Sustainable Horticulture

Changes Affecting Horticulture, Both Bad & Good

Posted by sustainable_hort on November 22, 2011  |  No Comments

It was May when I last posted anything. Doubling our farm, taking over as manager of our local farmers market, and unexpected contract work meant no time to write. I am sure you assumed this site died a quiet death like most sites. Ambition usually blinds bloggers to the reality of maintaining a site with original, fresh content. It is partly that…but; I wish it were only that.

Sadly, it is not. When I started this blog, the intent was to focus mainly on the nursery industry and the sustainable model I saw as a future option for growers. But, it is an industry going through radical change, and not a good one. I am working on a draft for an article discussing what has struck a vibrant, positive industry. I am seeing and experiencing it firsthand, on the rural back roads that were the heart of Oregon’s leading agricultural crop. It is a matter of survival for these growers, and not a time for taking chances with any innovation, let alone risking your present production system for one that is still being developed. More on this soon.

Still, as an organic produce grower with a horticultural degree, I see opportunities for those nurseries that can turn to more sustainable production. In the next few months I will update the “Can Nurseries be Sustainable” post (12/23/2009), including the rough tests I ran with several organic container mixes at a local nursery. The results were impressive enough that I want to see more work done in this direction.

And, this site will continue to discuss the innovative future uses of plants, particularly in urban/suburban areas. This includes the diverse “urban agriculture” movement that could change how much of our food is grown and even become a “job creator?”

But, it goes far beyond that! I have been involved in the green roof industry for five years, and, despite the current construction collapse, it is technology for the times. It is just one example of how plants are being used to solve environmental problems. Plants will be integrated into our lives in ways we have not even developed yet…just look at the urban food production skyscraper being proposed by Dr. Dickson Despommier. I will discuss his book, The Vertical Farm, soon…though I have my doubts.

Finally, though there are other sources to find general agricultural information, I will continue to comment on the limitations and negatives of large agribusiness. For instance, the expanding herbicide resistance issue has overwhelmed the promises of easy farming. Even the main stream ag press has acknowledged this, warning its readers that production will need to return to more complex systems. As usual, something that seems too good to be true, finally fails. A return to working with nature, instead of fighting it, will probably turn out to be the best economic investment farming can make.

Anyway, enough for this short post. If any of the above topics interest you, please keep tune. Its good to be back.

Food Prices Rising…Only the Start

Posted by sustainable_hort on May 23, 2011  |  No Comments

With all the recent headlines, the story of rising food prices has been on the news back burner. But, for many people, both here in the US and in most under-developed countries, these climbing costs are much more important than a royal wedding, the Trump comedy series about birth certificates, and, even, the elimination of Mr. Bin Laden. Hunger tends to trump (no pun intended) most other concerns.

Yet, for whatever reason(s), we are seeing food prices rise quickly. We have to go back to the 1970’s to find a similar situation. Then, oil prices and availability were not the key issue they are today. The increases in food prices then were driven mainly by Russian wheat crop failures. But, the pressures on food prices now are coming from rising energy and commodity prices, plus several weather related crop issues. As I have written on this blog, petroleum is more than gas for our cars…it is literally is the foundation material for much of the modern world. The majority of consumer products depend on these substrates at some level. Think plastic!

Food is no exception! The earth’s oil and natural gas are used to produce fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and plastics; they are used to power the tractors, sprayers, harvesters, and generate heat; and obviously they are the fuel for the trucks, trains and planes that move our food around the world. Whether it is speculation, increasing demand from the China and India, or peak oil’s decreasing output, oil prices will rise in the long term…and food prices can only follow.

I recently attended a talk by Gary Paul Nabhan, author of Coming Home to Eat: The Pleasures and Politics of Local Foods, whose main message was the importance of local “food sheds.” While this is not a new concept, it seems to gain importance as we watch drought, floods, tornados and rising production prices wreck havoc with US agriculture. It is the old cliché “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” It is in the interest of regions, at least, to be able to produce all the key components of a healthy diet. This idea is catching on.

For instance, here in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, we are seeing a return of wheat, and an organized effort to grow a wide range of beans, now all shipped in from great distances. It is an expansion of the local food movement, one that consumer consider more important than “organic.”

But, for many consumers, price is and will remain the primary consideration. This, I feel as a produce grower, is a misaligned focus. Food “quality” should equal nutrition, not cost. But, there is good news. Recent research indicates local foods, not necessarily organic, can cost less at your local farmers market than the national chain supermarket. And, even at a few cents more, local produce, especially the more delicate “greens” categories, will literally be a week fresher. Turn over those plastic tubs of greens at your local supermarket. While the “use by” date may be days off, I will bet you can see some early deterioration of the produce, particularly the red lettuces. If you store the package a few days, you are eating greens that are ten to two weeks old. Just how nutritious, let alone tasty, can this limp product be? Not much. If you want to read more, check out: www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/05/the-farmers-market-myth/238661.

