in and between paddocks as an improving soil biology alleviates soil compaction, making soils more aerated and easier to penetrate by roots.
Pulling plants out of the soil is a test to help assess microbial activity. Naked roots usually mean a dense soil with little microbial activity. A thick soil layer stuck to roots (i.e. the rhizosphere) with prolific branching of the roots is an indication of a well aerated soil with active soil biology. Plants will have more solid stems, especially perennials like lucerne. Keep records of weeds as indicators of movements in soil mineral availabilities.
Smell the soils and discover the sweet smell of a healthy soil. Lab soil tests are the classic tool to get some chemistry numbers on what’s in the soil. However, it is important to also assess the biological availability of essential elements and their balance, as provided by special labs. Deficiencies are relative, as productivity can be adversely affected by excess. Soil minerals can work together or be antagonistic to each other. An excess of one will create a deficiency of another.
Tools – Descriptions of home-made equipment are given with the Soil Health Card (NR 2006). A wire quadrat is used for soil cover estimates or weed/plant population densities, a penetrometer (from fence wire) to monitor hardness of soil, and an infiltrometer tube to measure rate of water infiltration.
Plant sap will reflect improvement in mineral availability and sugar content, and can be monitored in the field with a refractometer giving a brix reading, which needs to be above a crop-specific minimum to keep insects and diseases away (Anderson 2000). Increasing fussiness of the measurement line indicates increased presence of minerals (e.g. Calcium).
A pH-meter can provide you with information as to whether plant sap is at the healthy neutral level, meaning the soil is in balance energetically. In Biological Agriculture a pH-meter should also be used to make sure any herbicides are applied with a pH as low as 4, and with fulvic acid as additive, to greatly increase effectiveness.
Outcomes
Farms that have achieved healthy soils look and smell good, with dung beetles present in pastures and no slugs or snails in crops. Plants growing on such farms have less disease and insect damage, less frost damage (high sugar content or ‘brix’ in plant sap), have great root systems, and taste better. For example, canola and lucerne having no to minimal insect damage without pesticides after commencement of biological farming. Animals show the most extraordinary health (e.g. lack of foot rot, bloat, pink eye, mastitis), fertility (e.g. +25% lambing), and longevity. They need less fodder and graze for shorter periods compared with available conventional feed systems. Think of what could happen to humans if we ate such food!
Biological farming can reduce fertiliser use by up to 50% and eliminate fungicides and insecticides within three years of commencing. Such personal statements about achieved outcomes are available in company newsletters and articles in rural magazines but independent quantification is rare (Stapper 2004). Most methods haven’t been proven scientifically, failures are experienced if methods or conditions are not right, and are therefore rubbished by many.
Improved soil biological activity becomes visible through the presence of earthworms and many ‘creepy crawlers’. Common soil problems have been alleviated such as acidity, salinity, compaction, water logging and wind erosion (no dust behind sheep). Water-holding capacity has been improved, which shows, for example, on irrigated farms through a 2-3 day extension between irrigations. The retention of water also seems greatly improved as topsoil remains moist longer. Improved soil organic carbon manifests itself through many factors, but the overall benefit can be great. For example, one study in NSW quantified the value of soil organic carbon as $116 per one percent increase, resulting from better water holding capacity and nitrogen availability (Ringrose-Voase et al. 1997).
As in current systems, not all inputs are always effective. Success in biological systems depends on many factors working together. Soil organic carbon formation from roots and stubble, for example, requires not only the presence of microbes but also availability of important nutrients as the C:N:P:S ratio of organic carbon is similar across the world (Kirkby et al. 2006). Something can fail if a catalyst is missing. Nevertheless, when everything connects, we can get responses beyond expectation as synergies (‘1+1=3’) start to occur. We are, however, on the right track. An organic farmer from the UK, a Nuffield Scholar having visited the USA regularly, stated in February 2006: “I have seen some truly exceptional farmers who are light years ahead of anything I saw in America, particularly where it really counts, in the practical application and making it work on farm.”
