TCLocal

by Krys Cail and Tony Nekut

This article continues the discussion of heating with local biomass begun in our October feature, “Burning Transitions” (http://tclocal.org/2009/10/burning_transitions.html). There it was noted that the best application for local biomass energy is combustion for space heating, possibly coupled with distributed CHP (combined heat and power) electricity generation, and that these technologies are, for the most part, already developed and available in the form of high-efficiency gasifying boilers and pellet stoves.

Work is required along the entire supply chain (growing, harvesting, processing, distribution, and utilization) if local biomass energy is going play a significant role in Tompkins County’s energy future. The traditional economic stakeholders are a diverse group of mutually dependent players (landowners, loggers, foresters, farmers, manufacturers, fuel retailers, and consumers), each requiring commitment from the others to make the system work. Leadership and planning are essential to moving beyond gridlock by demonstrating how, through cooperation, everyone along the chain stands to benefit. Fortunately, there are a variety of case histories and other resources that have been developed in recent decades that render this demonstration somewhat easier.

Barring unforeseen breakthroughs in energy technology, it seems clear that this resource will indeed be developed. Local biomass is already cost competitive with fossil fuels for space heating, and its economic viability will only improve as fossil fuel prices continue to rise. The time has therefore arrived to begin development, because time will be required build the needed infrastructure.

The scale of the local biomass development challenge

Every form of biomass yields about 16 million BTUs per dry ton when burned. Sustainable annual biomass productivity ranges from about 0.5 dry tons per acre for our local forests to 5 dry tons per acre for some locally suited energy crops. These productivities represent conversion efficiencies from solar radiant energy to stored chemical energy of about 0.1 to 1 percent. If half of Tompkins County’s 300,000 acre land area were committed to growing biomass, the annual per capita energy production would range from about 12 to 120 million BTUs. (See the discussion of County land cover in the October “Burning Transitions” article.) By comparison, current (2007) statewide annual per capita primary energy consumption is 219 million BTUs. In other words, the amount of biomass energy we could get from our land even in relatively rural Tompkins County would yield nowhere near our total energy needs.

Meeting our heating needs is another matter. Each household in the County uses about 100 million BTUs annually for water and space heating; this is about 43 million BTUs annually per capita — approaching the range of sustainable large-scale local production. Adding the wholesale implementation of residential energy efficiency measures would bring total heating energy self-sufficiency within reach. Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning and Public Works, has been quoted as estimating that biomass could heat up to 40 percent of the homes in the county, or even more if homes were super-insulated.

The biomass heating gap

Local biomass energy for heating has enormous potential benefits. It creates jobs, keeps money local, provides energy security, reduces CO₂ emissions (locally burned biomass is virtually carbon-neutral), increases carbon sequestration, slows fossil fuel depletion, improves forest and soil health, maintains rural land values, reduces development pressures, creates community ties, and raises community environmental awareness. But fewer than 5 percent of County homes are listed in census data as heated primarily with biomass (cordwood and pellets). For 2008, the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates the percentages shown in the following diagram for heating the 37,749 occupied housing units of Tompkins County.

The apparent lack of interest in heating with wood shown by the 4.5 percent figure is partly an artifact of the way the data is gathered and partly due to active discouragement of wood heat by mortgage lenders and insurance companies.

Wood heat appliances do not enjoy wide acceptance by those who underwrite mortgages and insure homes. Due to the perceived risk of fire, many underwriters of homeowners insurance will not insure properties with wood stoves. (Pellet stoves, which are less likely to cause chimney fires, are a bit more acceptable.) In particular, homes that include rental units — even if the home is also owner-occupied — are very difficult to insure if there is wood-burning equipment in use for heating and the insurer is aware of that fact.

Of course, homeowners insurance is a requirement for any house that has a mortgage. But it is not just the reticence of homeowners insurance underwriters to insure homes with woodstoves that limits use of this technology; there is also a problem associated with wood heat when the lender packages the mortgage for resale on the secondary mortgage market. Despite the worldwide use of this simple technology, burning wood to heat a dwelling is perceived as too risky. Where woodstoves are a secondary, rather than primary, source of heat, this is overlooked. But a home that relies predominantly on wood for its heating source is a home whose purchase will be difficult to finance.

Gaining a more accurate estimate of local trends

This situation — which makes it plausible to add wood heat as a secondary heat source, but difficult to rely on it as a primary heat source — helps explain why the census figures for wood heat seem so low. This is a problem even in the decennial direct counts.

The between-decades estimates suffer from an additional problem: there’s no mechanism for reporting a local trend. Households demographically similar to the various household types in Tompkins County are surveyed at various locations around the country, and the composite picture of their changes is applied to local households with similar characteristics. For instance, if upper-income professional couples with two or fewer children in the home were, for the most part, heating with natural gas across the US, there would be no mechanism for the American Community Survey to read a recent upswing in purchases of woodstoves and pellet stoves among local college and university faculty.

To get a better idea of what’s really happening locally, we had to ask around. The results, while anecdotal, point to just such a trend.

The sales managers of both local woodstove/pellet stove retail outlets indicated that business has been steadily increasing throughout the decade, with particularly noticeable upswings in wood heat appliance purchases when other forms of fuel — particularly fuel oil — experienced price run-ups or price volatility. Both described their typical customers as college professors or other professionals interested in saving money and in helping to conserve non-renewable resources. While families living in more rural and suburban locations were the norm for local wood heat users at the beginning of the decade, the increasing popularity of pellet stoves has resulted in more urban families buying wood heating appliances.

A construction manager at Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, which administers a group of NYSERDA programs aimed at green energy for heating, concurred that more urban residents are choosing pellet stoves, and that the help available from NYSERDA resulted in more low- and moderate-income families being able to access affordable financing to add wood heat to their homes.

Another indication of the rising local popularity of wood heat of various sorts is the brisk business that fuel purveyors are doing in cordwood and pellets. The owner-operator of Finger Lakes Firewood, the largest local cordwood dealer, has purchased additional automated equipment to better clean and move his cordwood as his customer base has continued to expand. Ithaca Agway has been using its display sign to advertise pellets, and the Home Depot devoted as much space at the front door to sale-price wood pellets as to the snow blowers.

Industrial uses of wood heat

Wood heat is beginning to appear in local industrial operations, too. For example, US Salt in Watkins Glen is in the process of converting the heating of its large facility on Seneca Lake to biomass.

According to Len Boughton, an engineer with the firm who has been responsible for overseeing the construction and retrofitting, the system, after two years of work, is now in place and operational, but the switch to wood-based fuel will wait till March to allow troubleshooting during a season of less extreme heating demand.

Plant Manager Frank Pastore said that US Salt has contracted with TreeSource Solutions (http://treesourcesolutions.com/) to avoid the management burden of dealing with multiple suppliers. TreeSource is a wholly owned subsidiary of Catalyst Renewables (http://www.catalystrc.com/). Pastore said that he expected the bulk of the fuel to come from local sources, through the Wood Yard that TreeSource has established nearby in Burdett, but that he trusted the contractor to source wood fuel as appropriate in order to maintain a stable and affordable price.

Buying and selling biomass in Burdett

The Wood Yard at the old railroad depot in the Village of Burdett was, in its last incarnation, a steel recycling facility, and many of the buildings are simply being reused “as is” the old depot itself is used as a scalehouse for weighing trucks. The facility includes a large, rambling lot with a gated entrance from State Route 79. The Yard was not officially open the day of our visit, but it’s clear that the facility is used in a number of synergistic ways in addition to providing a means to weigh and store wood intended for use as biomass fuel.

Entrance to the Burdett Wood Yard

A recently constructed pole barn houses a portable bandsaw mill, and some rough-milled lumber showed that the facility is in active use. A large pile of logs awaiting conversion to woodchips was evidence of the yard’s role as a source of fuel, though there was no tub grinder on site. A tub grinder, which can cost up to a million dollars, is typically portable over the road system and will presumably be brought onto the site to process the logs as needed.

Portable bandsaw mill at the Burdett Wood Yard

Arrangements for dropping off wood and arranging payment are made directly with TreeSource Solutions’s buyer, Jack Santamour, who spends most of his time at TreeSource’s facility in the Adirondacks and manages the Burdett yard via telephone with the help of some local employees. TreeSource is currently buying logs by the ton every Friday or by appointment.

Wood awaiting processing by TreeSource Solutions

A cooperative model of biomass production in Danby

One key to sustainable local wood heat in Tompkins County is the creation of a system whereby local landowners can convert otherwise unused or underutilized farm or pasture land to biomass production. The Danby Land Bank Cooperative (http://www.danbylandbank.com/) provides an organization and infrastructure that allows owners of 10 or more acres in the Town of Danby to use their fields and forests (much of it marginal for farming) for grass and wood pellet production.

Built on a classic cooperative model, the goal of the Land Bank is “to unify fragmented and non-farming rural landowners to form a large enough agricultural base to provide economies of scale.” Local members of the co-op lease their land to be harvested of perennial grasses as feedstocks for grass pellets or briquettes; the land is cleared for free, and the owners receive tax credits and, eventually, a share of the profits.

In operation barely a year, the DLBC has already gained 20 owner-members with more than 350 acres devoted to the project. Governance structures are in place, and plans are in the works to incorporate as a legal cooperative. The project, aided by consultation with the County Planning Department and close cooperation with Cornell Cooperative Extension, received major publicity in November with the appearance of a feature article in Rural Cooperatives, a publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/pubs/RuralCoop_NovDec09_Final.pdf).

First hay cutting of the Danby Land Bank Cooperative (photo courtesy of DLBC)

Establishment of a local pelletizing plant has been identified as a key to long-term sustainability and economic viability through reduction of transportation costs. The pellets, which are manufactured by grinding, drying, and extruding raw biomass into a dense, free-flowing fuel of consistent quality that can be efficiently used in inexpensive residential appliances, have a retail market value per dry ton well over twice that of the raw feedstocks. The value added more than covers manufacturing costs, so pelleting can provide an economically viable link between local biomass suppliers and the existing local pellet market.

The DBLC recently joined with Energy Independent Caroline to sponsor Town Hall meetings in Danby and Caroline regarding a company called Community Biomass Energy, which proposes to build a local biomass pelletizing mill on Boiceville Road in Caroline just south of State Route 79. (Disclosure: One of us (Nekut) is a principal in this effort.) See the DBLC’s newsletter (linked from their web site) for details and updates. The December 2009 issue is at http://www.danbylandbank.com/site/resources_files/DLBC_Newsletter_Dec_2009.pdf.

Unresolved issues

Local biomass harvesting and processing hold great promise for reestablishing the county's ability to provide for its own heating needs. However, several issues remain unresolved.

• We need to relocalize food production, too. While much of the land in the county that could produce biomass for heating is marginal for raising cultivated crops, a substantial percentage of that land could alternatively serve for rotational grazing of livestock, which is arguably a less-intensive, lower-input use of the same acreage. Thus the optimum allocation of land for biomass production vs. land for grazing or the production of winter hay remains an open question whose eventual resolution will depend on a number of variables that are difficult to predict.

• The increased use of biomass for heating will increase economic incentives to harvest wood resources beyond a level that's sustainable. The large-scale reversion of former Central New York farmland to successional forest over the last half century makes it easy to forget how quickly the forest can be cleared again. The establishment of sustainable forest management practices will be essential to the return of biomass heating as a long-range relocalization strategy.

• The rediscovery of biomass as a heat source has created a market for American wood chips as far away as Europe. Our region's potential as a major biomass producer also makes it susceptible to the kind of resource exploitation we associate with third-world countries. Heating our homes with local biomass won't succeed if higher prices cause local biomass to be exported rather than used locally.

The need for greater local control over the allocation of our local resources argues for the establishment of biomass harvesting and processing facilities under local management and provides further reason to hope for the success of initiatives such as the Danby Land Bank Cooperative and the proposed Community Biomass Energy facility in Caroline.

Online wood heating resources

Cornell Cooperative Extension has posted an excellent collection of links to articles on firewood resources and heating with wood on their statewide web site at

http://cce.cornell.edu/Environment/Pages/HeatingwithWood.aspx

Options for Re-evaluating Care Resources

By Bethany Schroeder

In Part One of this two-part series on healthcare resources in Tompkins County, I pointed out that today we have a variety of options and a well-developed infrastructure to meet the health needs of many local people. Noted exceptions include un- and underinsured residents, now estimated at 13,000. Some of these people are treated outside the County at regional medical centers and some receive care at the Ithaca Free Clinic (IFC). Many do without regular care at all, visiting a facility on an emergency basis only. As an unstable economy and reduced resources persist and worsen, more and more people will experience the exigencies of decline. In terms of health care, much can be done to mitigate the effects through evolved expectations and planning for the change. Recognizing health care as a right rather than a privilege goes some distance toward effective planning. Understanding that the illness or injury of anyone in our community is a hazard to all of us and one we should address by providing support also demonstrates our humanity and our solidarity.

Overcoming Barriers to Care

In the future, barriers to care will include transportation challenges, lack of available facilities, and alterations in care models.

Transportation to care

Whether one is a healthcare worker or resident in need of services, a chief barrier to care delivery in the future will be transportation. Because most large health resources such as Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) and the Convenient Care Center are located at the outer limits of the city of Ithaca, people presently rely on private cars, taxis, bicycles, or public vehicles, such as busses and Gadabout shuttles, to get to and from appointments. CMC also operates a Convenient Care Center located in the adjacent county of Cortland, where some residents of Tompkins County living nearer to Cortland than to Ithaca access care. Similarly, most of the residential facilities, including assisted living homes and skilled nursing facilities (SNF), have private shuttle services specifically for transporting residents to and from healthcare appointments. As clinic and office spaces are developed in Ithaca, more and more physicians are presently located at the periphery of the city's boundaries. Nonetheless, already established physicians and nurse practitioners in smaller offices, as well as the offices of many complementary and alternative providers, are located within the city and within some of the villages and towns, making it possible for residents who live nearby to walk to appointments. Both options of locale have pros and cons, and these will change over time.

An obvious way of managing challenges to transportation, both from the perspective of caregivers and people needing care, is to encourage healthcare workers to live near worksites and for residents to establish relationships with providers near their own homes or worksites. The present centralization of healthcare facilities makes this difficult to achieve, whereas planning for a future change now could make the concept more acceptable. Specific transportation options are outside the scope of this article and will be addressed by other TCLocal contributors. Nonetheless, an obvious consideration includes developing employment and social structures that routinely allow workers to seek care during work hours, especially important to workers in settings located near care settings. At the same time, healthcare providers could consider holding flexible hours, in order to facilitate access through available transportation options.

Another option for arranging transportation is to reverse the process, especially in clusters of dense dwellings. Teams of caregivers in any number of configurations could easily walk through neighborhoods delivering service—either in the form of direct care or education or both. Physicians have largely discontinued making house calls in the U.S., but visiting nurses still do travel to homes, and this practice may prove efficient in some circumstances and settings. For example, a team composed of a registered nurse, a dietician, and an herbalist could offer nutritional and medicinal education. A chiropractor, an acupuncturist, and a massage therapist could provide alternative pain management. If the teams worked together, they could help one another in the process of finding the right method of fulfilling the needs presented to them.

Tompkins County could also learn a lesson from the Cubans, who assign physicians, nurses, and others to live and work in specific neighborhoods, inspiring, according to reports, a deep commitment to the neighborhood and its residents. Care providers in the immediate vicinity of those needing care are naturally able to see and to know their prospective patients in a different way than when both reside apart.

If things get as bad as some of us think they might, another potential consideration is the option of taking care into the community, such as the former rural district nursing practice. At the beginning of the last century, nurses cared for patients in rural settings using horses to get to and from settlements. In many parts of the U.S., this would be an untenable scenario, whereas Tompkins County-indeed, the entire Finger Lakes region-already supports many horses, horse farms, and local routines that include horses in daily life. Under circumstances of energy descent, many more people may be occupied in agricultural pursuits, in which case we might expect more farming injuries and other agriculturally-related healthcare needs. Visiting nurses or even visiting physicians could well be a necessary part of daily life.

Care facilities

Part One of this series provided an overview of care facilities in Tompkins County. Apart from the Public Health offices, owned and operated by local government, most local facilities are privately owned. City and town planning boards review and approve the construction or re-fabrication of care facilities, and some degree of oversight of the development of facilities occurs through the work of the Health Planning Council and its advisory board. Projects that may rely on public money, such as Medicaid dollars used to house residents in assisted living homes or SNFs, are scrutinized for the need of services in a particular area. Nonetheless, there is no master plan based on realistic census projections and estimates of available resources necessary to ensure care for all residents.

In an era of adaptation, the leadership of Tompkins County can rethink the requirements of a care facility, as well as the number of facilities in any part of the county. If care can be delivered in less formalized and standardized settings, then almost any storefront or main floor of a house or other common building is adequate so long as it has bathrooms and a hand-washing sink in a common space, as well as space for reception and discharge activities, a waiting room, and a private room where primary providers can interview, examine, and treat people.

In Alexander's 1977 Pattern Language, the architect and writer advises: “Gradually develop a network of small health centers, perhaps one per community of 7000, across the city; each equipped to treat everyday disease.” Identifying small or modest buildings or parts of buildings with multi-use features, such as several doors for entrance and exit, ground floor access, and a variety of plumbing options, could help to realize the image of “a network of small health centers.”

Before the advent of cheap oil, providers living in neighborhoods delivered care in their homes, and the very sick or those who could not be transported received house calls from physicians and nurses. Hospital care was reserved for the gravely ill and was often an option of last resort, because families were loath to be separated from one another and hospital care was for many people prohibitively expensive. Organizing care within a matrix of walkable locations and within easy distance of one's home or work may even have the potential for making the idea of care less forbidding. Reserving the hospital for the most extensive and demanding care and, once energy descent is fully and inexorably underway, possibly reshaping the hospital for a variety of community roles, may be the most responsible use of resources.

Alexander has also suggested organizing health centers with recreational and educational activities related to good health in mind. Some of our local resources have exactly this level of functionality. Island Fitness, owned in part by CMC, includes fitness training equipment, offers a broad range of fitness and stress reduction exercise classes, operates a spa with massage services, all the while providing physical therapy and rehabilitation to people who are strong enough to use an out-patient facility. Similarly, the Integrative Medicine offices in downtown Ithaca are within easy walking distance of the City Health Club, and a number of chiropractic offices in downtown Ithaca are located near pilates and yoga studios. Viewing these opportunities as part of our local resource and planning in a way that supports groups of services in clustered arrangements is good for the people who need the help and for the people giving it.

