Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
I think Americans are already being forced to do that because of gas
prices. I've never seen Caltrain (local train service between San Jose
and San Francisco) at standing room only before, but you can count on
it now at peak times.

Jeff, if I had to pull out one chapter of your book to pass around on
its own, Chapter 8 would be a strong candidate. It deals with the
environmental pros and cons of organic gardening. Care to expound on
that, for our readers who haven't seen the book yet?

Ironically, I heard a news story just yesterday about the "dead zone"
at the end of the Mississippi, largely attributed to pesticides. Prior
to reading your book, it would never have occurred to me that organic
pesticides might contribute to that. Like most people, I perceived them
as neutral at worst, beneficial at best. 
  

    
> sustainable energy and sustainable agriculture and feeding the
population are now all linked.

Exactly. I've been continually amazed at the differences between
farming in Taiwan and farming in China. When I started living in Taiwan
in the mid '70s, we couldn't eat anything like carrots or lettuce raw
because "night soil" was used as fertilizer. But the vegetables and
fruits were truly lush, there were dragonflies and cicadas, and the
farms looked so healthy. The markets were full, the people well fed,
and in spite of some serious air and river pollution problems, the food
was truly spectacular.

Contrast that with a trip to China in 1991: I didn't see more than
maybe 20 wild creatures, including a rat in Xi'an and a couple of
cormorants on the Yellow River. The cotton fields were filled with
stunted little bunches of sticks, the farm soil was pale and powdery,
and though there was irrigation, dust blew everywhere. I never saw a
mulch pile or anything approaching healthy farming, and I really don't
know how the plants were pollinated, since I never came across a bee or
even a fly.

This has really bothered me because I worry from what I've seen that
agriculture in China is unsustainable, and yet I don't see them
changing anything. There it's *all* chemicals carried to the extreme.
So, I've been reading a bit about permaculture as an alternative and
wonder what you think about it, Jeff. Does it work, in your opinion,
and if so, what's the best way to go about educating people? 

(slipped by coiro)
  

    
Hi All,

Hi Angie, I liked chapter 8 myself -- yes I can expand a little bit. 
But first it's worth noting that the dead zone at the end of the
Mississippi has lots of causes -- and most of them are directly related
to agriculture.  Pesticides are a problem, but the nutrients that run
off from farmers fields is arguably a worse problem.  The thing about
the fertilizer problem is that even if you switch over to organics
you're still going to be dumping lots of nutrients into the system --
in fact, you'll still be dumping the same amount as if you were using
synthetic fertilizers (it's fascinating how much we know about corn and
soybeans -- we know just exactly how much fertilizer to add to get a
certain yield).  If we were to switch over to no till farming we'd do
much better -- there would be much less run-off.  No-till farming is
where you plant crops into the ground without tilling.  It's a
healthier system -- but it's not necessarily organic -- it can still be
accomplished with synthetics.

Regarding China -- Once upon a time the Chinese were the world leaders
in recycling waste -- Howard, the guy who started organic farming,
actually modeled his system after the Chinese.  But later they started
to use synthetics and, if you don't use synthetics wisely, you end up
with a mess -- which is exactly what happened to us in the 1930s with
the dust bowl -- it happens to many countries when they first switch
over to synthetic.

I think that the ideas behind permaculture are sound, I don't think
it's a way to feed the whole world, but it can certainly help,
especially on a smaller, local scale.  I wish I knew the way to
transfer this info -- Here in academia we tend to be pretty poor at
communication -- a marketing specialist is what's needed -- I suppose I
may sound a little jaded, but it's very difficult to get the word out
about these things -- academics don't tend to be effective
communicators -- Actually, I would love to hear about your thoughts for
getting the word out about permaculture, sustainable agriculture, and
the like. 
  

    
Re the dead zones and other causes: yes, Raj Patel, author of Stuffed
and Starved, points the finger at another culprit:

>>The meat industry is responsible for a dead zone the size of New
Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico every year because of the runoff through
the Mississippi -- runoff from hog farms basically nukes the water.<<

Source:  <http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/114>

As to getting the word out:

I host a show that only recently changed title and focus from "The
Green Show" to "The Angie Coiro Show". I still focus on sustainability
issues as much as I can. But emphasizing it too much has a very
predictable effect: preaching to the choir, and not growing the
audience. I feel we've picked the low-hanging fruit, as far as reaching
those already inclined to hear the message. How do we spread it
further? I don't know. 