Lal (2006) found that enhancing soil quality and agronomic productivity per unit area through improvement in the soil organic carbon pool will increase food production in developing countries, with numerous ancillary benefits. Adoption of recommended management practices on agricultural lands and degraded soils would improve soil quality including water holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, soil aggregation, and susceptibility to crusting and erosion.
Many have studied the impacts of farming methods on environment and food production. For example, studies have shown reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced denitrifier activity and efficiency in organically fertilised soils (Kramer et al. 2006). Impacts of herbicides on rhizobium survival and recovery with reductions of up to 60% in nitrogen fixation have been reported by Drew et al. (2006). Organic agriculture often is a proven good producer of food with yields comparable to those of conventional agriculture both in poor (Parrott and Marsden 2002) and rich (Maeder et al. 2002) countries. Gala (2005) and Leu (2006b) provide detailed accounts of studies from many countries.
With acquired knowledge, NPM is becoming successful in poor and rich countries in a move away from petrochemicals. India, for example, with three-quarters of farmers on less than 1.4 ha, is increasingly going back to traditional knowledge, which, combined with current knowledge and logistics, is leading to productive, profitable systems (Rupela et al. 2006, CSA 2006)
Organic technologies have been developed over about 6000 years to feed mankind while conserving soil, water, energy and biological resources. We are now able to increase yields for these low-input systems by using our breeding knowledge and methods to select higher yielding varieties adapted to local conditions (e.g. to improve harvest index). Among the benefits of organic technologies are higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil fuel energy inputs, yields similar to those of conventional systems, and conservation of soil moisture and water resources – the latter being especially advantageous under drought conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005).
Cuba is the first country to develop agroecological systems nationwide – as a result of the disintegration and collapse of the Socialist Bloc and tightening of the US trade embargo which prevented access to petrochemicals. Cuba successfully turned to self-reliance, organic farming, animal traction, biofertilisers and biological pest-control, while retaining agricultural productivity – a remarkable paradigm shift (Funes et al. 2002).
The road to sustainability
While ‘sustainable agriculture’ has been defined in many ways, it is fundamentally a process of social learning, not led by a science that overemphasises production and neglects maintenance functions within agroecosystems. Hill (1998) sees this blind spot as one of a number of indicators of our undeveloped and distressed psychosocial state. Habits, perception and assumptions determine what we see and want to see, and correlation is not cause. This realisation is another aspect of the change that will be required in our paradigm – the way we learned to see the world.
How do we find the road to a sustainable agriculture producing healthy food in a healthy landscape? How do we turn our ‘Clean and Green’ image into reality? Minerals and microbes are the key, in both soil and human health. Over the past 60 years, mineral density of foods has declined to less than half of former levels (Bergner 1997, McCance and Widdowson 2000). We need to increase it again through improved production systems, and keep it available with proper food processing, so that good nutrition returns to the way our foods are grown, processed and prepared. Real medicine must start with the patient’s diet and, ultimately, the nutrition on the farm (Anderson 2000, 2004). Worthington (2001) and the Soil Association (2002) found genuine differences in nutrient content of organic and conventional crops – improvements which could be even greater if all organic crops are actively managed with microbes and minerals. Farmers and graziers need to be paid for such quality.
Active management of the soil foodweb, remineralisation, and substantial increase of soil organic carbon are essential to reaching ecologically sustainable production systems and a (less-un)sustainable agriculture. Such a system produces healthy food with good taste and structure (i.e. availability calcium and silica), and extended shelf-life.
Trees are important as shelterbelts in a dry, wind-swept continent. There are examples in many districts where farmers have converted a proportion (say 10%) of their property to trees and wetlands (often from say 0.5%), resulting in improved productivity through improved water use efficiency and decreased sensitivity to droughts. This will especially be the case when appropriately combined with Natural Sequence Farming which rehydrates the landscape and makes soils healthy when following Peter Andrews’ principles that include biological farming (Andrews 2006). Healthy, living soils will be able to adapt to a changing climate.
Organic-biological farming methods seem promising on a landscape and catchment scale, as they result, through minimizing the use of synthetic chemicals, in farming systems that stimulate biodiversity, stabilise the soil, and balance the hydrology, thereby reducing off-farm impacts. It is important to mix and match such systems with landscape changing initiatives such as permaculture (PRI 2006), Keyline Design (Yeomans 2006) and Natural Sequence Farming (Andrews 2006, Newell 2006, NSF 2006) – thus increasing the knowledge intensity in farming.