Care models

Most employers either provide or require a certain amount of on-the-job or continuing educational effort so that the knowledge within the workforce remains current. At this time, healthcare coverage in work settings of a certain size is mandated, and some progressive employers understand and appreciate that employees knowledgeable about matters of health and wellness have made an investment in their own longevity by demonstrating responsibility for their choices. By the same token, most schools offer classes in healthy living, sports and exercise, nutrition, and lifestyle. The person who has learned about his or her health needs and is willing to take steps to maintain a healthy status is an asset to the workplace, to the school, and to the community. Such an individual is also an example of the lessons of prevention taken seriously.

Many people already know much about their bodies. A by-product of our modern lives and the leisure we have includes aspects of self awareness that can lead to healthier states of being. Yoga, t'ai chi, qui gong, and many other martial and meditative arts support health and healthy living. Similarly, recreational and competitive sports have the potential for promoting self-discipline and long-term vigor. Prevention will necessarily be a big feature of healthcare delivery in a post-peak environment. The residents of Tompkins County are already better prepared than many people in the U.S. for the choices related to prevention: primary care, complementary and alternative medicine, regular exercise, sound nutrition, and a holistic perspective on the relationship between the mind and the body inform the lives of local residents.

On the other hand, most of the treatments, therapies, and surgeries we presently rely on as interventions to maintain or improve health require products made largely from petroleum. Under our current system, we take for granted the disposal of used equipment, if only because it's impossible to thoroughly sanitize or sterilize plastic containers and fixtures. In times past, most of the implements of care were made of glass and metal and could be refurbished and reused. Preparing to live with fewer of these adjuncts requires that we re-think our throw-away healthcare culture and take better care of the health we have now.

Much as energy descent will change aspects of care delivery, we can expect climate change to influence the illnesses we are exposed to. For example, as temperatures increase in presently cold climates, microbes and vectors that were previously unable to survive lower temperatures will begin to survive and then thrive. Treating diseases with which we have no experience and no immunities will require flexible and creative approaches, good diagnostic abilities, and an educated response not only from caregivers but also from community members. As is true with many of the illnesses we now confront, new illnesses from other environments often diminish in the face of prevention. In addition, we will need to learn to use netting to protect sleeping and resting spaces, effectively manage snakes and other animal interlopers, and contend with the effects of poisonous or otherwise noxious plants and insects. We can expect a benefit from such accommodations to be the return of better and more regularly used porches protected, of course, against the predations of new pests of one sort or another.

Two specialties in health care are especially well-suited to the delivery of services in a post-peak environment in which unknown illnesses and strained resources prevail. Emergency medical administrators and providers as well as public health officials and providers will be in much demand as energy descent and climate change reshape our world. Emergency medical professionals are already accustomed to the concepts of triage and developing priorities required to confront disasters and the shortages disasters incur. Public health professionals are also continually advised about the changing landscape within the regions that shelter their communities. Both specialties promote interdisciplinary models of care and encourage broad areas of expertise, and both could be called on to organize local efforts to safeguard populations and teach individuals how to respond to the threat of disease. These professionals invariably know how to think about dealing with shortages of supplies and personnel. In making the observations here, I cannot recommend anything more forcefully than maintaining and even adding to our local emergency medical and public health expertise.

While no one wants a diminished level of health care compared to what we enjoy now, most pundits agree that expecting interventions to solve our health problems rather than preventing them at the outset is prudent and less trouble. We can't always outfox our genetic heritage or stop an accident that causes broken bones or some other injury, but there is much we can do to prevent other kinds of injury and illness.

The coupling of preventive and primary care may be the best use of medical resources in the coming age. Promoting the synergies between the two models acknowledges the strength of each while encouraging their interdependence. Hierarchies in any social structure are to be expected, but the hierarchies of medicine have been bad for health care. We will surely need more cooperation and collaboration when we have fewer natural resources; preventive care and primary care are ready allies, even now. In Tompkins County several well-respected primary care physicians and family nurse practitioners seek out collegial relationships with complementary and alternative providers, thereby producing on a local level the integrative medical model increasingly, albeit quietly, under construction all over the world.

Some current technologies may be adapted to energy descent or saved outright due to their utility. One such technology could add to the models of care available in a remote place like Tompkins County. Telemedicine, the use of telecommunications devices to transmit medical information, complete examinations, and conduct surgeries, among other things, has been used successfully in a wide range of care settings. Some teaching hospitals use the technology to extend teaching and learning opportunities to distant sites; some use it to make surgical and other procedures more widely available. For more than 15 years, a few home care and hospice agencies across the U.S. have used telemedicine to make more efficient use of nursing and ancillary services and to allow patients, nurses, and other providers to see one another and to communicate complicated situations without taking on the burden of extra home visits. As the internet becomes more robust and ubiquitous, it is easy to imagine that the current monitor and phone line set-up typically required for telemedicine will be transformed by greater adaptability without much more of an investment in or expectation of increased technology. As energy descent ensues, maintaining the infrastructure required to power the internet will be a multi-faceted asset.

Today residents rely on local specialists or specialists in Syracuse, Rochester, New York City, and out-of-state medical centers for some of the more arcane problems related to health status. Both energy descent and climate change will make travel to far-flung destinations difficult, costly, dangerous, and often impossible. Access via a screen may be the most we can expect when our local medical resources are not enough.

Finally, self care is the model health professionals of all stripes promote at the foundational level. Few “patients” can achieve self care, because once people become patients they're also sick and in some jeopardy of ever resuming a state of wellness. If as a community we aspire to knowing, protecting, and grooming our bodies and minds, we can be full partners in our tenancy here, which will make us all the more capable of managing other aspects of energy descent and climate change. For the purposes of realistic management in an energy-constrained world, self care includes knowing how to evaluate one's needs, adhering to a plan for achieving those needs, and being aware and capable of administering basic first aid, at a minimum.

Conclusion

Health care in the 21st century is a complex service requiring a complex set of skills. We can anticipate that aspects of the discipline will become more basic as energy descent and climate change progress. Residents can do much to prepare for altered expectations by learning concepts of basic care and by participating in planning for healthcare delivery in an energy-constrained environment. Supporting primary care and methods that lead to the prevention of illness, as well as the interdisciplinary model of integrative medicine, are helpful, proactive actions. Similarly, residents can provide oversight by insisting on the security of emergency and public health resources and by taking responsibility for the self care of their families.

References

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language, p. 255. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bednarz, D. (2007). Medicine after oil. Orion Magazine. Available at http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/314/.

Bednarz, D. (2008). Energy and the health sciences: a strategic management perspective. Energy Bulletin. Available at http://www.energybulletin.net/print/46146.

Bissell, R., Bumbak, A, Levy, M., & Echebi, P. (2009). Long-term global threat assessment: challenging new roles for emergency managers. Journal of Emergency Management, Vol 7, No. 1, pp. 19-37.

Chamberlain, S. (2009). The transition timeline for a local, resilient future. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Jeffrey, S. (2008). How peak oil will affect public health. Energy Bulletin. Available at http://www.energybulletin.net/print/45750.

Vision 2020: Final Report of the Addison County Conservation Congress. Available at http://www.acornvt.org/Documents/Vision2020.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2009.

How Planned, Localized, Sustainable Non-food Biomass Utilization Can Help Ease Energy Descent and Mitigate Global Climate Change

by Krys Cail

Introduction

This article provides a framework for considering the socio-economic structural changes that can lead to a different, more stable, and more sustainable local market for heating fuel and electrical energy.

The use of combustion for heat and power is an established and developed technology, while the successful social balancing of environmental and ecological costs with short-run economic benefit is a new, and daunting, challenge. The change, or transition, needed to use the locally available resource of non-food woody and grassy biomass to help solve current energy problems is socio-economic change, not technical innovation. We can supplant at least some current fossil fuel use with the more carbon-neutral combustion of earth surface harvested feedstocks using current technology. Nonfood biomass direct combustion[1] can be undertaken in a localized context. We can take an enlightened approach to the sustainable management of feedstock planting, growing, and harvesting, energy-efficient processing, complete and clean burning, and ash recycling. Developing such a system also offers a means of developing the alternative commercial channels necessary to move the Tompkins County area to a future of heat and energy production that is not just more environmentally friendly, but also more economically insulated, or decoupled, from the gyrations of the world oil market in a time of post-peak oil.

Other current and emerging heat and power technologies, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and small-scale hydro are “greener” forms of alternative energy and may be our future mainstays. However, in biomass-rich locations like Tompkins County, the economic attraction of biomass as an affordable substitute for fossil fuels will ensure that it will come into commercial use as oil and other energy commodities rise in price. If the development of biomass energy is controlled by the current energy industry, large energy companies will guard their market share by organizing only large-scale markets, even in situations where energy efficiency favors smaller, more localized scale. Conversely, building localized commercial structures to sell nonfood biomass-generated heat and electrical energy could feasibly provide a template for the effective investment in and commercialization of localized energy from other, greener sources in the future.

The kind of community development that allows areas the size of Tompkins County to become more energy self-reliant—”import substitution” for the energy products of the fossil fuel industry—can accomplish the twin goals of creating green jobs and modeling the kind of less global, more local commercial/economic interactions that are referred to as relocalization. Relocalization of energy provision is a necessary response to energy descent; accomplishing this using tested community development practices will ensure better success in the required transition.

The First Two Burning Transitions

Combustion (fire), used as a tool, was a major human cultural advance, and perhaps helped our species to evolve. In his recent book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human,[2] Richard Wrangman, a Harvard University biological anthropologist, postulates that the taming of fire, and its use to cook food, was the key tool-using event that allowed human evolution to proceed from pre-human hominid to modern humankind. He postulates that cooked food allowed us to divert calories from chewing to growing larger brains.

The centrality of fire to the establishment of human society is also evidenced in religions and belief systems worldwide. One classic rendition is the myth of Prometheus, the champion of humankind who was said to have stolen fire for use by mortals from the immortal gods.

From ancient times up until the Industrial Revolution, humans used combustion sustainably, with only localized or regional instances of deforestation.[3] Early burning was carbon-neutral as far as the earth’s atmosphere was concerned.

Some primitive peoples did set massive fires. For instance, Plains Indians used prairie fires to stampede buffalo over cliffs; Tompkins County’s first peoples probably (like New England’s natives) routinely burned the forest understory to make for easier hunting access;[4] and innumerable horseback European raiders ransacked and ruined settled villages with fire—as Revolutionary War General Sullivan did here in the Finger Lakes. These combustion materials were already a part of the earth surface/atmosphere carbon exchange. In geologic/atmospheric time, even very big surface fires are just blips. The carbon released into the atmosphere would have otherwise been added shortly anyway through decomposition. It was the Industrial Revolution and the use of first coal, and then oil and natural gas, that began the process of unbalancing the planet’s atmospheric carbon load by making use of the carbon stores of former eons, previously safely buried underground. This led to both global climate change, and to the depletion of easily extractable in-ground carbon sources we speak of as peak oil and energy descent.[5]

The first “burning transition,” then, was the Prometheus transition. This transition changed humankind (if you don’t believe Richard Wrangman that it changed our evolution, you must at least concede that it drastically altered our culture). The Prometheus transition enabled the development of agriculture and led to deforestation in a few subcontinental areas But the second burning transition—and the advent of the steam and internal combustion engines of the Industrial Revolution—resulted eventually in major land and sea transformation and widespread ecosystem and climactic change. The first burning transition changed humankind, while the second burning transition changed the planet. Each burning transition also markedly changed the socio-economic systems that people used to regularize and control the commercial and familial relationships that provide us essentials such as heat in cold weather, food, and, after the second burning transition, electric power.

Planning a Third Burning Transition

Technological optimism about alternative fuel development usually focuses on replacing combustion of “dirty” fuels with combustion of “clean” fuels, while leaving the production and distribution systems for liquid and gaseous fuels and electrical power in its heritage configuration. That configuration is controlled by some of the most powerful international corporations on earth—oil and gas developing, refining and shipping companies, electrical utilities, and coal-mining and shipping companies. These actors have a vested interest in seeing that the socio-economic systems of the future do not deviate too much from those of the past, ensuring these corporations continued market share. Is that to our advantage?

Is the needed change limited to a substitution of one fuel for another, one feedstock for another, or one power source for another, with no substantive change to social, industrial, political, or economic institutions? Or is a more substantive transition needed? Will social and economic change follow technology, or will we invent and popularize only the technologies our social and economic systems predispose us to aim toward?

“Local planning for sustainable use of local resources” is the basis of egalitarian post-colonial social and economic development. It is also the key to the development of a third, socioeconomic/cultural burning transition. Rather than assume an international market in energy as a given and hope for technological fixes, we should focus in the third burning transition on the relocalization of systems of sourcing, producing, and distributing heat and power. In that context, the on-going technological development can be decoupled from the economic fortunes of transnational corporations that are difficult to call to account on environmental effects in any particular place. A different kind of optimism about confronting the challenges of global climate change and peak oil can be envisioned, one in which the needed change in socio-economic structures is the direct goal, in order to accomplish the most efficient and environmentally-sound use of energy within current technological and environmental limits. This might then be followed by additional technological advancement, as needed and affordable—perhaps even a Solar or Geothermal transition that makes burning itself unnecessary. However, those possibilities are too far away for a complete transition right now, and right now is when global climate change must be addressed. Rather than trust humanity’s on-going scientific and technological innovation to “come up with something” that will make unfettered world markets in energy able to function within environmental limits, this optimism postulates that human communities can learn to balance their own energy needs with the sustainability of their own environments through socio-economic or socio-political progress.

The third burning transition is, in essence, a relocalization of energy production and an implementation of the household and commercial structures needed to manage more local production and consumption of energy, one that brings the source and use points of energy geographically closer together. This is a transition that requires no new or special technological development, but rather advancements in business form development and industrial design, including business and consumer combustion equipment and new approaches to the design of district heating and electrical power grids.

The Need for a Local Approach

Localities differ in what kind of resources they have available to produce heat and power. Thus far, most research and development in the area of biomass use as an alternative energy feedstock has used a non-localized model. Raw biomass is generally first converted into liquid fuel (both corn-based and cellulosic ethanol are liquid fuels), and then distributed via pipeline, tanker, and tanker truck, similar to petroleum. Or, alternatively, biomass is burned directly, but the resulting heat is made into electric energy and distributed far and wide on the electric grid. Both of these models contain large distributional inefficiencies.[6]

Government subsidies for one form of fuel over another can have unforeseen effects. Often, governments subsidize use of “cleaner” or more carbon-neutral fuels or combustion equipment via a direct consumer subsidy, such as a tax credit, or an indirect subsidy, such as a producer tax break or capital investment in production plant and equipment. Corn ethanol—an alternative fuel that even its promoters are now seeing as a “transitional” alternative fuel—is an example of how governmental enthusiasm for jobs, plant, and equipment in every legislator’s district can result in a glut of relatively expensive alternative fuel production in remote areas, with little hope of export at a profit in the face of price variation in the oil markets, where the product competes directly.

Some European governments have backed the development of small-scale solid-fuel biomass combustion, from pellet stoves to wood-chip furnaces to multi-fuel-burning combustion units and ultra-efficient gasification boilers that power electric generators as well as district heating grids. While this has led to much more widespread adoption of the technologies than in the US, there are still some perverse global-market effects. The governmental support for wood pellet burning in Northern Europe (direct consumer subsidies for pellet stoves, for instance) has resulted in the US market for wood pellets being significantly impacted by European demand: shortages of wood pellets in both the US and Europe in recent years have been blamed, in part, on the fact that most wood pellets produced in the US are shipped, under contract, to Europe, rather than available for growing domestic use.[7] If the domestic demand for wood pellets rises because fuel oil rises significantly in price, manufacturers can’t satisfy it, and resulting shortages drive up wood pellet prices in tandem with fuel oil prices.

Government support for the development of green energy is surely needed. But, as illustrated above, direct support for particular technologies can have perverse outcomes, when, in the real world, the variable and uncontrollable price of oil interferes with orderly marketing of the product as a substitute for the fuel and power sources people are accustomed to using. For that reason, localized community-controlled energy development for heat and electricity is preferable, as it can reasonably allow a community or geographic region to claim its own energy resources and begin to decouple its energy costs from the world oil market. In addition, as is the case with consumers developing commercial relationships with their local farmers, a measure of consumer loyalty and flexibility can be gained by localizing the transaction.

Local Resources: Prime Determinant of Appropriate Combustion Feedstocks

The third burning transition will look different in different locations. Relocalization offers the opportunity for each region or locality to assess what underutilized or sustainably developable resources it possesses, as well as what market power its heat and energy consumers represent. The skills and resources of local people must be accounted for, as well as underutilized natural resources and plant and equipment in the built environment. This assessment of resources can be done as a part of a tried and true methodology of community and economic development—Asset-based Community Development.[8] An asset-based approach to community development allows for customizing programmatic goals to highlight natural resources, human capital agglomerations, and other local conditions that will make one form of biomass more feasible to use as a feedstock for combustion than another.

The local foods movement has made some use of the phrase “Eat your landscape.” The idea is that, by engaging in an ongoing direct involvement in growing food (gardening or CSA working membership) or direct-from-the-local-farmer commercial interaction with a manager of food producing lands in your locale (“landscape”), one can exercise, in common with one’s neighbors, some influence over what kind of a landscape it is now and in future. The goal is use that is environmentally sound, sustainable, and provides a living wage to those who manage and work the land.

A similar approach can be taken to the orderly and sustainable harvest and cultivation of biomass for combustion in place of oil, gas, and, especially, coal. Although these fuel substitutions are not the ultimate long-term solutions to our energy problems, they do offer us a mechanism for developing the distributed, local commercial interactions that can and will set the stage for the development of more long-term sustainable energy systems. In much of Tompkins County, for instance, woody and grassy biomass may be available for use as a combustion fuel, but the commercial infrastructure to sustainably and profitably grow, harvest, and process that biomass needs to be developed. Without a community development effort in this area, woodlands and pastures in Tompkins County will continue to fall into an unused and unmanaged condition that does not allow for optimum carbon sequestration and invasive plant control and does not support the development of local energy and green jobs.