I do know that its reputation as an issue of the left hurts greatly
its chance for wider acceptance. These commercials tackling that are
encouraging. 

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiiAlQTelko>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZFfQKWX54>

Not everyone agrees with  me:
<http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/3/174145/4588>

The point stands, though: getting the word out means stretching
interest in the issues beyond the usual suspects to the still-untouched
masses out there.
  

    
Hi Angie,

I agree.  Getting the word to the "untouched masses" is tough.  I live
in a suburb where people value grass that's midnight green with
weedfree yards (except for mine -- my kids like dandelions).  The
concern is about the cost of the fertilizer and weed killer, not the
fact that they're not great for the environment.  When oil goes so high
that we just can't use the stuff anymore maybe that'll stop the
"fertilize and nuke it till it glows" attitude about lawn and landscape
care.  I sure hope so.
  

    <scribbled by jonsson Sat 19 Jul 08 11:15>
  

    

Jeff...what percentage of what you are talking about in your book is
really about some sort of 'organic' abuse by marketing firms rather
than the sincere organic intentions of many people who are at work with
attempting to provide food with less toxic results and more
sustainable results?
 
  

    
Hi Darrell,

That's a great question!  Much of my book covers the various
techniques that organic gardeners/growers use.  Though I certainly
spend some time discussing the good and bad of organics in general, I
spend most of the book investigating the techniques themselves
including the pesticides and techniques that both organic
gardeners/growers and more conventional gardeners/growers can use.   If
this book has a message (I really didn't write it with a specific
message in mind) it's that you need to examine every product and
practice you use -- the word organic is not a useful way to establish
whether something is healthy/environmentally safe or not.

I should point out that most of the time organic techniques are better
-- but you can't take that for granted -- I'd rather be exposed to
Round-Up than Rotenone any day of the week!

Do some firms abuse the word organic?  Absolutely, but so do some well
meaning people who just accept that the word organic means safe and so
apply neem, copper sulfate, and pyrethrum to their plants.  It's
important for us to start really evaluating the things we dump on our
gardens and crops.
  

    
Having been in the landscaping business, I think it's a difference in
attitude about your property.  Some people garden, others landscape.  People
who garden, imho, think about the products they use and how it affects their
gardens (and the greater world).  In general, also imho, people who want a
landscaped yard/property don't seem to give a rat's ass, they only care
about how it looks, not what it does.  My landscaping clients couldn't be
sold on the solution that would take a little longer, but be most beneficial
for the plants and the world.  They wanted the problem fixed now.  (Um,
that's one of the reasons we got out of the business - bad for the soul,
it was).
  

    
I briefly read that as "bad for the soil", which made me smile.

And for that matter, brings me to the next question. Jeff, here's a
magic wand. You can wave it and instantly eliminate the top three
"organic" practices that do the most harm. What are they, and why would
you wipe them out if you could?
  

    
Okay, let me rephrase that last bit. Obviously, you'd eliminate them
because they're the three that do the most harm! Rather: what
specifically does each practice do that makes them harmful?
  

    
Hi Angie,

Good question.  The three practices that I'd remove would be:

1. tilling, because it destroys the soil over time
2. Organic Pesticides -- because people think that, because they're
organic, they're safe
3. Use of non-renewable organic fertilizers like guano.  Using these
types of fertilizer isn't really that different than using synthetic
fertilizers in terms of wasting our natural resources.

All of the above practices are actually acceptable if you're careful
and follow excellent management practices, but with each there's just
too much potential for messing something up to make me comfortable in
most cases.
  

    
Would tilling include such practices as double-digging, to loosen and
aerate soil?  I'm thinking for example of my own situation, where the
clay makes gardening very difficult. I get out the Mantis tiller once
in a while to break in a new bed, get some sand and loam in there. 

Or are you talking only about larger-scale, more regular tilling?
  

    
Another point to make about tilling/plowing is that it causes carbon
releases.  