In most districts today, there are properties applying sustainable practices as outlined above. These practices have been achieved with persistence by the manager – through trial and error, under financial pressure, and on fragile soils in our highly variable climate. It is now the task of science, using participatory research, to connect up these ‘dots’ in the landscape using appropriate concepts and principles. A typical agricultural manager is both time poor and cash poor – thereby, of necessity, readily following advise from (trusted) outsiders. Action research is needed to develop indicators that conceptualise farmer knowledge of natural resource management. This, in turn, will feed the required information-exchange networks, allowing knowledge to be transferred in time and space to achieve and maintain soil health, optimise production and minimise risk to achieving profitable farms in sustainable rural communities.
References (NB. All internet references are to their July 2006 content)
Altieri, M. A. 2006. Agroecology: principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming systems. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/principles_and_strategies.html
Anderson, A. B. 2000. Science in Agriculture. ACRES, Austin.
Anderson, A. B. 2004.Part III – Health & The Holistic View, Soil-Crop-Food-Human Health Connection. In: Real Medicine, Real Health. Holographic Health Press, Waynesville, N.C.
Andrews, P. 2006. Back from the Brink. How Australia’s landscape can be saved. ABC Books.
ATTRA 2006. Biodynamic Farming & Compost Making. http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/biodynamic.html
Bell, M.J. 2005. Chemical fertility and soil health in northern systems. GRDC Ground Cover, issue 56 http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/gc/gc56/supplement/chemfert.htm
Bergner, P. 1997. The Healing Power of Minerals. Prima Publishing.
Brown, A.D. 2004. Feed or Feedback. International Books, Utrecht.
Bruce, S. 2005. Pasture cropping, benefits revealed. Australian Farm Journal, September 2005.
Callaghan, P.S. 1975. Tuning in to Nature.ACRES, Austin.
Carbon Coalition 2006. The Soil Carbon Manisfesto. http://www.carboncoalition.com.au/#carbon_forums
CSA 2006. Down to Earth, May 2006. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture: http://www.csa-india.org/downloads/NPM/down%20to%20earth%20npm.pdf
Drew, E., Gupta, V. and Roget, D. 2006. Identifying herbicide impacts on nitrogen fixation of legumes. GRDC Updates. http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/south/s06/drew.htm
FAO 2006. Soil Biodiversity Portal. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/soilbiod/index_en.stm
Fisher, P. 2005. Using organic matter to maintain the productivity of soils under intensive cropping. GRDC Updates. http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i05/fisher.htm
Funes, F., Garcia, L., Bourque, M., Perez, N. and Rosset, P. 2002. Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance. Transforming food production in Cuba. Food First Books, Oakland.
Gala, R. 2005. Sustainable World Coming. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SustainableWorldComing.php
Gliessman, R. 2000. Agroecology, Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Heij, E. 2006. Making us “Future-Proof” – The Evolving Role in Horticulture. In: CSIRO Sustainability Network, No.57, 4-9. http://intranet.csiro.au/intranet/multi/sustnet/newsletters/NetwkL57.pdf
Hill, S.B. 1998. Redesigning agroecosystems for environmental sustainability: a deep systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science issue. Syst.Res., 15, 391-402.
Ingham, E.R. 2000. Soil Biology Primer. Soil and Water Conservation Society. alewand@soils.umn.edu
Ingham, E.R. 2006. Understanding the Soil Foodweb. – first of twelve sub-points. http://www.soilfoodweb.com.au/index.php?pageid=274
ISOFAR 2005. Researching Sustainable Systems. First scientific Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research (ISOFAR). Adelaide, September 2005. info@isofar.org
Jackson, W. 1985. New Roots for Agriculture. The Failure of Success. UNI Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Jones, C.E. 2001. The great salinity debate: parts I, II & III. Australian Farm Journal. Oct. 2000-May 2001.