In Tompkins County, most of the underutilized resource is privately owned forested or pasture/hay land that is minimally managed and, in some cases, is becoming overgrown with invasive brush species. The following chart shows the acreage of various types of landcover in the county.

The accompanying map shows a pattern of land use that conforms to topography: the northern portion of the county, which is composed of flatter land and relatively more of the better soils for agricultural use, has a greater percentage of acreage in cultivated cropland and pasture, while the southern, hillier portion of the County is more densely wooded.

Organizing for Local Energy Production and Consumption of Biomass

“Eat your landscape” implies sustainability. A bountiful landscape might continue to provide food over decades, centuries, even millennia if it were properly managed and husbanded. “Burn your landscape” has none of the overtones of sustainability—it seems, rather, cataclysmic: a landscape devoid of living things.

There are other options, however. An actively managed forest or hayfield can continue to produce biomass for combustion purposes over a long period of time if attention to the ecosystem allows for the return of depleted soil nutrients through ash spreading and the building of fertility through support of various plant and animal communities. Woodlands actively managed for sustainable harvest of woody biomass could provide plant and animal habitat, sequester carbon, and produce some hardwood lumber as well. The key here is the way in which natural resource lands are managed. Under some systems of management, carbon sequestration and selection to impede the advance of invasive species are optimized, creating a forest that is more hospitable to native flora and fauna and more able to ameliorate the excess atmospheric carbon than the previous unmanaged woodland. However, such management systems are not the most economically viable under current market structures.

Current economic structures, if left unchecked, could cause cataclysmic environmental damage as harvested biomass becomes less costly than oil. Clear-cutting woodlands, while devastating to natural communities and water quality, is the cheap way to amass a large tonnage of biomass in an area like Tompkins County. Utility companies buy wood-chip tonnage to co-fire with coal from low bidders, developing an industry built around mechanized, invasive forest destruction. Environmental regulation has proven to be a weak tool for controlling industries that have a market incentive to use forests or grasslands as a short-term, rather than permanent, resource. An example is the Catalyst Energy/Treesource Solutions biomass aggregation facility in nearby Burdett, Schuyler County, which is offering loggers one low price for biomass tonnage to be used as wood chips to heat and power the US Salt plant in Watkins Glen.

On an individual scale, landowners who use firewood for heat are likely to take the long view of their investment in their land and do their best to manage their woods to maintain sustained production as well as multi-functionality (use of the woodlands for additional purposes, such as wildlife habitat, hunting, nature appreciation, privacy). When surveyed, owners of rural acreage in Tompkins County were amenable to seeing their underutilized parcels of land produce an income stream—but very few had either time or capital to devote to this.[9]

Several local initiatives in Tompkins County have sprung up to test structures that might become a part of a third burning transition here. In the Town of Danby, landowners have come together to market the biomass from their properties (as well as potentially other land-based products) as a group. This organization of owners of fallow fields and under-managed woodlots is based on the producer-coop configuration that has been successful in some agricultural areas.[10]

Another effort, spearheaded by Anthony Nekut, is intended to draw together investors and entrepreneurs with the purpose of developing a medium-scale pellet production facility in the county. Tony would like such a plant to have the capacity to palletize both woody and grassy biomass, and he envisions both local sourcing of biomass and local sales of pellets for home and business heating. [An article by Tony is scheduled for future publication on tclocal.org.—Ed.]

A third approach to using biomass to supplant some of the fossil fuels used for home heating in Tompkins County is Abbot Development’s initiative to develop Cornell University workforce housing on a Danish-style district heating model, with a combined heat and power plant as an integral feature of the development. This plan is currently in concept development stage, but it could easily be implemented if chosen by Cornell as the model for their new housing development. Again, the technology is available and ready to use; it is the commercial market structures that require some developmental attention to establish such a project in this country.

A fourth local project focuses on commercial combined heat and power along with a managed woody-biomass plantation scheme: RPM Ecosystems, a Dryden company involved in the production of fast-growing nursery stock for reforestation projects worldwide, has worked with Congressman Michael Arcuri to obtain federal funding for a demonstration project. The project involves a wood-fired combined heat and power plant that would provide heat for the greenhouses and offices of the nursery along with sufficient electrical power to operate the facility. Additionally, plantations of RPM Ecosystems trees would be established with a goal of producing some biomass along with some hardwood lumber while maximizing forest canopy (and carbon sequestration) throughout the growth and development of the tree farm.

One approach that is not currently in evidence in Tompkins County, but might be worth investigating, is the “CSE.” CSE stands for “Community Supported Energy,” and it is modeled on the successful CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) structure. This is something of a consumer cooperative: energy consumers that would like to use local resources to produce energy band together, and, through pooling investment funds, establish critical mass to bring a production facility on-line, which they pledge to support through their energy purchases. This model was first promoted by environmental advocate Greg Pahl, and has been tried with some success in Vermont.[11]

Conclusion

The above examples merely scratch the surface of possible structures for relocalizing our heat and energy markets. And the traditional approach should not be ignored, either: use of cordwood for home and business heating has increased markedly as fossil fuel prices increase and can be expected to continue to increase, particularly in rural areas of the county. More people now make a main business or a profitable sideline of harvesting firewood, or buy less fossil fuel because they harvest some firewood for their own use. Several local retail outlets and service businesses sell and/or install combustion equipment, and technology refinements have made cordwood burning cleaner and more efficient than it was in the past.

A third burning transition—based on community development and economic innovation—is needed if we are to avoid the worst potential effects of global climate change and post-peak-oil economic instability. In the first burning transition, fire changed humankind; in the second, humankind using fire changed the world until disaster threatened. In the third burning transition, humankind must organize new structures of production and exchange to socially contain the power that unlimited individual fire-use unleashes on the world, to protect both the species and the environment on which it depends. In the future, the structures so organized can be again transformed, in a fourth burning transition, to non-carbon-based feedstocks such as the sun’s direct energy, geothermal heat, and wind and wave energy.

Notes

[1] “Direct combustion” refers to biomass burned as a solid fuel, not a liquid or gas fuel product or fuel additive.

[2] New York: Basic Books, 2009.

[3] Localized or regional deforestation should not be underestimated in its capacity to decimate human, animal, and plant communities, including driving some species to extinction. It does not, however, represent a pattern of world-wide changes, despite its severe impact on circumscribed areas.

[4] Cronon, William. Changes in the Land, Revised Edition: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983.

[5] Biomass/ethanol/biodiesel schemes dependent upon intensively cultivated food crops like soy or corn fail to break the connection between the oil market and alternative fuel if a system of petro-chemical input dependent agriculture is used. They also raise grave ethical concerns, commonly referred to as the “food-fuel controversy.”

[6] While current average distributional losses for electrical energy are in the range of seven percent, biomass resources, like solar resources, may be located at a greater distance from urbanized areas than existing power plants, resulting in even larger distributional losses or larger amounts of transportation energy to move the raw material closer to the point of use.

[7] More on the international market volatility of wood pellets is available in the Renewable Energy World magazine article “Time for Stability: An Update on International Wood Pellet Markets,” Feb. 4, 2008. Available at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/02/time-for-stability-an-update-on-international-wood-pellet-markets-51584

[8] See The Asset-based Community Development Institute at http://www.abcdinstitute.org/ or Wikipedia on Asset-based Community Development at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset-Based_Community_Development

[9] Cail, Krys. Tompkins County Landowners Survey. Report for Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County on the results of a mail survey of owners of large parcels of rural land in Tompkins County undertaken by the Green Cities class of Cornell University’s City and Regional Planning Department in 2005.

[10] Begun as a project for Elizabeth Keokosky’s masters degree in City and Regional Planning at Cornell University, this initiative has progressed to the point of establishing a local steering committee and is in the process of drawing up incorporation documents.

[11] Pahl, Greg. The Citizen-powered Energy Handbook: Community Solutions to a Global Crisis. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Publishing, March 2007. See also Renewable Energy World magazine, “Community-supported Energy Offers a Third Way,” Greg Pahl, March 12, 2007. Available at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/03/community-supported-energy-offers-a-third-way-47700

by Karl North

In Part One of this series, I noted that providing for the local food needs of urban populations requires a design that integrates three overlapping categories of production systems: urban agriculture systems (many small islands of gardening in the city center), peri-urban agriculture (larger production areas on the immediate periphery), and rural agriculture (feeder farms associated with village-size population clusters in the hinterland of the city but close enough to be satellite hamlets). In this month’s article, I will discuss four key issues that must be addressed in order to envision these three systems: fertility, energy, water, and pest control. But first, a word about the role of species diversity in addressing these issues.

In an energy descent environment, agriculture that incorporates the necessary diversity of species that are multifunctional — providing both ecological and other services and food — will gradually replace the current agriculture that substitutes external inputs to solve these problems.

Some of the most durable and productive low input farming systems in history are designed around animals that can accelerate the growth and conversion of plants to fertilizer. Because they are highly multifunctional, ruminant mammals rank highest among these. Beyond their manure production function, they can consume fibrous perennials unusable for human food. These perennials can grow on hill land too rocky or too erodable for food cropping. Used as work animals, ruminants multiply the energy input from human labor many times. They provide a source of concentrated protein food that can be conserved and stockpiled for winter consumption. They provide hides and fiber for clothing as well. Cattle, sheep, goats, alpacas, llamas and bison are ruminants that we can most easily use in agricultural systems in our environment.

A few other animals serve some of these functions and, properly integrated, often are found enhancing these systems. Pigs and poultry can do the hard labor of turning manure into compost, and can thrive by consuming unused and pest species as well as waste streams from farms and kitchens. They both can reduce a patch of weeds to bare ground ready for planting, and pigs will perform tillage as well. They will consume crop residues and garbage from food preparation, and convert it to fertilizer as well as their own production as food animals. Poultry will consume weeds and insect pests. Edible fish and other water animals like frogs and snails can perform the same functions in aquatic systems. This map of flows among components demonstrates the potential of integrated systems (Figure 1). Notice that the flows may go in both directions among all components:

Figure 1. Dynamics of a hypothetical sustainable system

1. Soil Fertility

As energy descent deepens, two key fertility crutches of industrial agriculture will become cost-prohibitive. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer production requires large quantities of energy. The decreasing quality of phosphate deposits is already driving up the price of phosphate fertilizer (up 700 percent in a recent 14-month period) and production is estimated to peak within 20 years.[1] Moreover, the affordability of most off-farm sources of fertility is derivative of cheap oil. But minerals essential to farm fertility can be recirculated within farms or at least within local food systems, and recirculation capacity will become essential to sustainable design.

On-farm recycling. Building high levels of soil organic matter (SOM) will be central to agroecosystem design because SOM is key to achieving not only fertility goals, but also healthy water and mineral cycles, maximal photosynthetic energy capture and use, and optimal biodiversity. Humid, temperate environment soils are exceptional in their ability to store organic matter. French scientist Andre Voisin demonstrated 50 years ago that pulsed grazing (explained below) on permanent pasture is the fastest soil organic matter building tool that farmers have, at least in temperate climates like ours.[2]

The structural element historically proven to work best in these environments is a grass/ruminant complex. This subsystem works on the principle that manure from a portion of the farm devoted to grazing animals will not only sustain the fertility of their forage land, but generate a surplus that will sustain a smaller acreage of annual crops (Figure 2). It can sustain fertility well enough to have generated numerous historical models around the world. The process was used in lowland northern Europe and New England before the industrial age.[3] Cuban research into its potential demonstrated the effective ratio of forage acreage to support cropland fertility to be 3:1 in that environment. In other words, the ruminant stock subsisting on three acres of forage produced enough manure to sustain both the fertility of the forage land and one acre of cropland. This conceptual model, adapted for environmental differences, provides a basis for system design here. Perhaps the most important design question for our purposes is the ratio of forage to cropland that is sustainable in our environment.

Figure 2. Fertility subsystem conceptual model

The full soil organic matter building process requires a design focus on three crucial areas of the agroecosystem:

• Pasture management for a wide variety of productive, palatable perennial forages, kept in a vegetative state (high growth) by pulsed grazing (see below) throughout the growing season to maximize biomass production;

• Manure storage in a deep litter bedding pack under cover during the cold season to maximize nutrient retention and livestock health;

• Conversion of the bedding pack to compost at a proper C/N ratio during the warm season to maximize organic matter production, nutrient stabilization, and retention;

• Field application of the compost during the warm season as well, to maximize efficient nutrient recycling to the soil.

Pulsed grazing is so important to the success of the soil building subsystem that it warrants an explanation in some detail. Pulsed grazing is a method of repeated grazing of paddocks in a pasture that controls stock density and timing of stock movement in and out of paddocks to maximize forage production over the growing season. This in turn maximizes manure production to build soil organic matter. Forage plants experience repeated pulses of growth and removal of biomass, both above and below ground, over the growing season. Key points :

• Stock enter a paddock before forage leaves its vegetative stage and growth slows.

• Stock leave a paddock while there is still sufficient forage leaf area to jump-start regrowth.

• Grazing causes forage roots to die back, which adds soil organic matter from the dead root mass.

• Stock return to the same paddock when leaf and root regrowth have fully recovered vigor and abiity to recover from another grazing.

Recycling from Human Communities. It should be clear from the integrated model (Figure 1) that solving the fertility problem must include repairing the broken nutrient cycle between human excreta and the land. If this seems an insurmountable challenge to modern urbanites, we need only recall from history that whole societies including large cities have managed excellent recycling of “night soil.” Among the numerous examples is China, where until the 1950s, 98% of the fertilizer used to grow food came from recycled and organic sources.[4] Relocalization of food production is necessary to reduce the cost of repairing the nutrient cycle. If Tompkins County exports milk products to NYC, what will it cost to return the nutrients in the exported milk to our farmland? In a more county-based food system, methods for recycling humanure and other food garbage that are appropriate to urban, peri-urban, and rural farming sites are more feasible, and will be discussed in the sections devoted to these production systems.

2. Energy Capture

Ancient sunlight in fast-depleting, finite sources (oil, gas, coal) presently supplies over 80% of the energy used in the industrial form of agriculture that produces most of the food consumed in the United States. Natural ecosystems consist of food chains supported entirely by current sunlight, so it is easy to design farming systems to work the same way, as was done through most of agricultural history. Solar energy that is accessible directly on farms comes in forms that are far less concentrated than the fossil fuels that we are used to. Therefore we need to design farms that can be productive on far less energy. The challenge is to capture solar energy in as many places as possible as it flows through the agroecosystem.

The carbon cycle is an important way solar energy flows through our world. All metabolic processes in agriculture and other biological systems release carbon to the atmosphere. Tillage that stimulates activity in the soil food web, animal and human digestion and composting are examples. But criticism of these processes as feeding greenhouse gas build-up is mistaken. Biomass conversion to food, fertilizer, or fuel is carbon-neutral over time because its emissions, unlike those of fossil fuels, are part of the biospheric carbon cycle. The important question here is how to manage the carbon cycle to maximize long-term levels of soil carbon sequestered as soil organic matter.

Animal Power. Currently (2009) people tend think of solar capture in terms of relatively high technologies like those that convert wind and sunlight to electricity. Working models exist of homesteads and even farms that are self-sufficient in electricity using small-scale equipment of this sort. However, most analyses of economic viability related to wind/solar electricity production at any scale are based on current costs in the manufacture and maintenance of these systems, all of which still rely on cheap oil. These analyses fail to account for already exponentially rising costs in raw materials and production of the equipment. All production costs of such technologies will rise in parallel with sharply increasing energy costs as the fossil fuel era declines. Like oil, many raw materials used in these technologies are finite resources already on the downside of their historical production curve; they will become unaffordable for many uses in the future. In sum, the window of opportunity that makes these alternative energy technologies approach economic viability now may close in the future as costs begin to rise more sharply. A 10kw wind-electric rig that can power a small farm costs about $70,000, and is usually economically unfeasible even today without subsidies. What will it cost after 15 years of rising manufacturing costs? What will it cost to replace it after its 20-30 year lifetime?

However, there are ways of powering farm production that are more reliably sustainable. Just as the same breeze or brook flowing through a community might be tapped at a number of points for wind or hydropower to run a mill or pump water, solar energy can be captured to produce food or fuel by inserting species appropriately into the farm food chain. Apart from wind and flowing water, solar energy enters the farm ecosystem via photosynthesis in green plants, and flows through the system as one species feeds on another. Large herbivores tap immediately into this chain by feeding on plants that are too fibrous for food use. While they may produce food and fertility as previously described, they will do double duty as work animals in the future, thus replacing no longer affordable fossil-fueled machine labor.

Fields that grow the forages that support work animals and other grazing and foraging species will not compete with cropland. On the contrary, forage fields will provide an essential ecological service as the permanent cover necessary to sustain soil health on all sloping land. Present hillside cropland is always eroding and will be revealed as unsustainable when the crutch of cheap synthetic fertilizer is no longer available. This means that land use plans in hill country like ours will need to include a mosaic of hillside forage land and relatively flat cropland. Unless terraced, the hillsides will be most erosion-free and productive when planned to mimic natural tree-dotted savannas, as hay/pasture that includes fruit and nut orchards, for example. The trees themselves will be multi-functional, producing food or forage, improving the cycling of soil nutrients, providing windbreaks, and shading the grazing animals.[5]

Integrated as described here, draft animals like oxen, mules, and horses will optimize the health and productivity of the agroecosystem.

Biofuels. Energy for winter heating and for cooking is almost as important as food production for survival in these latitudes. As much as possible of that energy should come directly from the sun, as in passive solar designs for both heating and cooking. But rural land use will need to reflect increasing local dependence on firewood for the rest. Sustainable forest management and harvest will again become a significant share of rural agricultural production, but serving local urban and village communities not faraway paper mills. Forest conservation and reforestation should start with places that need to be forested for additional reasons, like ridge tops that protect water catchments, and hedgerows that serve as shelterbelts and browse for livestock.