In all the discussion about high-tech solutions for sequestering
carbon in underground caverns and what-not, there seems to be less
awareness of the fact that stable soil/vegetation systems naturally
lock up carbon quite well, particularly in places like the Midwest.
  

    
Hmmm.  One of the things that Nina Bassuk of Cornell has researched for a
decade or more is urban forestry, and her research has shown that for
street trees, digging up as much area as possible gives the best chances
for success.  Granted, that's mainly because urban trees usually get
planted in areas with tremendous compaction, and this tilling would only
happen once in a generation.  But like everything else about gardening, the
answer to "Is tilling good or bad" ends up being:  "It depends."


Most urban and suburban gardeners have such compressed soil that has been
driven over by construction vehicles and the like that tilling is the only
way to get that 25% air, 25% water, 50% solids mix back in the first
place.

The Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia is scheduled for it's third
renovation in my lifetime.  The main problem all three times has been deep
compaction - concerts and festivals and so on, sometimes allowed in the
rain.  I don't know of any other way to get some air back in the soil, and
the plant's roots need air.
  

    
arturner is talking about a one-time activity (or at least something
that only happens at the time of site development) versus an
agricultural/horticultural activity that takes place over and over. 
(But even the one-time activity of site grading is now being more
carefully scrutinized for its carbon release potential; the Sustainable
Sites initiative is looking at this specifically.) Designed soils for
urban street trees are a whole other thing and not in the purview of
most home gardeners.

The clay soils of coastal California are, of course, a source of
special heartbreak to many of us.  it's all too easy to make compaction
of clay soils worse by over-tilling or tilling in the wrong way.
  

    
It looks like you guys are mostly talking about tilling practices that
are "good".  Tilling is bad when its done in the spring, fall, next
spring, next fall, and the spring and fall after that.  There's nothing
wrong with loosening the soil to plant a tree, but by tilling again
and again you actually make compaction worse -- the soil actually loses
its structure and the loosened soil may be washed away.
  

    
Okay, good. Important distinction. And a relief to me, as I'm too lazy
to till often enough to do damage. Ahhh, the benefits of indolence!

You mentioned earlier, Jeff, that you're content to leave many pests
be, and to use simple methods against others - like squishing them
manually (my answer to aphids, by the way, satisfying little murders).
What have you had to haul out the big guns for?

How effective do you find companion planting to be?

And on an entirely different note - it sounds like you may have other
potential books churning in your head - larger-scale sustainability
issues, world food politics. What else are you working on these days?
  

    
Oh, I have to take that pseud.

BTW, I absolutely love the story about how Bordeaux mix was developed
(pp. 133-4). Facts like that really make my day!
  

    
Hi Angie -- I rarely pull out the big guns except for wasps (I have
two young children) and a tough weed -- like a patch of thistle --
thats about it. 

Companion planting is basically good -- but don't get the idea that
just planting a carrot next to a tomato will work miracles -- the idea
is to mix up your whole garden and confuse pests. 

Satisfying little murders- -- If you like facts like those about
Bordeaux mix then you may enjoy my next book which is scheduled for
next year called (for now) "how trees die" it includes a lot of
interesting tidbits like that.  And I just contracted for another book
to come out in 2010 -- it will be done in conjunction with a political
science professor from UNC Charlotte -- We're collaborating on a
project about how politics affects the environment -- for good and for
bad.
  

    
This is such an enjoyable interview.  OF course, it has been two weeks, and
our attention in Inkwell.vue will turn to another book.  Jeff, Angie and all
please feel free to continue.  This topic will remain open for your (and my)
enjoyment.

And Jeff, when you write that next book, we hope you'll come back to share
it with us.
  

    
Heartily agreed! And dibs on the first radio interview too. You've
obviously got the chops for that subject, and I'm already curious to
read it.

Thanks for a great discussion, Jeff.
  

    
I hope you're going to stick around for a bit, Jeff, because I still
have questions!
  

    
I normally don't like any of these stupid inkwell.vue interviews, but
I have eagerly read every word of this one. Thanks!
  

    
Thank you for having me, it's been fun.  Yes, I'll make sure I check
this site for at least the next few days- so post any more questions
that you have soon and I'll be sure to answer.