Jones, C.E. 2006. Carbon stops salt. Australian Farm Journal, May 2006. http://carbonandsalt.blogspot.com/
Kirkby, C., Fattore, A., Smith, D. and Meyer, M. 2006. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated maize. Stubble treatments and plant/soil responses. In: Proc. 6th Triennial Conf. of Maize Association of Australia. Griffith, NSW. February 2006.
Kramer, S.B., Reganold, J.P., Glover, J.D., Bohannan, B.J.M. and Mooney, H.A. 2006. Reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced denitrifier activity and efficiency in organically fertilized soils. Proc. National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Vol.103, 4522-4527.
Lal, R. 2006. Enhancing crop yields in developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation & Development, 17, 197-209.
Leu, A.F. 2006a. Organics’ gift to the environment and climate change. In: Proceedings 3rd OFA National Organic Conference, July 2006, Sydney. pp.4-12.
Leu, A.F. 2006b. Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World. http://www.ofa.org.au/papers/Organic%20Agriculture%20Can%20Feed%20the%20WorldOFA.htm
Maeder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. and Niggli, U. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science 296, 1694-1697.
McCance, R.A. and Widdowson, E.M. 2000. A study on the mineral depletion of the foods available to use as a nation over the period 1940 to 1991. Summary of 1st to 5th Edition “The Chemical Composition of Foods”, RSC/MAFF.
Nathan, E. 1999. Dryland salinity on the Dundas Tableland: a historical appraisal. Aust.Geographer, Vol.30, 295-310.
Newell, P. 2006. NSF – Principles & Applications. http://www.nsfarming.com/Principles/principles2.html
NR 2006. Northern Rivers Soil Health Card, A soil management tool developed by farmers for farmers. http://www.lis.net.au/~tuckland/
NSF 2006. Natural Sequence Farming. http://www.nsfarming.com/index.html
Parrott, N. and Marsden, T. 2002. The Real Green Revolution: Organic and Agroecological Farming in the South, Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London pp 147
Paulin, S. 2002. Why Salt? Harry Whittington and WISALTS: Community Science in Action. Indian Ocean Books, Joondalup WA.
Peak Oil 2006. http://www.ASPO-Australia.org.au
Pettit, R.E. 2006. The Wonderful World of Humus and Carbon. http://humusandcarbon.blogspot.com/
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D. and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55, 573-582.
PRI 2006. Permaculture Research Institute. http://www.permaculture.org.au/index.php
Resilience Alliance 2006. Key Concepts. http://www.resalliance.org/564.php
Ringrose-Voase, A.J., Geeves, G.W., Merry, R.H. and Wood, J.T. 1997. Adjusting valuations of agricultural land using indicators of soil degradation: Some results from the Wagga Wagga region. In: Proc. Ecological Economics Conference. Melbourne, November 1997. pp 259-268.
Rupela, O.P., Gowda, C.L.L., Wani, S.P. and Hameeda Bee 2006. Evaluation of crop production systems based on locally available biological inputs. In: Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems (N. Uphoff et al. eds.) pp. 501-515. CRC Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida.
Seis, C. 2006. Pasture-cropping: a land management technique. In: Proceedings 3rd OFA National Organic Conference, July 2006, Sydney. pp.59-61. http://www.winona.net.au
Soil Association 2002. Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health – A review of the evidence. Soil Association, Bristol. 87 pp.
Stapper, M. 2002. Complex systems science in food production. In: CSIRO Sustainability Network, No.15, 10-13.
Stapper, M. 2004. Improve your soils: healthy soils – healthy plants. GRDC Updates. http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/hirain/h04/stapper2.htm
Voisin, A. 1958. Soil, Grass and Cancer. The link between human and animal health and the mineral balance in the soil. ACRES, Austin.
Wagner, R. 2005. If the salt loses its savor…? Farm Policy Journal, Vol. 2, No.4, 7-16.
Walters, C. 1999. Weeds: Control without Poisons. ACRES, Austin.
Worthington, V. 2001. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables and grains. J. Altern. Complement Med. 7, 161-173.
Yeomans, K. 2006. Keyline Designs. http://www.keyline.com.au/
Zimmer, G.F. 2006. Biological Agriculture. http://www.midwesternbioag.com/homepage.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