Production of most other biofuels at any significant scale has been criticized as unsustainable on many counts. One that may prove sustainable is small-scale biogas generation on farms, because it extracts methane from some of the farm’s normal manure production before it continues in the farm’s nutrient cycling loop, as in Figure 1. Most attempts at biogas generation on US farms have been large-scale, high-technology projects aimed at fixing the pollution problem caused by industrial scale dairy farming. So far, farmer adoption of the expensive and complex equipment has been poor, despite subsidies. Meanwhile, small scale biogas generators aimed at producing light and cooking fuel in Third World peasant communities have proliferated, because they cost as little as $30.[6] Biogas production requires no separate biofuel crop that might compete with food production, or inefficient distillation process. For these reasons biogas production at an appropriate scale merits consideration as a way of capturing solar energy as methane fuel for limited use on farms and perhaps even surrounding communities.

3. Water Capture and Use

We live in a climate that is wet yet subject to droughts during the growing season. High productivity food production requires a constant water supply to cover these gaps. Maximizing productivity in the small areas devoted to urban agriculture is especially important, because of their high value in a relocalized food system. Sufficient water falls on urban areas and needs to be conserved there. Barrels can catch only a fraction of roof runoff, and will not be enough for the irrigation needs of a successful urban and peri- urban agriculture. Small water catchment ponds must become a normal part of both the public and residential urban landscape. Pavement runoff will need to be directed to the larger ponds, which might be located in parks and community gardens.

Rural agriculture will need more extensive water capture plans to hold and use water for farms and whole watersheds. Such a system should be gravity feed system, in order to avoid the increasingly high cost of pumping. An example is the keyline plan that traps some surface water in upper fields and directs the excess into strategically located irrigation ponds.[7]

Our irrigation needs in New York may be intermittent but still will require a lot of pipe and other delivery hardware when scaled up to cover all food production land. Rising costs of current irrigation delivery systems may become a limiting factor, forcing the invention of ones that use cheaper materials. This has been the experience in Cuba, whose year-round agriculture is heavily dependent on irrigation. Cuba’s artificially triggered “peak oil” experience has been a bellwether and a source of lessons for the rest of the world.

Ponds will be needed to serve numerous purposes, as in Figure 1. Basins to process biodigester outflow and other organic liquid waste can grow algae and duckweed for animal feed, and then feed the cleansed water into ponds for fish and other aquaculture, as in Figure 3. They will attract aquatic life including species useful for garden pest control, and enhance human quality of life as they beautify places and improve microclimates.

Figure 3. Facilities for bioconversion using the UNU/IAS integrated biosystem at Montfort Boys Town, Suva, Fiji

Wetlands abound in New York and are among the most productive natural ecosystems. Because of their natural potential, they can be harnessed for highly productive agricultural use yet be managed to retain much of their natural function. Historical and contemporary models include wetland systems that fed older civilizations from the Aztecs to the Incas in Latin America, as well as many parts of Southeast Asia today. Typically, as in the Aztecan systems known as chinampas, farmers cut canals through the wetland and use the soil to create beds raised above the water level for agricultural use. The canal system is designed to allow the water control that keeps the raised beds well watered without being subject to undesirable flooding. Because of the ubiquitous water, these wetlands are highly productive as both agricultural and aquacultural systems. They produce so much biomass that they tend to maintain their own fertility, dredged from the decomposing detritus in canal bottoms.

One such wetland, adapted from lowland English agriculture, became the core of a highly sustainable agricultural system that supported the population of colonial Concord, Massachusetts for many generations.[8] The Great Meadow that traversed the village and all other nearby riverine flood plains was a swamp commons that was first flooded to deposit silt, then partly drained and reserved for pasture and hay as it dried out during the growing season. As in parts of Europe, these well-watered riverine meadows produced enough livestock feed, livestock, and manure to sustain the fertility of the adjacent dry lands devoted to tillage agriculture. Figure 4 shows that already by 1650 careful allocation of land use had taken place on a functional level to sustain the whole system. Historical models like these suggest that we will want to regard modified wetlands as an important agricultural asset in the energy descent era.

Figure 4. Concord, Massachusetts, 1652. From The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial Concord.

4. Pest Control

From a systems perspective, pest problems are “structural,” hence best addressed by system design rather than treatment with pesticides. In this section I will summarize two main strategies addressed in order of importance: a focus on the food species themselves, and then the layout of the physical and biological environment as it affects these food species.

Much as health care in humans requires preventive medicine, we must grow healthy plant and animal species as a first step in pest control. A primary structural problem is the genetic industrialization of most agricultural plant and animal species, which was gradually achieved in modern times by breeding processes that prioritized productivity and short-term profit over other genetic traits, like hardiness. Moreover, relying on pesticides, even “natural” ones, to protect these weakened subspecies inevitably fails over time because pests gradually adapt to conditions and treatments that become heavy- handed and routine. An example is parasite resistance in sheep, which has been neglected and lost. The resulting industrial breeds must be medicated so often that the parasites are gradually becoming immune to most medications. To be sustainable, food production systems will need to return to varieties and breeds that, while sometimes less productive, have more genetic defenses. By genetic selection farmers can rebuild hardiness in industrial breeds as well.

The design of alternative environments uses three general strategies of pest control: luring or driving them away with trap or repellent species or physical barriers; creating species and habitats that attract “beneficials,” species that prey on pests; and continually altering the environment with crop and animal rotations that shift them away from pests.

This last strategy points up a characteristic of the natural world that needs to be taken into account: it is always evolving. In the long run this means that pest control strategies can never be permanent, but must always be evolving to stay a step ahead of pests as the latter adapt to current controls. The downfall of industrial pest controls is their heavy- handed strategy of total pest elimination and routine medication. Ironically this creates the environments most conducive to genetic evolution in pest organisms toward immunity from controls.

Recourse to medicinals and other treatments is a strategy of last resort, indicating a design failure in the production system, which must be addressed.

Conclusion

From the foregoing it seems clear that life after fossil fuels will demand much reorganization of food production. To create a local agriculture that feeds the county, the map of rural and urban land use will change dramatically. In the countryside, wetlands and floodplains, hillsides, flatlands, and woodlands will have specific uses designed to maximize while sustaining the productivity of whole agroecosystems. Essential rural land use components might be:

1. Hillsides in forage land sufficient to support cropland fertility.

2. Flatlands in crop rotations.

3. Wetlands and floodplains development and water management for high forage or crop production.

4. Sufficient forest for county firewood and basic construction needs, managed for maximum regenerative capacity, which requires fencing out livestock. Woodland regenerative capacity equaling 1 cord/acre/year is a common rule of thumb.

Many uses of city land will no longer be economical in the coming years. Land will need to be converted to food production and its supporting functions, like composting and water conservation. Prime candidates for conversion are the commercial strips now inhabited by national corporate chain stores. Private and public parking lots, which energy descent writer William Kunstler sees as soon-to-be-dysfunctional “missing teeth in the urban fabric,” are another example. During Cuba’s artificially triggered encounter with “peak oil,” public interest dictated that a better use of resources was to raze ageing buildings to create urban garden space, rather than to restore them.

In the integrated system approach described here, the functions of plants and animals will undergo marked changes. The functions of many species to facilitate tight nutrient cycling, labor, and other services that underpin the health of the whole agroecosystem, will become more important. In the case of some animals, these functions will become primary, and food production will become a secondary function, with numbers of animals on farms directed to their primary functions. The result will be a general production system model that aims for maximum sustainability, remains within the carrying capacity of the natural resource base, and within that framework, feeds the maximum number of people per acre of land used.

Notes

[1] Peak Phosphorus: The Sequel to Peak Oil http://phosphorusfutures.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=30

[2] Voisin, André. Grass Productivity, 1959 (English translation in 1988). Island Publishers, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

[3] Donahue, Brian. 2004. The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial Concord. New Haven:Yale University Press.

[4] http://www.fairviewgardens.org/pub_next_frontier.html

[5] North, Karl. 2008. Optimizing Nutrient Cycles with Trees in Pasture Fields. LEISA Magazine, 24 (2), March 2008. http://www.ileia.org/index.php?url=magazine-list.tpl&p[source]=ILEIA

[6] Preston, T.R. 2005. Biodigesters in Ecological Farming Systems. LEISA Magazine, 21 (1), March 2005. Also: http://www.ruralcostarica.com/biodigester.html

[7] http://www.keyline.com.au/ad1ans.htm

[8] Donahue, op. cit.

by Karl North

Editor’s Note: This article is the first in a three-part series. Part 2 will appear next month.

In this paper I will attempt a preliminary vision of a relocalization of food production designed to feed the population of Tompkins County. A project of this scope implies a reorganization of food processing and distribution that, while not included in this first iteration, will need to be integrated in a later, expanded overview.

My purpose is to explore the kind of local food system that will be needed as this country faces sharply lower access to the energy sources on which our present industrial form of agriculture and food economy heavily depends. I will describe the types of local farming enterprises, farming methods, resources, and land use needed to confront a future of much lower energy use. A documented baseline assessment of current food production and county resources is not an objective of this essay, but will be essential to a detailed planning effort. The picture presented here is intended to be general enough to be useful in planning the relocalization of foodsheds that include an urban center the size of Ithaca, New York.

In these first few pages, I will set out my premises and theoretical points of departure in some detail to explain the fundamental changes in perspective I think are necessary to envision how and where we produce food in the future.

This vision will rely on several critical premises:

1. The premise underlying all work of TCLocal is that a permanent decline in the availability and affordability of liquid fuels and related rising costs of all energy sources will inevitably lead to much lower energy use and increasing importance of local scale in human affairs. The present long-distance food economy will shrink, and consumers will need to rely increasingly on local food production.

2. This “energy descent” will force the transformation of food production toward low external input systems that rely more on human labor and models of healthy, highly productive ecosystem processes common in nature instead of the high energy cost technological substitutes on which agriculture, including most of organic agriculture, depends today.

3. Our world is systemic in nature (parts are more or less connected), and this has important implications for attempts to change it. Problems we want to solve are, as the system analysts like to say, “structural,” and require intervention in several places. So the single-issue approach to any kind of change is eventually bound to fail to meet expectations. For example, dieting to solve weight problems never works for long if the problem lies in the structure of our life. In addition to changing what we eat, maybe trading the car in on a bike and some tools to dig the lawn into a vegetable garden would produce better results.

   

   Moreover, despite best intentions, in a systemic world we can never make just the one change we aim for. Complex systems are squishy like a balloon: squeezing just one end only makes the balloon blow out in other unexpected places. Change agents need a holistic approach that recognizes that consequences of any interventions are multiple ripple effects that go distant in space and time. This approach has important implications for design at every level of scale.

   At the garden or farm scale we want to build in multifunctionality, where parts of the system serve more than one purpose. Plants and animals that provide food, for example, may also provide ecological services necessary for the health and productivity of the whole. Ecological services are the benefits arising from the functioning of the ecosystem, in contrast to purchased inputs.

   At the level of the food system, where different elements of production, processing, and distribution can be designed as a cooperating whole, we need to build in complementarity as to what is produced, and services that are shared among the different types of production units to be described in this paper. Urban gardens may best serve the county food system by growing fresh produce, thus complementing rural farms that produce less perishable foods, for example.

   At the community level, we need to view the reorganization of the food system as affecting and affected by the reorganization of all other infrastructure and institutions impacted by reduced energy availability, e.g., industry, housing, markets, transportation, sanitation, information flow, knowledge production, etc.

   Most important from a systems perspective, we need to regard far-reaching changes like those to be proposed here as experimental, and track for unintended consequences in time and space. This approach, known to ecologists and other systems thinkers as adaptive management, requires constant monitoring and replanning in the face of uncertainty about consequences.

4. The design of a relocalized agricultural system will need to address root causes. For example, the proximate causes of flooding may be failed riparian buffers and levees, but the root causes are pavement, bare ground, and other surfaces that create surface run-off, soils compacted and depleted of water-holding organic matter, agricultural field drains, and channeling that cuts streams and rivers off from their historic flood plains. Attention to root causes forces the need for the systems perspective outlined in premise #3. If, from the viewpoint of sustainability, high-input, oil-dependent agriculture is now revealed to be a design failure from the outset, little is gained by piecemeal solutions like replacing chemical inputs with “natural” ones. Rather than the input substitution approach, efforts are better directed toward whole agroecosystem design that integrates a diversity of spatial and temporal elements.

Understanding Sustainability. In addition to working from the stated premises, I want to ground the proposals in this visionary project in a working concept of sustainability based on ecological science. This is important at this historical juncture for a couple of reasons. The common practice of confusing and conflating sustainable agriculture and organic agriculture will be counterproductive in the coming era when shrinking access to cheap energy will reveal the unsustainability of most current forms of agriculture, including organic. The flowering of the organic farming movement, in which I have been a practitioner for 30 years, generated much innovation that will be useful in coming years. But it also produced the delusion of a luxury version of sustainability, because it occurred in and was shaped by an era of cheap oil. Limited by economic forces and a focus mainly on environmental issues, organic farming became more a matter of substituting “greener” inputs for those of industrial agriculture rather than seeking input independence through systematic redesign. Awareness that many of the “greener” inputs depend on fast-depleting, often finite, soon-to-become-expensive resources still has not penetrated the organic movement sufficiently to become a paramount concern. A common practice in organic vegetable farming, for example, is to import fertility in the form of compost from factory-style dairy and poultry farms.

None of the above should be construed as an attack on the organic farming movement, or a dismissal of its contributions to the development of a truly sustainable agriculture. But we need a more rigorous design tool than “organic” to select from those offerings.

Sustainability means that local food production systems must support the food and fiber needs of a given human population without exceeding their carrying capacity (CC). A working definition of CC might be the maximum indefinitely supportable ecological load of an ecosystem or area.

We must be clear about what constitutes a supportable ecological load. Depletion of a finite resource like copper or phosphorus is not supportable unless we find a way to perfectly recycle as much of it as is needed (not downcycle it as in plastic bags --> park benches --> landfill). Petroleum products used for fuel are not recyclable, and anything needing those fuels in its production is therefore unsustainable. The supportable load on renewable resources on which we depend is limited to their refresh rate. The rate at which a farm consumes soil organic matter depends on the capacity of the agroecosystem to rebuild it. Less evident, but perhaps ultimately most important,is the load of work we place on natural systems to absorb concentrations of substances and handle imbalances that we create. That load can become insupportable, either because it becomes too great or because we weaken the ability of natural systems to do the work.

In short, the success and survival of all human activity rests on and must be subordinate to the continuing health of the natural resource base and the ecosystems that underpin it. Encapsulated in the phrase, “Mother nature bats last,” this means that any sacrifice of ecological health to advance human affairs eventually results in losses to society. Economic profit gained in the short term at the expense of the natural resource base and its health leads inevitably to economic loss in the long term.

The CC of a specific farm or regional landscape at a given historical moment may have eroded far below its potential. Industrial agriculture has indeed damaged the CC of much of the agricultural resource base. At present, technological props based on cheap oil have created a temporary, artificially higher CC that ecologist William Catton called “phantom carrying capacity.”[1] Continued belief in this phantom can prolong the overshoot and erosion of real CC long enough to cause the population to collapse. Our present food system is operating at phantom CC. This is due to a level of agricultural productivity that is temporarily and artificially high because it relies on fossil fuels and other raw materials that are finite and fast depleting. Over 80 per cent of the energy on which our food system runs comes from oil. In practical terms this means that we are feeding more people than is sustainable (at least on a global basis), because human populations have ballooned in response to rising food production. Equitable food distribution is an essential response to the problem but is ultimately insufficient unless agriculture itself can be organized on a sustainable basis.

On the other hand, human intervention can often rebuild CC and possibly improve it somewhat. Effective agroecosystem design can improve farm sustainability, for example, by building in sufficient species diversity to provide necessary farm inputs and ecological services “for free” to replace unsustainable external inputs to farms.

Finally, “needs of a given human population” is a slippery term, the definition of which varies widely from one culture to another. We need to ask: How much material consumption does our quality of life really require? In regard to food, does discretionary consumption exist which, if reduced, could allow agriculture to feed more people?

Despite the complexity of these questions, thinking about sustainable design to respect carrying capacity has effectively focused the attention of ecological scientists on maximizing the long-term health of four interrelated ecosystem processes in agroecosystems:

1. The mineral or nutrient cycle

2. The water cycle

3. The energy flow

4. The structure and interactions of the biological community

A focus on these four processes leads to the development of principles or attributes of sustainable agroecosystem design intended to maintain, or in many cases regenerate, the health of these ecosystem processes. Some of the widely accepted principles and their implications are:

• Low external inputs — Input self-sufficiency.

• Low emissions — Closed nutrient and carbon cycles that avoid losses of valuable resources that eventually cause environmental damage.

• Stability – Resilience – Adaptive Capacity — These qualities of sustainability are all necessary, but since they exist somewhat in tension, there must be balance among them. Stability is the quality that produces reliable results and minimizes risk, but in excess, stability can become rigidity. However, a certain flexibility is required for resilience, which is the ability to rebound from sudden change like a dry period in the farming season. Adaptive capacity to respond to slower changes like a gradually invasive plant disease also requires flexibility. Reserves of material or energy, overlaps, redundancy, or other slack in a system provide that flexibility, but at the price of efficient use of resources.

• Knowledge intensity — Reliance on technologies that are powerful but derivative of a narrow, specialist knowledge base will give way to a broader, more demanding knowledge of farms as complex ecosystems of interdependent species, a knowledge that enables the creation of biodiversity to capture synergies, to biologically control pests, for example.

• Management intensity — Farming for input self-sufficiency and low emissions will require more labor devoted to management planning and monitoring to replace other resources or use them more efficiently to maximize sustainable yield: productivity per acre.

• Local food self-sufficiency and national food sovereignty

These principles fit well with the design imperatives of a future marked by gradual loss of sources of cheap energy. Aimed at maximizing the ecosystem processes described before, these design principles will guide the visioning effort.

The visioning process will draw on several main resource areas:

• Known principles of agroecology and their relation to the concept of sustainability as outlined above;

• Historical knowledge of how production was achieved before the era of cheap energy and other inputs — as late as the early 20th century in some locations;

• Subsistence and semi-subsistence farming systems in agrarian communities on the periphery of the global industrial economy, which have managed to escape the imprint of the current system;[2]

• Contemporary models of large-scale conversion from industrial agricultural systems to localized, low input agricultural systems as in Cuba,[3] the resources of the Permaculture[4] and Transition Towns[5] movements, and some of the more sustainable design efforts to develop very low external input systems in the organic agriculture movement.

From these resources I will attempt to extract and introduce a set of general food production system design strategies that follow principles already outlined above. Many of their elements have in common the goal of designing for food and other species that are multifunctional, delivering ecological services presently provided by the external inputs in our industrialized food system that will become prohibitively expensive in the future. Elements of these food system design strategies include:

1. Integration of crops and livestock

2. Animal, human- and small-scale wind, hydro, and solar as the primary energy sources of agricultural production

3. Perennial crop polycultures, in particular,perennial carbohydrate crops(nutritionally, hazelnuts can be seen as equivalent to soy, chestnuts as an equivalent to corn)

4. Perennial forage polycultures under intensive management (variations on an interdependent triad: grasses for bulk, legumes for nitrogen, deep-rooted broad-leaf forbs for minerals)

5. Agroforestry and sylvopastoralism

   1. Alley cropping/grazing within perennial polycultures

   2. Terracing, or return of perennials to erodable slopes

6. Intensive water management: capture and distribution swales, rooftop capture, microclimate creation, ponds and filter wetlands for storage, nutrient processing and aqua-ecosystem development

7. Extended growing season and harvest technologies

8. Intensive nutrient management

   1. Repairing and tightening broken and leaky nutrient cycles: food = waste = food

   2. Rotations that manage nutrient capture and use

9. Intensive bed growing

10. Biocontrol of pests: pest predator production and habitats, trap crops

11. Plant families designed for symbiosis

12. Stacked species for sunlight capture or shade or wind protection: vertical plant growth — vine crop fences, espalier

13. Cooperative management: neighborhood and community gardens, revival of the commons

Historical models of energy-efficient foodsheds that include an urban population suggest the need to design a whole that integrates three somewhat overlapping categories of production systems:

• Urban agriculture — many small islands of gardening in the dense city center

• Peri-urban agriculture — larger production areas in the immediate periphery

• Rural agriculture — feeder farms associated with village-size population clusters in the hinterland of the city but close enough to be satellite hamlets

The design of each type of system will vary depending on its available resources, its appropriate role in feeding the county population, and its input support function for the other production categories. In parts two and three of this paper I will describe some general sustainable design considerations, and then build on them to offer a vision of each of these three food production systems. My effort is intended to build on earlier TCLocal articles relating to land use and food production.[6]

It bears pointing out that the reintegration needed to transform

our food system will force the solution to some of our society’s worst problems. In addition to better food quality, the reduction of agricultural and other pollutants, and an increase in food security, the changes required for truly sustainable food production will rebuild community and begin to mend what Engels and Marx called the “metabolic rifts” in both our farms (e.g., broken nutrient cycles) and our communities (e.g., the broken connection between city and country, man and nature). These systems thinkers saw that the notion of metabolism that in biology refers to chemical processes and transactions essential to maintain life has its counterpart in ecosystems and social systems.

NOTES

[1] Catton, William R. Jr. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1982.

[2] Bennholdt-Thomsen, Veronika, and Maria Mies. The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalized Economy. London: Zed Books, 1999.

[3] Funes, Fernando et al. Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Transforming Food Production in Cuba. Oakland: Food First Books, 2002.

[4] Mollison, Bill. 1997. Permaculture: A Designer’s Handbook. Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari Publications, 1997. Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw7mQZHfFVE&NR=1

[5] Hopkins, Rob. 2008. The Transition Handbook. White River, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.

[6] For a list, see the TCLocal archives (http://tclocal.org/archives.html).

by Jon Bosak, TCLocal Editor

For someone who believes, as I do, that decreasing availability of cheap fossil fuel will eventually make the transportation of food over long distances economically unfeasible, the phrase “local food” acquires a special meaning beyond the usual lifestyle implications. It’s less about maintaining moral purity and more about whether we’re going to have enough to eat. Since I live in the state of New York, the question becomes: could New York feed itself on what it produces?

A couple of years ago, I attempted a back-of-the-envelope sort of calculation to answer this question from a “peak oil” standpoint. To model the worst case, the one in which it takes more energy to extract fossil fuel than the energy we can get out of it, I put the question this way: if New York State produced what it did a hundred years ago, before the arrival of gasoline- and diesel-fueled equipment, could it feed its present population?

The answer, based on New York State agricultural statistics from the 1900 U.S. census, was rather depressing. Despite the fact that New York back then was an agricultural powerhouse — being, for example, far and away the number one state in potato production — its 1900 output of food would barely keep its current population alive.

Carbs weren’t so bad; assuming, in round numbers, a state population of 20 million (a little more than the current estimate), NYS 1900 could annually provide each resident with 87 pounds of corn and wheat and 114 pounds of potatoes. But protein was another story. NYS 1900 could provide each current resident with just 16 pounds of beef and pork, 37 eggs, and half a chicken per year. Dairy production, a historical strength in the state, would provide each person now living here just 39 gallons of milk per year, including an average six pounds of butter and seven pounds of cheese. This is probably enough animal protein to sustain life, but not remotely what we’re used to.

NYS fruit wouldn’t take up much of the slack, either; apples, grapes, peaches, pears, and berries put together would only amount to about 75 pounds per person. New York invented beans as an article of commercial North American agriculture (the first commercial bean crop on record was grown in 1836 in the Town of Yates, in Orleans County), but each person in our current population would only get about four pounds of them a year, plus a little less than a pound of peas. The problem, of course, is that in addition to cutting the fossil fuel input (including all the natural gas we turn into fertilizer), we would be trying to feed almost three times the number of people today that we supported in 1900.

Obviously this calculation was based on some very pessimistic assumptions about available fuel. But it also contained some extremely optimistic assumptions as well — most importantly that we still had substantially more arable land than we actually do now and also that we still had the vastly greater resources of animal power available a hundred years ago.[1] While suggestive, it wasn’t a very precise way of assessing our current resources.

The Cornell studies

Unknown to me, teams at Cornell University under the direction of postdoctoral researcher Christian Peters were engaged in sophisticated studies that would answer a more immediately interesting question — not what would happen if the energy inputs failed, but what the state’s carrying capacity is now, given current rates of production, and what our distribution system would look like if food miles were reduced as far as possible.

The work undertaken so far by Peters et al. has been described in two articles published in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. The first piece, from 2006,[2] investigated the influence of diet on the demand for agricultural land and, secondarily, the ability of New York State to reduce environmental impacts by supplying food locally. The second study, from 2008,[3] focused more closely on local food by developing and applying a method for mapping NYS foodsheds. While preliminary, the results of these studies pose serious questions for those who seek to relocalize our diet, and they raise some significant issues for planners attempting to grapple with the contraction of agricultural supply chains due to rising fuel prices. The purpose of this article is to make the key findings of these seminal studies available to a larger audience.

The relatively short list of products actually produced in our climate suggests that the answer to the question of how much of our food needs can be supplied locally depends to some extent on what kinds of foods we plan to eat. The 2006 study approaches this issue by using USDA data to define 42 different nutritionally complete diets supplying 2300 calories a day, calculating the agricultural land requirements for each diet, and then calculating the potential ability of NYS to supply that diet to each resident based on recent estimates of available agricultural land (not land currently in production, but land that could be). Each of the 42 diets is nutritionally complete but contains different proportions of meat and eggs at rates from 0 to 12 ounces per day and different proportions of calories from fat ranging from 20 to 45 percent of total calories. The average U.S. diet contains 5.8 ounces of meat or eggs per day and 41 percent of calories from fat; Figure 1 shows where this average diet falls in the six by seven matrix formed by the two variables.[4] While obviously incomplete, the model does represent the range of common American food consumption patterns from low-fat lacto-vegetarian to high-fat, meat-rich omnivorous.

Figure 1. Matrix of 42 complete diets. (Click for larger image.)

Land requirements for each diet are based on a division of available agricultural land into three categories: harvested cropland, cropland pasture, and permanent pasture.

Figure 2. Available agricultural land in New York State. (Click for larger image.)

Further methodology, detailed in the study, addresses the interdependencies between perennial crops (grown mainly on grassland) and annual crops (grown mainly on cultivated land), and the calculation of carrying capacity employs a conditional equation that determines which category of land is limiting to food production. Figure 3 shows the results, with the seven levels of meat consumption displayed across the bottom and the six levels of fat consumption grouped within each meat consumption level. For example, someone who ate 190 grams (6.7 ounces) of cooked meat equivalents per day would require somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.45 hectares (about 1 1/8 acres) of combined annual and perennial NYS crops for their sustenance if their entire diet came from within the state.

Figure 3. Land requirements of complete diets. (Click for larger image.)

Effect of diet on carrying capacity

Not surprisingly, the results show a nearly fivefold difference in the amount of land needed per capita depending on the diet, from 0.18 ha (0.44 ac) for a diet of 0 g meat and 52 g fat to 0.86 ha (2.12 ac) for a diet of 381 g meat and 52 g fat. As most TCLocal.org readers are aware, animal products require much more land per unit of edible energy than grains; in NYS this amounts to 3.3 to 6.3 times as much total land required for the animal products other than beef and a whopping 31 times as much for beef.

On the other hand, as shown in the figure, much of the difference is in the amount of land devoted to perennial crops rather than cultivated crops. If we consider just cultivated land requirements, the clear animal products winner is whole milk (1.2 square meters of cultivated land per 1000 calories). This is just slightly above the figure for grains (1.1 square meters per 1000 calories) and actually below the requirements per 1000 calories for oils (3.2 square meters), pulses (2.2 square meters) and even vegetables (1.7 square meters).

Beef is always presented as the bad boy in discussions of agricultural requirements, but this seems to depend on where you are. The fact is that a lot of the NYS agricultural land base is not suitable for the production of annual crops but is great for forage, which provides most of a ruminant’s nutritional needs. Grassland (I will note) also requires much less in the way of fertilizer and energy inputs and helps to conserve topsoil and nitrogen. Most other foods, including most other animal products, require annual crops, the land for which is more limited in extent and is therefore the limiting factor in the total NYS food supply. Using NYS production figures, the study finds that beef (all cuts) requires 5.3 square meters of cultivated land per 1000 calories, whereas pork (all cuts) requires 7.3 square meters and chicken (all cuts) 9.0. The energy implications of these findings are not brought to the fore in the articles under review here, but clearly the effect on total production and energy requirements of including various kinds of meat in the diet is to some extent location-specific and not as straightforward as it’s often assumed to be.

Another nonobvious outcome that can be seen by studying the different fat proportions for each meat consumption level in Figure 3 is that increasing the amount of fat in the diet somewhat reduces the amount of land required. As a result, the difference in carrying capacity due to differences in diet is closer to threefold rather than the fivefold difference suggested by Figure 3. This is summed up in Figure 4, which shows the potential carrying capacity of the NYS agricultural land base for each of the 42 diets. In general, the population supported by NYS decreases with increasing fat in the no meat diet, reaches a peak and then declines in the 63 and 127 g meat diets, and increases with increasing fat in the 190-381 g meat diets. As indicated by the grey shading, some diets with low to modest levels of meat feed equal or greater numbers of people than lacto-vegetarian diets with moderately high levels of fat.

Figure 4. NYS carrying capacity according to diet. (Click for larger image.)

One possibly unexpected implication of the study is that a vegan diet does not support the maximum number of people, at least not in the state of New York: “[W]e conclude that the inclusion of beef and milk in the diet can increase the number of people fed from the land base relative to a vegan diet, up to the point that land limited to pasture and perennial forages has been fully utilized.” Figure 5 shows what’s meant by this; even the diet with the highest proportion of meat still doesn’t exhaust the land available for forage.

Figure 5. Use of available NYS agricultural land by diet. (Click for larger image.)

In a passage sure to provoke some of our readers, the authors continue: “[T]he higher populations supported by lower fat, non-vegetarian diets relative to higher fat, [lacto-]vegetarian diets support the claims by animal scientists that the inclusion of animal products in the diet can increase the amount of humanly edible calories available in the food supply. Indeed, more substantial differences may have been observed had a vegan diet been included among the diet scenarios.” The authors hasten to add that this is not an endorsement of the average American diet: “Nonetheless, it is critical to note that the area of overlap observed occurs between 63 g (2 oz) and 127 g (4 oz) of meat, far below the 163 g daily consumption of the average American.”

Beyond these details, Figure 4 also provides the answer to my original question: Can NYS feed itself? The answer is an unequivocal No. Assuming that everyone gets a complete, balanced daily diet that includes 190 g of meat and contains 30 percent fat, the state could potentially feed about 21 percent of its current population. Given a radical change in the average diet, this proportion could, judging from Figure 4, rise to a little over 30 percent, but it’s clear that NYS will always be a net importer of food. Since the cost of transporting food from outside the state is certain to increase dramatically over the next couple of decades, the effect on food prices can readily be imagined. I think this also suggests that economic forces will push back into production some land no longer considered agricultural (golf courses, lawns, etc.).

A subsidiary but still interesting question for people living out here in Tompkins County is whether the situation just described is the same for all parts of the state; after all, a basic (if mostly tacit) assumption of relocalization is that things aren’t going to be the same everywhere. Peters et al. address this question in the second of the two articles reviewed here.

Foodsheds

The 2008 paper takes on the question of what we mean by “local” in an increasingly urban civilization. “To what degree can food be produced locally?,” the study asks. “Moreover, should the meaning of ‘local’ be context specific?” The method is based on a relatively recent reintroduction of the concept of a foodshed, first used by W.P. Hedden in 1929. Peters et al. define a potential local foodshed as “the land that could provide some [specified] portion of a population center’s food needs within the bounds of a relatively circumscribed geographic area,” or more simply, “the area of land that feeds, or could potentially feed, a population.” Foodsheds provide a framework for analyzing the capacity to produce food locally at the scale of an individual city, and a principal goal of the 2008 study is to develop standard methods for this kind of analysis.

The model created in support of this goal employs geographic information systems (GIS) to estimate the spatial distribution of food production capacity relative to the food needs of a given population center and then applies optimization tools “to allocate production potential to meet food needs in the minimum distance possible.” The software implementing the model also produces foodshed maps that aid in visualizing the geographic extent of a food supply.

Assuming a constant basis in the land use data from NYS, it’s apparent that studies of this kind will produce different results depending on the assumptions regarding nutritional requirements and the algorithms built into the foodshed optimization technique.

Since the focus in the second study is on foodsheds rather than dietary variables, it holds those variables constant by using just a single representative complete diet containing 6 ounces daily from meat and eggs and 30 percent of calories from fat. A number of other simplifying assumptions are needed to make it possible to do the spatial modeling; for example, because the concept of a foodshed is tied to population centers, rural NYS residents are assumed to get their food from the nearest center. Also, and crucially, the model seeks to find the minimum total distance food would optimally travel throughout the state rather than optimizing for an individual population center, since the most efficient allocation for the whole state might require that land near one population center be assigned to a more distant population center. Due to matrix size constraints imposed by the spreadsheet software, only 125 of the 132 statistical NYS population centers could be included in the model, resulting in the elimination of the seven smallest (totaling just 0.2 percent of the state’s population).

Even with these simplifications, the optimization model used to calculate foodsheds is quite complex, and I’ll have to refer readers who want more details to the published study itself.

A selection of the output produced from the model for the largest NYS population centers is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Statewide maps of selected foodsheds. (Click for larger image.)

These maps show foodsheds for food from annual crops and fruits (on the left) and food from perennial forages (on the right) for the six largest consumption zones in New York State: Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, and NYC. These six foodsheds, indicated by the different colors, are layered over greyscale shadings showing the capability of different areas of the state to produce food. For example, the completely black pixels in the map on the right show that the area represented by those pixels in the original model (not necessarily scaled the same as the pixels here) is potentially capable of producing 1200 to 1800 metric tons (Mg) of food products annually from perennial crops, chiefly pasture. HNE stands for “human nutritional equivalent,” referring to a complex submethodology for relating per capita nutrional requirements to combinations of farm products.

As can be seen from these maps, the presence of a population center much larger than the rest changes the shape of the other foodsheds. For example, on the perennial forages map, the Syracuse, Albany, and Poughkeepsie-Newburgh foodsheds extend farther to the north and west than to the south and east because the overall statewide food travel distance is shortened by ceding the land to the south of these centers to the NYC foodshed. This distortion takes an extreme form in the case of the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh foodshed (yellow), which extends from the population center as if it were being blown back by the enormous NYC food demand. Conversely, when a population center is relatively isolated, as in the case of Rochester and Buffalo, its potential foodshed spreads more evenly because it is limited by natural barriers rather than by competition with other cities.

This single example doesn’t begin to do justice to the resource provided by the model. I urge people interested in exploring the model further to check it out online:

http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/extension/foodshed-mapping.cfm

Our local foodsheds

Below are screen captures of two maps generated by the Cornell tool for the Ithaca foodshed, one map for cropland (annual crops) and one for grassland (perennial crops), with the outlines of the corresponding Syracuse, Binghamton, and Elmira foodsheds shown for comparison.

According to the model, in a distribution system that used all available NYS agricultural land, provided a certain balanced diet to everyone, and optimized statewide food distances, Ithaca’s food from cropland (Figure 7) would travel an average of just 11 miles, and its food from grassland (Figure 8) would travel an average of 25. In neither case, however, would that locally sourced food satisfy all the food needs of the Ithaca area population (estimated at 95,000 persons, which includes the Ithaca Urbanized Area plus nearby surrounding rural populations). The model shows that the optimized locally sourced food from cropland would fully supply the cropland component of the assumed diet for about 81 percent of the local population (76731/95000), whereas the locally sourced food from grassland would supply only about 19 percent of that dietary component (17965/95000). This illustrates in detail the conclusion reached in the TCLocal.org article that Dr. Peters published here in April: only about half of our food supply in Tompkins County would come from local sources if food was distributed in a way that minimized food miles for the entire state.

The effect of the immense NYC demand for food on the shape of our optimized foodshed is clear even at this distance from the city; both of Ithaca’s foodsheds lie entirely to the west and north of the population center, extending in the case of grassland across several adjacent counties. Also apparent from these maps is the basis of the model on potential agricultural land rather than the land that’s in production right now; anyone familiar with the areas included in these foodsheds knows that in fact much of the land shown as the potential source of our local food is not now actually in production. The need to preserve currently idle agricultural land north and west of Ithaca for future use has important implications for zoning and land use policy in in our area; as the cost of transportation grows, this is where much of our food will have to come from.

Figure 7. Potential optimized Ithaca cropland foodshed. (Click for larger image.)

Figure 8. Potential optimized Ithaca grassland foodshed. (Click for larger image.)

Where to be a locavore

The table in Figure 9 below provides one answer to the question, “how much of New York’s food can be provided locally?” The answer is: it depends on where you live.

Figure 9. Summary of model output. (Click for larger image.)

The table lists three categories of NYS population centers (using terminology from the U.S. Census) in order of the amount of food in Tg (millions of metric tons) they receive within the model. First, of course, is New York City, which is in a category by itself. In this model — which, it must be remembered, optimizes food distances for the whole state — NYC would get just 2.2 percent of its total from food produced within the state, and that food would have to come from an average of 264 km away. The next biggest population centers, the “urbanized areas,” would get 84 percent of their food from inside the state, and that would come on average from 51 km away. And the smallest population centers (excluding the seven very smallest, as noted above), could get virtually all their food needs met from within the state, and the food could come on average from just 25 km away.

Bottom line for the state as a whole: Given the diet assumed for the study, if all agricultural land were in use, and food distribution were optimized to minimize the total distance that food travels, New York State could get 34 percent of its food needs met from within the state, and that food would travel an average distance of 49 km to each consumer.

You’ll notice that the 34 percent figure differs a little from the results of the 2006 study, due no doubt to differences between the two studies in assumptions and methodology. The difference isn’t enough to change the basic picture and in fact reinforces it by coming at it from a different angle, but it’s obvious that the results provided by a model like this depend to a large extent on a complex set of assumptions. The authors point out several ways in which the model does not take into account real-world factors (geographic limitations, agricultural specialization, details of the food processing workflow, economies of scale, etc.) and note that optimizing for food miles does not necessarily optimize for greenhouse gas emissions or energy inputs. Nevertheless, one conclusion stands out fairly clearly. Outside of the NYC area, most population centers in the state could meet all, or nearly all, of their needs from food produced within the state. But NYC, if it depended on food produced within the state, would go largely unfed.

The study boils the results down to what I would call the good news and the bad news. The good news is that “NYS may be able to significantly reduce the distance food travels” to an average far less than the 1300 miles often cited as the distance from farm to consumer in the U.S. The bad news is that “feeding big cities may require food to travel great distances.”

Peters et al. don’t draw out the implications of that last point, but I will: People living in NYC are going to be paying an awful lot more for food as we begin to move down the energy descent slope, and it would be better for them if they started to relocate back to the small towns upstate that have seen their populations decline over the last half century. To rephrase the old saying, NYC is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to try to survive there.

Notes

[1] Anyone who wants to check my figures or apply this method to other states can find a scan of the entire 1900 census abstract at http://www.ibiblio.org/tcrp/src/1900census.pdf (this 66 MB file is best downloaded before viewing).

[2] Peters, C. J., J. L. Wilkins, and G. W. Fick. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2); 145-153.

[3] Peters, C. J., N. L. Bills, A. J. Lembo, J. L. Wilkins, and G. W. Fick. Mapping potential foodsheds in New York State: A spatial model for evaluating the capacity to localize food production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1); 72-84.

[4] Except for two screen shots (Figures 7 and 8), all the illustrations in this article come from a presentation given by Dr. Peters at the conference “Planning for Farms, Food, and Energy in Central New York” sponsored by the American Farmland Trust 25 March 2009 in Syracuse. I am indebted to conference organizer Judy Wright for a copy of the presentation slides. Most of the figures can be magnified for a better view.

by Christian Peters

Modern people in industrialized countries ask themselves a question that most people have not needed to ask over most of human history: “Where does my food come from?” The fact that the answer is not immediately obvious testifies to the completeness of our transition from an agricultural society to an industrial one. Food often travels great distances from the farm field through processing facilities, distribution channels, retail outlets, and ultimately to a person's plate. As a result, the journey of food remains a mystery to most of us.

To some extent, this transition has been a success. For most of the twentieth century, the principal goal of agricultural research was to increase economic efficiency of production, thus making food cheaper and more abundant. Trends in consumption and the percent of disposable income spent on food show that these efforts were effective. In the U.S., for example, the share of income spent on food dropped from 24% in 1929 to 11% in 1998 (USDA Economic Research Service, 2000). Food has become much more affordable, but this transition has aggravated health problems related to excessive consumption. In addition, the increased intensity of agriculture necessary to enable this increase in abundance has raised many issues about the environmental sustainability of the food system.

Among the many sustainability issues surrounding the food system, dependence on non- renewable energy sources and growing concern about climate change present a clear challenge. Energy consumption grew 20-fold between 1850 and 2000 (Holdren, 2008). However, limitations to increasing the supply of fossil fuels or regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may cause this trend to reverse in the twenty-first century. The possibility of society entering a period of “energy descent” within this century suggests that we learn more about the journey of food from farm to plate. Specifically, we need to understand which elements of our food system are most sensitive to changes in the availability of energy so that society may plan strategically. One course of action that has been proposed is to increase reliance on “local” sources of food. This paper will address two fundamental questions related to this strategy as it applies to Tompkins County: “How much food could Tompkins County provide for itself?” and “What is the capacity of other places in New York State?” Answers to these questions will begin to shed light on a larger issue — how much of our food should be produced locally?

How much could Tompkins County produce?

One way to examine the capacity of Tompkins County to localize food production is to estimate the number of people it could feed based on the potential productivity of its agricultural land. On one level, this is an elementary approach. It considers only the nutritional needs of the population and the capacity of the available soils and climate to produce food. The necessary human capital and physical infrastructure for creating a local food system are simply assumed to exist or to be possible to develop. Nonetheless, calculating the capacity of land to meet human nutritional needs is sufficiently complex to constitute a valuable first step.

Such an analysis has been conducted for New York State. It examined a wide range of possible diets and estimated both the land requirements of each diet and the number of people that could be fed from the agricultural land within the state (Peters et al., 2007). The methodology estimated food intake based on the nutritional needs of the New York State population, preferences for individual foods, and a range of assumptions about the amount of meat and fat in the diet. Land requirements for the human diet were calculated based on estimated food intake, adjustments for losses and inedible portions, New York State crop yields, and standard livestock feeding practices. The carrying capacity was estimated based on the land requirements of each diet and the amount of cropland and pasture available, with limitations placed on the amount of land that can be tilled.

Given the complexity of the methodology, let us assume that Tompkins County is just like New York State, only smaller. Thus, the number of people that the county could feed (P_Tompkins) can be estimated as a simple product of the total number that could be fed in the state (P_{New York State}) and the proportion of available agricultural land in Tompkins County (A_Tompkins) relative to that available in New York State (A_{New York State}):

P_Tompkins = P_{New York State} × (A_Tompkins/A_{New York State})

For purposes of illustration, let's estimate capacity to feed the population a diet with 6 ounces of cooked meat and eggs daily and 30% calories from fat. This diet reflects the current American preference for meat and eggs as a protein source yet adheres to the recommended limit of no more than 30% of total calories from fat. The statewide analysis estimated that New York could theoretically feed 4.0 million people such a diet from its 5.0 million acres of harvested cropland, cropland pasture, and permanent pasture (Peters et al., 2005; Peters et al., 2007). According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Tompkins County has 70,150 acres of land in harvested cropland, cropland pasture, and permanent pasture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009). Based on the equation above, the agricultural land of Tompkins County could theoretically feed 56 thousand people — 56% of the estimated 2007 population for the county (101,055, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

This estimate should be taken with several grains of salt. It is based principally on the capacity of the available land and does not account for many of the social or economic factors, such as food processing infrastructure, that might further limit the capacity for Tompkins County to supply its own food. Nonetheless, it provides a baseline estimate that could be adjusted to account for changes in crop yields, availability of land, and different diets. This baseline suggests that the agricultural land of the county has significant potential to meet the food needs of the county, but that the county could not be self-sufficient.

Where would neighboring counties get their food?

Of course, Tompkins County is not the only county in the state that would like to be fed. Thus, it is reasonable to consider a more complex analysis that accounts for the needs of surrounding population centers. Such an analysis has already been conducted for New York State. The research attempted to map potential local foodsheds, geographic areas that could theoretically provide the food needs of a population center (Peters et al., 2009). The study used geographic information systems and optimization models to determine how much food the major population centers of New York could supply from within the state if all agricultural land were used to feed people as “locally” as possible.

The foodshed model used the statewide analysis of the food requirements of the human diet as a foundation. Food production capacity was then estimated spatially based on the distribution of agricultural land and the productivity of the underlying soils. Food needs were also estimated over space based on the location and population of the state's urban centers. This data on potential food production capacity and estimated food needs were organized in an optimization model that sought to minimize “food miles.” In other words, it allocated the available food production potential in the shortest possible distance.

The analysis did not produce results specific to Tompkins County, but the summary results provide the basic story. According to the model, the larger cities of upstate New York (Ithaca included) could theoretically supply 84% of their food needs within an average distance of 32 miles from the city center (Peters et al., 2009). The smaller cities fared even better and could theoretically supply 98% of their needs within an average distance of just 16 miles. In contrast, the model allocated New York City (NYC) just 2% of its food needs even though it drew on land an average distance of 165 miles from city center. Since the greater NYC area contains the majority of the state's population, this is a serious deficiency.

Again, these results should be interpreted with caution. The analysis shows that with respect to food, the distribution of land to people is nearly in balance in upstate New York. However, this balance is upset once the population of NYC is included. This does not imply that NYC cannot or should not obtain some of its food from local sources. Rather it points out that there is simply not enough land to meet the food needs of all people in all cities of New York State. The geographic area of analysis would need to be much larger to see how “local” the NYC food supply could be.

Conclusions

These two attempts to examine the food production potential of Tompkins County should not be seen as immutable estimates. Rather, they provide a quick estimate of the capacity of the county to meet its food needs and a sketch of the thinking behind the calculations. The details of the analyses, while nuanced and important, are covered in depth in the original publications. The intent of this article is simply to initiate a larger discussion.

Acknowledging these limitations, the two examples suggest that while Tompkins County may have a significant land base relative to its population, it is not an island. Rather, it is part of the very populous Northeast U.S. region. In the context of planning for energy descent, Tompkins County lies in the “backyard” of the nation's largest city. Thus, local needs for the county's agricultural land will have to be balanced against the demands of this major metropolitan area. After all, New York City already relies on upstate New York for its water supply and many of the dairy products the city consumes.

Since all food cannot be local, we should think strategically about which foods would be most important to provide locally. This will vary from location to location and from one food to another. For example, NYC is a major seaport with access to the most energy efficient form of transport available (shipping over water), whereas many towns and villages in New York are accessible only by road. Similarly, grain is easy to store and can be transported by slow, energy efficient methods, while fluid milk is bulky and perishable. It needs to be moved quickly. Such issues will clearly influence which foods are most important to supply locally and which locations have the greatest need for access to locally produced foods. We will need to think in this broader context if we are to plan strategically about how to adapt our food systems to the challenge of energy descent.

References

Holdren, J.P. 2008. Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science 319 (5862): 424-434.

Peters, C.J., Bills, N.L., Lembo, A.J., Wilkins, J.W., and Fick, G.W. 2009. Mapping potential foodsheds in New York State: A spatial model for evaluating the capacity to localize food production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24 (1): 72-84.

Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., and Fick, G.W. 2005. Input and Output Data in Studying the Impact of Meat and Fat on the Land Resource Requirements of the Human Diet and Potential Carrying Capacity: The New York State Example [R05-1]. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., and Fick, G.W. 2007. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2):145-153.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. State and County QuickFacts for Tompkins County, New York. Available at Web site: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36109.html (verified 1 March 2009).

USDA Economic Research Service. 2000. Major trends in U.S. food supply, 1909-99. FoodReview 23(1): 8-15.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Available at Web site: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/New_York/index.asp (verified 1 March 2009).

Additional Resources

U.S. Food consumption data: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/

Census of Agriculture Query Tool http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Desktop_Application/index.asp

Local Foodshed Mapping Tool http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/extension/foodshed-mapping.cfm

by Persephone Doliner

What Is Processed Food?

To process food is to make parts of plants and animals more edible than they would be in their unprocessed state. Manufactured products containing lots of chemicals and sweeteners, a class of processed foods, have given all processed foods a bad name. Other, more basic foods are also processed: all food made of grain; milk, butter, cheese, and meats; plant-based meat substitutes (tofu, seitan, etc.); dried and canned fruit and vegetables; all fermented foods; oils, syrups, even honey. Although all cooking is food processing too, in this article, food processing refers to the many other ways of transforming plants and animals into human food: (1) techniques that get food ready to be cooked (e.g., cleaning and hulling grain, butchering animals), and (2) techniques that preserve food, retarding spoilage for periods ranging from a few weeks to many years (e.g., making cheese, canning).

Who Needs Processed Food?

Most of us. Your diet probably has a large processed component. Diet variety depends on eating some processed foods. Otherwise food choices would be limited to what could be raised, hunted, or foraged and eaten as is. In a sense, processed food is civilized food.

If you live in Tompkins County, eating locally raised foods year round requires eating stored or preserved foods, since the local growing season ends with the cold weather. And of course the universal need to eat processed foods such as grains and dairy products applies in Tompkins. Overall, processed foods are an important part of the local food supply.

Technique and Scale

A few words about two key dimensions of food processing are in order, before discussion of its role in Tompkins under energy descent conditions. The two key dimensions are technique and scale, both of which take many different forms when people process food.

Here is a list of 21 generic, common techniques used to process food: baking, brewing, butchering, cleaning, confit, culturing, curing, drying, fermenting, freezing, grinding, heating, hulling, milling, pressing, pickling, refining, salting, smoking, sterilizing, sugaring, vacuum packing. In general, each of these food processing techniques is used for more than one type of food. The equipment needed to carry out a technique is usually specific to a food type, however. For instance, fruit and seeds are both pressed to extract juice or oil, but the equipment needed is not interchangeable. Grain for beer and cucumbers for pickles are both fermented, but the procedures and set-ups used in the two cases are quite different.

Like technique, the scale at which food processing can be done also varies widely. The same technique can be applied in a home kitchen, a small commercial facility, or a huge factory. The procedures used at these three different levels may not be the same, and the equipment certainly won’t be the same at the different scales. The machines that process our current commercial food supply differ in design from those used in a small-scale operation, and those in turn differ from the tools you might use in your kitchen. For example, in large-scale commercial flour production, grain is crushed under rollers; in small-scale commercial production, it is ground in mills using large stones; at home you can use a machine about the size of an automatic coffee maker that grinds using metal or little stones.

A few modern techniques are strictly industrial processes (e.g., aseptic packaging, which relies on heating to very high temperatures and complex packaging). All types of food can, however, be processed and preserved in some way at all of the different scales. All foods can be processed in a home kitchen as effectively as they can be processed in a small or large factory.

Processed Food Supply under Energy Descent

Most of the processed food that Tompkins County currently consumes comes from elsewhere. There is little commercial food processing in the county. There are no large factories processing food, and only a few small operations. At the other end of the scale, home food processing appears to have recently gained in popularity, yet most households in the county don’t do any.

Large-scale commercial food processing is highly centralized. For instance, over 90 percent of the canned tomato products consumed in the U.S. come from California. Centralized food processing depends on agriculture conducted on a very large scale as the source of the food to be processed, on industrial production and storage, and on nationwide distribution, largely via trucking. If energy descent deprives this food processing system of the sources and practices it relies on, it may become less productive or even fail. Products will become scarcer and more expensive and may vanish. Tompkins County will have unmet processed food needs, and a need to supply itself with more of the processed food it consumes .

What would a working local food processing system look like? Under conditions of energy descent, could small-scale operations supply enough processed food to feed TC? Many unknowables (how much food can be grown, how many people need to be fed, how many people are available to work, what equipment can be maintained, how it can be powered, and what shape is society in) come into play; answers are not within grasp here. Even if the answer to the overarching question posed above (Could Tompkins adequately supply itself with processed foods?) is ultimately no, food processed locally will increase the county’s food supply under energy descent. More is better.

Given future uncertainty, the rest of this article mostly concerns the effects of conditions as they exist today on local food processing. What local conditions promote growth? What conditions retard it?

What Processed Foods Are Needed Most?

The county would need to grow more food and different food than it does now if it were trying to supply itself with processed foods. Most of the human food produced here is fruit and vegetables that are eaten fresh and unprocessed. Some grain, beans, and meat are raised in the county, and contiguous counties produce substantially more. Yet flour, cleaned grains, pasta, packaged baked goods, milk, cheese, meats, plant-based meat substitutes, and fats and oils all mostly come from outside the county and the wider local area. These processed foods are the staples of most diets; without them, people are hungry. If county residents seek to supply themselves with processed food, they need to produce these kinds of food. Processed fruits and vegetables are important but not vital, as they can be replaced by stored raw fruits and vegetables. If local food processing is to fill gaps left by the withdrawal of out-of-area food, its focus must be on processing grain, beans, nuts, seeds, meat, and dairy to produce staples.

Can Tompkins sustainably grow enough food to supply itself with foods to process? Another big question, again beyond the scope of this article. One aspect of the issue that can be discussed a little here is the relationship between production and processing.

The Chicken/Egg Conundrum for Growing and Processing

Growth in local food production and growth in food processing should go hand in hand, each promoting the other. A home jam maker wants to make strawberry jam for himself and his friends; he spends $30 on berries at a local U-pick, supporting their business. An artisanal (i.e., small-scale commercial) jam maker needs fruit; she buys the output of a half-acre each of blueberries, raspberries, and strawberries, supporting local agriculture on a larger scale. The big glitch in this picture of simple mutual reinforcement between production and processing is the chicken/egg problem: Which comes first? Dedicating farm resources to a particular crop for a processor is a major decision for a farmer. And, like a farm, starting and maintaining a commercial food processing operation takes heaps of money, knowledge, time, skill, siting, and equipment. Who is going to invest in, say, a commercial oil press to make sunflower seed oil if the supply of sunflowers is not at hand? But who is going to grow sunflowers in the amounts needed to supply an oil producer if the press isn’t up and running and begging for seeds?

Processing food at home does not suffer much from the chicken/egg problem. It’s not too hard to get started; techniques for preserving fruit and some vegetables at home are easy to learn and do not require specialized tools. Other vegetable and fruit methods a household can use, and techniques for processing grain, nuts and seeds, dairy products, and meats call for special equipment and more advanced skills — but nothing on the level of a professional investment in learning, plant, and equipment. In parallel, the potential contribution of home food processing to boosting the demand for locally farmed foods is also far smaller than the contribution that a commercial enterprise might make. But widespread home food processing in the county would still increase demand for locally raised food, perhaps significantly.

The producer-processor relationship is more complex for the staple foods than for fruits and vegetables. Generally speaking, this is because the staple foods need to undergo multiple types of processing before they can be eaten. Stalks of grain-bearing plants like wheat, oats, and barley do not go directly from field to oven, for instance. They need to be threshed, cleaned, hulled, and milled. Without facilities in place to handle these steps, grain isn’t usable. So neither consumers nor small-scale commercial processors can buy directly from farmers.

The Cost of Doing Business

As noted above, setting up commercial food processing operations takes money, knowledge, skill, and equipment. The last three elements are technique-specific; a miller doesn’t need the same knowledge as a butcher, or the same tools. Deciding what methods and machines to use in commercial processing is not straightforward even once a potential processor is well-informed and funded. Say you want to clean and hull grain commercially. You have about a dozen different grain cleaners to choose from. You have a range of choices in hullers too; a small impact huller will cost you about $15,000; the next step up in size and efficiency, about $23,000.

Food processing needs specialized, well-equipped facilities, too, and these need to be licensed. (Licensing is discussed more below.)

Storage of foods to be processed and of finished products also takes substantial resources: clean, dedicated, appropriately designed space; temperature control; and insect and rodent control are some needs. Other elements of a commercial food business are distribution and marketing; even at a small scale of commercial food processing, some staff needs to work exclusively on these.

Fossil Fuel Dependence

As with industrial scale food processing, everything that goes into small-scale commercial food processing as it is practiced today — agriculture, tools, equipment, facilities, and production, storage, and distribution — uses fossil fuels. Scarcer energy may make the methods and machines that are best to use now unusable in the future. At the very least, planning for such a transition is yet another consideration for a new food processing enterprise.

Legal Considerations for Commercial Food Processing

Laws governing food processing are numerous; they are (appropriately) different for different foods; and they exist at various levels of government (e.g., county, federal). No processed food product can be legally sold to the public without government licensing of (at least) the place and methods of production. The facility license and the product license are separate, and each is managed by different authorities. Generally speaking, in Tompkins the county regulates facilities, and the state regulates products. If you wanted to produce tomato sauce to sell, for example, you would need to go to the county health department for a license for your facility, and you would need to go to the state for your license to produce tomato sauce. For the latter, you would obtain a “20C” processing license by submitting and testing your recipe. For some foods, wholesaling to stores requires a higher level of licensing — a federal license rather than a state one, for instance — than direct selling to the public.

Just as processing grains, dairy, fats, and meats is more complicated than processing fruits and vegetables, regulations surrounding production of these staple products is more complicated, and licensing generally involves federal agencies in addition to local and state ones.

In general, the regulations governing processed foods tend to favor production on a large scale and to discourage small-scale enterprises. Conforming with regulations may simply require investments in plant and equipment too large for new entrepreneurs. Inattention and confusion at regulatory agencies can also pose problems. A fully equipped and ready-to-go small meat packer, for instance, may be unable to get a license to operate because it cannot get an appointment to be inspected.

Two more legal considerations food processors must address are zoning and product liability. Zoning limits where food processing facilities can be sited. Product liability limits where and whether products can be sold. Commercial food processors need insurance to sell legally.

Local Commercial Food Processing in the Big Picture

The existing international food supply and processing system discourages new local food processing enterprises. Processed food (even the “good” kind) is cheap and abundant under current conditions of fossil fuel-supported agriculture, food manufacturing, distribution, and marketing. Food produced and processed locally on a small commercial scale usually costs more than food produced on an industrial scale. Local food processing enterprises won’t succeed if people don’t buy the products, so they won’t start up if a viable business looks unlikely. It’s another chicken/egg conundrum: Which comes first, the need for locally processed food, or the production of that food?

Some aspects of energy descent may favor local food processing. If products from far away become scarcer and more expensive, the cost advantage may shift to local products. Surpluses of produce that cannot be sold fresh because of transportation and storage problems may be more saleable in processed form. An overall poor economy and job loss may leave many people to work in local food processing. Local knowledge and enthusiasm about alternative energy may help keep food processing equipment up and running.

Energy descent is of course overall a limit to future local food production and processing. To reiterate, the way farmers — including small-scale organic farmers — grow food now depends heavily on fossil fuels and on inputs from outside the county. The equipment and methods used to process food now are similarly dependent, and scarce energy may make them unusable. In the past, people processed food using power from animals, wind, and water. Using these again implies enormous relearning and refitting, and scaling down output. On the plus side, Tompkins has land well suited to grazing animals and pockets of wind and water well suited to energy generation.

Home Food Processing

Processing food at home bypasses many of the difficulties involved with commercial enterprises. Without major investment or legal encounters, a household can supply itself with some or all of its own processed foods. The work is satisfying, and in most cases not too difficult. If you can follow a recipe, you can learn and safely apply most techniques. Yet home food processing does take time and effort. People learn by doing and by following instructions precisely; they are not proficient the first time around with a particular technique or food; care must be taken to have the set-up and tools needed on hand; and, perhaps most important for those with busy, heavily scheduled lives, several sequential hours of time are needed to accomplish most food processing activities.

Providing a household with all or most of the processed foods it eats means committing a lot of time. Putting by enough fruit, vegetables, and cheese, say, to last from one autumn until the next summer will likely require daily work during the growing season. Fortunately, home food processing/preserving is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Assuming you are buying most of your processed foods, and not trying to make everything yourself, you can start small and stay small, and you can confine your efforts to one technique or one product.

While knowledge about how to process food at home is not as common as it once was, it’s out there. People put up food all the time only a generation ago in most families. Opportunities to learn are at hand. The National Center for Home Food Preservation (http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/index.html) offers comprehensive information. Some useful books are the Ball Blue Book (ISBN 0-9727537-0-2), the Ball Complete Book of Home Preserving (ISBN-13 978-0-7788-0131-3), the University of Georgia’s So Easy to Preserve, and Rodale’s Stocking Up. If you consult books or pamphlets, be sure to use the most recent (late 2000s) editions, as expert recommendations for safe methods of food processing have changed over time. A full list of sources of information on food processing is available from Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE), which also conducts classes on many techniques.

Instruction may be as close as your next-door neighbor. Home food preservers often like to share what they know. Joining IthaCan, a local on-line network, is one way to connect with mentors and people to learn and practice food processing with. You can read about IthaCan and sign up as a member on the Prepared Tompkins website (http://www.preparedtompkins.org). Working in a group on food processing is fun and practical; it smoothes the often repetitive work, saves on energy costs, allows equipment sharing, and builds relationships with like-minded others.

Eaters, Processors, and Farmers

Some local factors favor the development of local food processing on both the home and small-scale commercial scales. First, local small-scale agriculture, though limited in its range of products, is strong. Organic farm start-ups are frequent, and some small-scale organic farms now have generation-long histories. Many other local farms have much longer histories-some farms have even survived from pre-fossil fuel days.

The county’s geography could also favor local processing. With the City of Ithaca and the county’s several towns positioned very close to farmland, food doesn’t have to travel far to be processed off-farm or to be sold.

County employment and incomes are relatively high, encouraging many (though far from most) county residents to buy local fresh food. The preference for local might extend to processed food, given the “right” quality and price. Local processed commercial products have had mixed success; some are established, while others have failed.

Systems for marketing local food are also fairly well-developed; the Ithaca Farmers’ Market is one of the largest in the state, and local food is increasingly sold by local retailers and by on-farm markets.

Formal relationships among growers, eaters, and processors other than the basic retail relationship could foster local food processing. One useful type of relationship is “bespeaking” foods to be grown in quantity. A group that wants to freeze peas in July might, for instance, talk to a farmer in January about growing and selling them the food. Home food processors could readily organize themselves to bespeak foods. Food salvage, or gleaning, is another, more complicated farm-processor-consumer relationship; under government regulation, farm donations are processed and distributed, usually by a charitable agency. Tompkins does not have such a system in place, though elements of it exist.

Training and Support for Commercial Local Food Processing Enterprises

Institutional support exists for beginning a local food processing business. The Food Venture Center (http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/necfe), located in Geneva, NY, offers excellent information on getting started and ongoing help with product development, business planning, licensing, and marketing. The Tompkins County Health Department, which regulates facilities, has a good reputation for helpfulness with some local food entrepreneurs. The New York Small-Scale Food Processors Association (http://www.nyssfpa.com) provides information and support (e.g., newsletter, joint purchasing and distribution, nutrition labeling) with membership, which costs about $40 yearly.

Tompkins does not have a food processing facility designed specifically for rental to small-scale food processors — a common model for starting and running artisanal food businesses. The types of processed foods that can be made in an ordinary kitchen can be produced for sale in any licensed commercial kitchen, and these are abundant in the county, in restaurants, at caterers, and in bakeries. The Women’s Community Building in Ithaca rents a licensed kitchen equipped with a jacket kettle for making large batches of jams and sauces. The Varna Community Center also has a rental kitchen. (A caveat: as described above, to be sold, each food needs to have its own license, in addition to being made in a licensed facility.)

Restaurant kitchens mostly have equipment that will be useful only for processing fruits and vegetables, not grains, oils, dairy, and meats. Small-scale equipment for processing the staple foods may or may not be portable.

“Copacking” is another model for producing commercial food products on a small scale. In this model, a producer hires a processor and facility to make a product.

Finally, existing commercial food processors in Tompkins County offer models for new businesses and may even offer advice. These businesses include Eve’s Cidery (soft cider), Bellwether Cider (hard cider), Ithaca Soy (bean curd), MacDonald Farms (fermented vegetables), Fingerlakes Farmstead Cheese, the Piggery, Purity Ice Cream, Seven Mile Creek Winery, and more. Upstate New York beyond county lines offers additional exemplars of small-scale enterprise for Tompkins entrepreneurs. These include the Hawthorne Valley Association (fermented vegetables), Hunger Action Network (jams), Hudson Valley Foodworks (rental/copacking facility), Lakeview Organics (grain cleaning), Martin’s Kitchen (condiments; copacking), Morrisville/Nelson Farms, the Schoharie Co-op Cannery (in planning), and Wild Hive Farm (a mill and bakery).

Yearning to “Eat Local”

A big booster to small-scale local commercial food processing may be that people in this county want local food, and they want to see local food processing grow along with local agriculture. Tompkins has people who like to buy local products; these include members of the “green” community and gourmets, or “foodies” (not mutually exclusive categories). The yearning for a personal connection with what we eat is strong here.

The county also has many people who want to be in the food processing business. Working with food appeals to many as a socially useful and satisfying way to make a living. The combined enthusiasm and energy of buyers and would-be producers of local processed foods could go a long way toward making more local small-scale commercial food processing businesses a reality.

To individually encourage the growth of food processing in Tompkins, commit yourself to “eating local” to whatever extent you can. Inform yourself by reading product labels and learning where your food is coming from. Try and buy locally processed products. Learn and practice personal food processing. Talk to others about products you would like to see made locally. Work toward local production of staples: grains, beans, nuts and seeds, meat and dairy. Encourage young people to become food producers and processors and promote needed education in schools. Consider becoming a producer or processor yourself.

by Tom Shelley

Introduction

Our current growth-based economic view is based on the continuous and ever-increasing use of energy and resources. This process generates solid waste, pollution, and greenhouse gases in enormous quantities. Despite international efforts to reduce waste, the amount generated continues to grow.

Eventually we will hit a collective wall, the bricks of which will be environmental degradation, climate change disasters, and the peaking of many resources. Properly prepared communities will handle the triple crises of environment, energy, and economy better than those that are not. Dealing with our wastes in a more sustainable manner will help to ensure our survival in an energy- and resource-constrained future.

In fact, if we radically reorient our world view, we can live in a world of little or no waste. Biomimicry — following the designs of nature and the paths of indigenous peoples — can create a nearly waste-free economy. In an ideal world, as in nature, there would be no wastes, only re-purposed resources.

Our present system of domestic waste disposal, in which we make it “go away” by putting it on a truck and driving it to the landfill, is resource intensive. Picking up waste, processing it (including recycling), and hauling off the landfilled wastes and the recycled materials requires lots of energy, mostly in the form of fossil fuels or electricity generated from fossil fuels. The same is true for the treatment of sewage, animal wastes, and various industrial wastes. Fortunately, our diminishing consumption will mean a lot less waste.[1] Even if we follow the path of biomimicry, we will still be left, as we always have been, with an irreducible minimum that must be disposed of for various reasons. The following sections address specific waste streams and some alternatives for managing each one as individuals and as a community. Due to space limitations, this article is more of an outline than a treatise, and many questions are posed for which there are currently few, if any, answers. Hopefully, the answers will follow from our ingenuity at doing more with less as energy descent unfolds.

Human waste and domestic animal waste

Human bodily waste, and that of our animals, would quickly create a serious problem if it were not dealt with properly. In the urban setting, our current method of mixing body wastes with large amounts of expensive, purified drinking water, then re-purifying the water and returning it to the original water source is not a sustainable use of water, energy, or energy-intensive chemical resources. Sewage disposal in suburban and rural areas places an additional strain on resources and the environment. Many unanswered questions arise when considering urban waste disposal:

Infrastructure. What is the age and life expectancy of the current sewer and septic systems? What are the expected maintenance requirements and fossil fuel dependencies of repair and replacement materials? Will the required materials even be available in the future?

City sewers. How much energy does it take to run the City of Ithaca's sewage and treatment system? Can we reduce that cost? Can sewage treatment inputs be reconfigured to yield organic manures for local farming without contaminating sewage sludge? How long can the current systems be sustained on emergency power? Can emergency or even long-term power be supplied from local, City-owned hydropower? Can currently flared methane be used to heat greenhouses or for other heat recovery uses?

Septic systems. Many people in Tompkins County depend on septic systems that need periodic cleaning. Local septic tank cleaning firms now take their “product” to the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant for processing. How will we manage this waste with less energy for transport? Will high costs of energy interfere with the processing load on the wastewater treatment plant if the volume of septic system effluent grows dramatically with population growth in areas not served by the plant itself? If this happens, what can we do about it? Will septic systems as we know them need to be phased out or abandoned in favor of other systems? Could we develop local or district sewage-to-methane facilities to relocalize the energy needed for heat and hot water using pumped septic tank effluent?

Sustainable waste treatment systems. Some experts believe that the way to approach sewage treatment is to stop using large amounts of water to process human waste and instead figure out ways to process it that yield fertilizer. Such an approach would reduce the energy consumed in the sewage treatment process; the chemical inputs, especially chlorine; and the need to maintain an extensive above ground and underground infrastructure. What would an alternative system look like? How much would such a system actually cost? Could it be deployed on a mass basis? How much will services deteriorate before local residents can be convinced to pay for and use alternative systems? Would more localized, small-scale processing be more energy efficient and cost effective?

Examples of human waste disposal[2]

Household scale: Small scale, aerobic, above ground composting (out of doors) with other organic materials could completely eliminate the septic tank system in rural and suburban areas. Most or all of the inputs are free, and there is no energy input other than human labor.[3] Dry and wet composting toilets provide an excellent solution in more densely populated areas, although they can be expensive and in some installations still require energy inputs. Many different commercial models are manufactured, and plans for homemade units are available. Envirolet is one popular commercial firm.[4] There are some manufacturers whose products reclaim water as well as make compost. Healthyhouse is an example.[5] Properly composted human waste can be used for general purpose gardening, as it has been for thousands of years, but for safety reasons many composters believe that it is only suitable for orchards, field crops for domestic animals, etc. Human urine[6] can go into greywater systems (see below) or compost piles, and it can be directly applied to vegetable crops as a fertilizer, since it is “clean” and provides carbon, nitrogen, and other essential elements for plant nutrition. See Liquid Gold for details.[7]

Urban scale: The aerated sewage sludge from human wastes is composted and used on food and field crops in many urban areas. Even a city as far north as Fairbanks, Alaska, composts all of its sewage sludge all year round. In Sweden, many communities collect human urine on a large scale and use it to fertilize field crops. Methane generated by the sewage treatment process or anaerobic digestion of human sewage is used to produce heat and hot water and the co-generation of significant amounts of electricity. The local sewage treatment plant uses about half of the gas it produces to generate some of the electricity that powers the plant. The plant’s operation is detailed on the City of Ithaca’s web site.[8]

Human wastes can be processed on a small scale to provide biogas for heating and co-generation of electricity (district heating) for a neighborhood or small village. We could heat our homes and read by the light generated by our own wastes. The solid byproducts would be further composted and used to grow the food we eat. Although not based on human wastes, the plan developed for Linden Hills, Minnesota, explores some of the possibilities.[9]

Examples of water reuse

Household or neighborhood: Greywater is the waste water from any household source except toilets. Greywater systems most frequently take the form of artificial wetlands, although there are many other designs. This reuse of lightly used water from sinks, showers, or the laundry uses little or no energy and can remove a tremendous burden from our current home wastewater treatment systems. At the same time, the biological cleansing and oxygenation provided by an artificial wetland can purify this lightly contaminated domestic water and return it to beneficial use, such as watering gardens. Greywater systems are easy to build and maintain and can be constructed to serve multiple households or small villages. For examples, see Art Ludwig’s Create an Oasis with Greywater.[10]

Urban scale: Large-scale greywater systems using artificial wetlands have already been developed in some urban areas. Some large-scale indoor systems using greenhouses have been developed as well. Reports from Australia and China detail large-scale greywater use.[11][12]

Using a combination of the above methods, we could process all human bodily wastes in a beneficial manner, using comparatively little energy, and eliminate the need for traditional sewage treatment systems.

Special Materials

Dog waste can be processed in the same way as human waste. A composting project in Montréal at a single public dog run diverted over a ton of dog waste and at least 7000 plastic bags from the city’s landfill.[13]

Cat waste carries more pathogenic bacteria, and when mixed with clay-based kitty litter, it is especially difficult to process in alternative systems. Using cellulose-based litter (wood shavings, processed newspaper, or other biowastes) or wheat-based or other compostable materials allows cat litter to be composted. However, the compost may only be used on non-food crops.[14]

Fiber-based diapers, with little or no plastic used in their manufacture, can be composted commercially. Cloth diapers can be used repeatedly.

Feminine hygiene products and other materials contaminated with human blood or other body fluids, usually landfilled or processed by the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), may be compostable, depending upon composition and circumstances.

Hospital waste streams, both human and veterinary, are often difficult to handle due to their content of tissues, body fluids, plastics, radioisotopes, antibiotics, and various drugs. Incineration is the most often used disposal method along with various alternatives, such as alkali decomposition, autoclaving, etc. all of which are extremely resource and energy intensive. Any fiber-based materials may be composted in a commercial compost system.

Food waste, lawn debris, and other organic waste

Composting. Along with many paper items, 100 percent of home and restaurant food wastes can be composted. This would further reduce energy consumed in traditional waste processing, provide additional jobs, and generate soil amendments for organic gardens, at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Composting may be undertaken year round in commercial facilities. If done in greenhouses, it can be used to generate heat. “Lawn waste” of all kinds can be composted into mulch. Animal bedding can be composted with plant remains, as is done at Cornell University. Some animal manures, such as chicken waste, can be either composted or turned directly into garden soil. Composting will have an increasingly important role in our energy- and resource-constrained future. For local sources of composting information, see the Cornell Cooperative Extension Compost Education Program[15] and Cornell Composting.[16] Cayuga Compost runs an excellent local commercial composting operation.[17]

Vermiculture. A rich compost can be made using small red worms as the main decomposing organisms. Vermiculture can be done inside during the winter, which is an advantage over most small home composting setups. It is even undertaken on a commercial scale.[18]

Chickens. Many kinds of food waste and composted food wastes can be fed to chickens, which in turn produce valuable fertilizer and eggs. Chickens eat garden pests and weeds as well. Interest is growing in allowing small numbers of chickens (hens) to be kept in the urban/suburban environment.[19]

Other types of solid waste

Recycled materials. Increased recycling of a wide variety of materials could reduce Tompkins County’s energy requirements and our greenhouse gas emissions. It would be desirable to develop local recycling-based industries that use materials discarded in the County. As the cost of transporting materials grows, opportunities for “green” business development based on recycling and reuse will also grow. Tompkins County Solid Waste Division, an operation funded mostly by the County, already has one of the highest diversion rates in the U.S., nearly 60 percent. A wide variety of materials are taken for recycling in addition to the usual glass bottles, paper, newsprint, cardboard, and metal cans, including many fiber items, aseptic packaging, beverage cartons, clothing, and used motor oil.[20] However, there are still many materials that aren’t recycled or for which we could do a better job. For example, while most large supermarkets take back the plastic bags they dispense, most types of plastic packaging and other plastic items that are not bottles or food tubs still go to the landfill. Plastic waste is now a significant component of the average family’s non-recycled waste stream. Metals are a special case: there are traditional local purchasers of discarded metal plumbing components, roofing, structural steel, wire and cables, car parts, appliances, etc.

Some materials have new markets due to the energy and greenhouse gas crises. Used cooking oil, for example, is now strained and used directly for motor vehicle fuel in converted engines. Vegpower[21] and Liquid Solar[22] are local examples. Used oil can also be converted into biodiesel and used in conventional diesel engines, as shown by Ithaca Biodiesel.[23] Such local sources of carbon based fuels will become increasingly important in the future. These products still produce greenhouse gases, but they are less polluting than traditional fossil fuels overall.

"ICI" (institutional-commercial-industrial) is a specialized set of waste streams that can be recycled in bulk (metal turnings, plastic trimmings, packaging films, etc.) but not in traditional municipal solid waste systems. In our area, most of these materials must be transported to an urban market to find a buyer, often at an expense more than the value of the material to be recycled. These materials often end up in a landfill. IMEX, sponsored by the City of Seattle, is an example of a government-sponsored urban industrial materials exchange.[24]

Special Materials

Hazardous waste: Some spent hazardous materials can be locally processed or reused; for example, solvents can be distilled and used again. Strict state and federal regulations govern hazardous waste reuse. The Tompkins County Solid Waste Division hosts a very successful household hazardous waste program.[25]

Construction debris: The byproducts of construction and demolition are among the largest components of the municipal waste steam. Wood, sheetrock, masonry, and metal elements are heavy are and generated in large quantities.[26] Some of these materials, especially metals, have traditionally been recycled. Large volumes of other materials have usually gone directly to the landfill. In recent years, with the increased cost of construction materials outstripping the increased cost of other materials by a wide margin, many other items are now reused or recycled. Old concrete is crushed and reused as aggregate; asphalt paving is milled, reconditioned and repaved; sheetrock is processed into an agricultural amendment; wood is shredded on site and used as mulch. In the future, fewer construction materials will be headed for the landfill.

Composite materials: Carpeting, mattresses, furniture, car and truck seats, and other composite materials are now increasingly recycled, mostly on an industrial scale.

Glass: Many kinds of glass cannot be reused to make containers or other items. Non-recyclable glass can be ground and used as filler in bricks and as aggregate in concrete and paving materials.

Batteries: Alkaline batteries can be broken down into their components and almost 100% recycled. All other types of batteries, especially lead-acid car batteries, can be recycled.

Fluorescent bulbs: Fluorescent bulbs of all kinds, along with some other specialty bulbs and light sources, should be recycled due to the mercury and other toxic elements they contain. Ordinary incandescent bulbs can be recycled for all of their components.

Plastics: Plastics that are not recycled in traditional residential curbside programs are increasingly recycled as plastic lumber, aggregate for concrete, and other products.

E-Waste: Computers, cell phones, and other electronics can be increasingly recycled or reused. Take-back programs are now more common and effective and, in some instances, are mandated by state and local governments.

Freon: Many freons are severe ozone depleting chemicals, and their disposal is heavily regulated by the Federal and state governments. The Tompkins County Solid Waste Division charges $20 to remove the freon from air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, and other equipment.

Reuse centers: Thousands of consumer items can be successfully repaired, cleaned up and recirculated back into the community instead of being recycled (down-cycled in many cases) or discarded in a landfill. This process really saves energy and dwindling resources of all kinds, limits the emissions of greenhouse and hazardous wastes, and generates jobs. As we prepare for energy descent, generic or specialized reuse centers will become central to our communities. Some local examples are:

Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. This newly formed organization accepts used and surplus building materials, furniture, housewares, electronics, art and school supplies, and more for resale.[27]

Significant Elements promotes the reuse of architectural elements.[28]

RIBS recycles bicycles and offers bike repair classes.[29]

Friends of the Library recycles books and various non-print media.[30]

SewGreen resells fabric, sewing machines, and sewing supplies and promotes sustainability in fiber, fabric, and fashion.[31]

There are also numerous used goods stores that promote the reuse of a wide variety of consumer items.

Freecycle: This is an electronic (mailing list-based) materials and consumer products recycling and reuse program that is completely free and has wide popular support. Ithaca Freecycle[32] is a local branch of an international organization. Its only goal is to keep materials out of the landfill. As long as the internet or local networks survive, this forum will be an important part of our community's materials exchange.

Farm animal wastes: Since a mass transition to a vegan lifestyle does not appear imminent, the long-term handling and processing of farm animal wastes will be a substantial issue for the county and region. Ideally, all small-scale farm animal wastes will be composted or spread directly on productive farm land to return valuable nutrients to the land. Some animal wastes — rabbit and chicken droppings, for example — are composted and sold as garden fertilizer. For large-scale “factory” farming this is not an immediate option. Energy descent will eventually make such operations uneconomical, but in the meantime the waste disposal from factory farms must be handled appropriately to prevent environmental contamination. Although factory farm waste processing is heavily regulated in most states, it is still a major environmental concern in some local towns. In most instances, appropriate handling of large-scale animal waste streams can provide cost-effective benefits such as co-generated electricity and methane production for heating farm water and greenhouses.

Storm Water: Although not a “waste” in the usual sense, runoff rain water is often contaminated with a wide variety of hazardous or undesirable materials: animal wastes, fertilizer, pesticides from farming and domestic sources, petroleum products from vehicles, sunscreen and other topical applications from humans and pets, a wide range of pharmaceuticals and antibiotics from human and veterinary use, copper and lead from roofing materials and gutter systems, and many other materials. Much storm water gets treated in publicly owned water treatment works, and some goes directly into bodies of water. Water from roofs can be collected and used to water gardens; properly collected and purified, it can be used for human consumption if necessary. Much work needs to be done to conserve and utilize this valuable resource.

Conclusion

The long-term goal should be to achieve “Zero Waste” while expending as little energy as possible and ensuring that little or no residue goes to long-term in-ground storage, the air, or a body of water. Incineration, even to generate electricity, should be avoided at all costs, as it destroys valuable resources, severely contaminates the air, and produces massive quantities of greenhouse gases. Manufacturers must be required to reduce packaging, especially petroleum based plastics, and take back products or their components that can’t be reused or recycled locally. Composting, recycling, reuse, and repurchasing programs must be generated to cover all of our resources. When energy and resources are scarce or no longer attainable, nothing will go to waste.

By Angelika St.Laurent

Small livestock and poultry production could help Tompkins County address many of the food and materials challenges it will face as the cost of energy climbs.

Benefits of local and urban small livestock and poultry production

Today, most animal products come from the three species that are most easily confined in mass production units and can live on diets mostly consisting of corn, the grain most highly subsidized by government programs: cattle, pigs, and chickens, with turkeys a distant fourth. The products of other traditional livestock, such as rabbits, goats, geese, ducks, and sheep, have mostly disappeared from our plates. Exotic livestock, such as guinea pigs and emus, are even less present in our cuisine. Other animal products like wool and down in clothing and bedding are frequently replaced by synthetics.

This situation poses both a challenge and an opportunity. Products of lesser-known livestock have a smaller market, as many people are unaccustomed to different tastes and textures. On the other hand, there is less industrial competition for less popular livestock, which makes it easier to run a small business successfully. Moral concerns about animal well-being also benefit small-scale poultry operations, which run differently from factory farms and are closer to consumers who want to know about them. Several farms in Tompkins County already raise goats, sheep, alpacas, and free-range poultry. It is likely that under energy descent conditions, the prices for mass-produced animal products will increase, creating a wider market for alternative animal products.

Livestock and poultry provide us with easily digestible protein and fat; leather; fibers and feathers for clothing; manure for fertilizer; and last but not least, entertainment and enjoyment. Despite these benefits, opponents of animal-based agriculture often point out that a mostly plant-based diet feeds the most people on the least area of agricultural land. However, this requires that the agricultural soils are in good shape, and maintaining soil fertility in purely plant-based agriculture is time-consuming and dependent on fertilizer imports. Moreover, many soils in Tompkins County, especially in the south of the county, are shallow, sometimes poorly drained, acidic, and low in nutrient content. Raising animals is frequently the best use for these soils and is likely to result in long-term soil improvement. Small livestock in particular can safely and sustainably graze sloped areas that would erode under the hooves of cows or horses. The integration of animals in crop production helps maintain soil fertility and can reduce weed and pest pressure.

Some urban environments are too shady or otherwise unsuitable for crop or vegetable production but provide conditions good for raising rabbits or a small flock of chickens. Considering that a good laying hen produces four to seven eggs a week, even a small flock of five chickens can provide a household with all the eggs needed for their own consumption and some left over to sell. Urban animal husbandry could provide a valuable opportunity for low-income households to improve their diets and generate some extra income. Permitting small livestock in residential areas could help relieve poverty in times of economic hardship. Bedding for urban animal husbandry can partly be supplied by fall leaves; urban livestock owners eager to remove fall leaves from private gardens and public spaces could relieve town/village and garden owners of the responsibility.

Difficulties of local and urban small livestock and poultry production

In some urban and residential areas (for example, the City of Ithaca and the Village of Dryden), it is forbidden to keep any animals other than pets. Reasons for this general ban on livestock are concerns about noise, smell, rodents, and health issues. These are serious issues that need to be addressed if considering small-scale animal raising in residential areas.

In fact, small-scale animal husbandry is possible without causing these problems. Odor and rodent problems usually arise out of overcrowding, poor hygiene, or inadequate feed storage. Animal housing in sufficiently big coops and cages with regularly changed bedding does not stink, and feed storage in properly locking containers does not attract rodents. Hygienically kept animals are also healthy animals. It is in the interest of livestock and poultry owners to keep their animals under inoffensive, good, and hygienic conditions. Unfortunately, there are always some owners who lack this insight. Therefore, permitting livestock or poultry raising in residential areas requires some sort of supervision in order to protect neighbors and animals.

One possible way to insure hygienic livestock raising in residential areas and at the same time ease the development of small livestock businesses in rural areas would be to reinstate the position of County Veterinarian. A County Veterinarian could provide advice in difficulties, give seminars for aspiring livestock keepers, and inspect and judge facilities if neighbors raised concerns. The Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine could add the office of County Veterinarian to student rotations, which would provide more manpower for the job at hand and at the same time provide students the opportunity to become familiar with animals that are less prominent in the curriculum.

At present, only a small percentage of the population is familar with the how-tos of livestock raising, and the task of caring for an animal other than a pet might appear overwhelmingly difficult. Some hands-on experience for prospective livestock keepers could both develop a reasonable idea of the challenge and protect livestock from improper handling. The 4H program in Tompkins County already offers children and teens the opportunity to become familiar with livestock raising. Knowledge about raising small livestock could also be spread by integrating classes on animal husbandry in a degree program in sustainable agriculture at TC3. A K-12 program in livestock management for area schools could be developed at the New Roots School. And most small livestock owners are happy to share information and advise on a private level.

Unfortunately, raising animals, or food in general, on a home scale also carries a certain socioeconomic stigma as a sign of poverty. At present, this stigma creates a strong motivation to oppose animal husbandry in residential areas. Some private trend-setting is crucial to help overcome this perception. Every clean backyard chicken coop, every clutch of home-produced eggs or batch of locally-produced goat cheese brought to a potluck, every showing of crafts made from local wool is a step toward making small-scale animal husbandry fashionable.

Frequently, the cost of the animals' accommodations vastly exceeds the price of the livestock or poultry itself. While the first benefits of a small livestock or poultry operation can be reaped usually within a couple of months, breaking even on initial investments can take years. Allowing animals to forage for part of their food can bring down feed costs substantially, spare a fair amount of labor cleaning coops and cages, and improve the quality of the product. Nevertheless, fencing is essential for safekeeping of both animals and neighboring gardens. Good fencing material comes at a substantial price. Shelter is a second big unavoidable investment. Recycled old fencing and building material can bring costs down a bit. Sheds, garages, screened-in porches, and even old car bodies can all be turned into acceptable animal housing.

One additional difficulty in raising poultry close to old buildings is the potential lead contamination from old paint. Poultry can ingest lead-containing particles that make eggs and meat unfit for human consumption.

Action items for local residents to increase local small livestock and poultry production:

• Support your local farmers: Buy locally produced eggs, goat cheese, and meat.

• Looking for gifts for the holidays? Consider mittens, scarves, or hats made out of local alpaca wool.

• Be a trendsetter: Serve your guests a dish containing unusual animal products. They will be surprised how tasty your dishes are.

• You have a big lawn and don't really like mowing it? Consider renting out the space to someone who keeps sheep.

• Lobby for the right to keep chickens and other small livestock in residential areas.

• Offer a chicken owner the opportunity to rake and take away your fall leaves.

• You own an old barn/shed? Consider keeping it in shape, it might become useful once again.

• Enroll your children in 4H livestock programs.

Action items for local governments to increase local small livestock and poultry production:

• Consider reinstating the office of County Veterinarian. A County Veterinarian could be very helpful for starting up small farms.

• Consider allowing poultry and small livestock in urban areas. Keep the ban on noisy poultry like roosters, guinea fowl, and peacocks.

Notes on particular livestock and poultry choices

Rabbits

Rabbits are probably the livestock best suited for urban environments. They are winter hardy, do not require much space, and make very little noise. Rabbit manure composts easily and is far less smelly than that of poultry. Cages and hutches can be built cheaply, often with recycled materials. Being kept in cages, rabbits are not affected by heavy metal contamination in the soil. Rabbits are considered pets; thus, there are no legal restrictions on raising a small herd of rabbits for home consumption in an urban setting. Rabbit meat is very lean, and probably healthier than many other meat choices. The greatest challenge for a rabbit-raising business is that not many people are inclined to eat an animal they are used to considering a pet.

Chickens

Chickens are the classics in backyard poultry keeping. The time investment in a small flock of hens is about 10 minutes a day for feeding, watering, and egg collection, plus 30 minutes a week to clean the coop. Hens lay eggs without roosters, and egg production is therefore possible to accomplish without much noise. There are many elegant ways in which chickens can be incorporated into gardening (e.g., chicken tractors). Keeping chickens and other small livestock is currently not allowed in the City of Ithaca and the Village of Dryden. Also, lead contamination may make poultry keeping inadvisable in some gardens.

Ducks

Ducks grow very fast and have the most economic conversion ratio of feed into body mass. Even though they grow to a slaughterable age faster than chickens, their meat remains tender for much longer if slaughter is delayed. Smaller varieties also lay plenty of big eggs, which are excellent for baking. Ducks are very winter hardy, quiet, easily confined, and rarely bothered by diseases. Ducks are unique in their taste for slugs. (In slug-plagued northern Germany, small businesses rent out ducks to "deslug" gardens.) Compared to chickens, ducks are more labor-intensive, are more vulnerable to predators, need more space, and always require a source of liquid water.

Sheep and goats

Sheep and goats are too big to be kept in an urban setting, but a large suburban property could be big enough to accommodate them. Sheep and goats need substantial investments in barns and fencing. The time investment for a small flock can vary from 5 minutes a day (free roaming in a large garden during the summer) to an hour or more if animals are stabled. Besides the obvious products, they can contribute to landscaping as "lawnmowers." Many landowners like the view of closely cropped grass; with higher energy prices, sheep or goats grazing might become more appealing than the use of a riding lawn mower. Sheep and goats both feast on poison ivy, offering an option for environmentally sound weed removal.