Natural Alternatives to Turf

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 25, 2011  |  No Comments

My recent post on replacing turf with an edible landscape attracted many comments, especially through Linkin. While I prefer the use of edibles, I certainly realize not everyone wants to tend a food garden.

Grasses and many natives are perfect replacements for the turf in a normal yard. This alternative uses grasses, both native and introduced, and other native flowers and shrubs, to create landscapes that mirror the natural surroundings.

Timber Press recently released three books that address the use and design features of grasses, native flowers, and other plants. The most direct is Designing with Grasses by Englishman Neil Lucas, an up-to-date look at how modern landscapes are using grasses in many situations. He introduces grasses as key landscaping choices to the general gardening audience, suggesting choices for wetland, prairie, desert, woodland and meadow designs. It also offers a plant profile section, and many other reference lists. While not an in-depth look at grasses, it provides a perfect starting point for those interested in native and natural landscapes.

A better known, US expert on grasses, John Greenlee (with Saxon Holt) has written a new book on his specialty, The American Meadow Garden. He started Greenlee Nursery in the early 1980’s, becoming one of the first recognized experts on grasses and their use in design. In 1992, he wrote one of the seminal early works on grasses, The Encyclopedia of Ornamental Grasses. Now, here he focuses on the grasses that create meadow gardens, discussing details of design, site preparation and many examples of finished designs. The plant selections are covered in a long section complete with design suggestions.

Finally, Lynn Steiner took a similar approach in her Prairie-Style Gardens, with an emphasis on the plants that work in a prairie setting. It also includes plant lists for specific site conditions, and plant profiles for many prairie-adapted species. While her designs are based on four major climate areas of the mid-US, the design approaches can be duplicated in many regions. She also moves well beyond the grasses, and includes many trees, small trees and shrubs, vines and flowers. These gardens seem to have more emphasis on attracting wildlife, and include xeriscaping designs. But, more important, like edible gardens, they replace high input turf with a much sustainable landscape.

Wasted Yards to Mini-Farms

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 2, 2011  |  No Comments

Urban gardening continues to be an expanding trend. We are seeing more and more turf areas being replaced by some type of landscape, often food oriented. This does not break my heart. I feel most small yards (turf) are useless and a waste of space. Now, I have no problem with a larger yard, one that is used by children, pets and families for outdoor activities. Play on!

But many urban yards are just small patches of grass that need to be mowed, watered and fertilized. Some homeowners have moved to “more natural” landscapes that often incorporate native shrubs and trees to draw the local birds and insects, while many also save water. These choices are a vast improvement over un-used turf space.

Meanwhile, vegetable gardening remains hot trend, one that is seeing increasing sales. All part of the “urban homesteading movement.” The more dedicated homesteaders have also added a “perennial food system” with fruit trees, berries, grapes, and herbs. Why? Mainly because people are becoming more aware of what real food is, and this is one way to change what they eat. More and more families are realizing that food gardens don’t take much more water and fertilizer than a yard, and can be good exercise, and might even be close to fun. Good way to teach biology too!

But, the first challenge with many of today’s suburban lots is space. The empty lots and surrounding open areas of my childhood have disappeared. Today’s homes (many McMansions) have very limited outdoor space available to grow foods. So, intensive, raised-bed plantings, and careful use of sun exposed walls, fences, etc., still allow families to raise a significant amount of food. It just takes careful planning and consistent care. Add container gardening to the mix, and almost any popular vegetable can be grown successfully.

So, how? Let’s start with classic Square Food Gardening, by Mel Bartholomew, written 30 years ago (his revised book is readily available). Then, I will follow up with several other-related books that cover similar territory. They are all aimed at helping get you started changing your yard into a small farm.

In the original Square Food Gardening, Bartholomew produced a basic gardening book that also happened to cover his engineer-based, grid-growing system. The recent book explains the system well. But, according to several review comments on Google, much of the earlier basic gardening information has disappeared. I guess most of that information is available in many forms, from many sources, so the current edition is based on more photographs and less text to cover the same ground (no pun intended). The basic idea is still very useful.

One Magic Square by Lolo Houbein is, in some ways, almost a direct copy of Bartholomew’s work, except that the author bases her plans on 3-foot squares. She comes from Australia, so she may not even be aware of his history in small space gardening in the U.S. Still, the idea is the same. Still, it definitely serves the same propose as the earlier work, and she supplies 30 different designs for squares that meet different crop desires. These are very helpful to those getting started with gardening, who’s limited horticultural knowledge make planning difficult, especially in the first few years.

Sugar Snaps and Strawberries (Timber Press) by Andrea Bellamy does not instruct gardeners to plant in grids, but to use the smaller spaces around any home to grow food. Her food production is a community gardening plot and her third story balcony. Bellamy runs the blog, www.heavypetal.com., which supports organic gardening, and her experience with limited space makes her information particularly useful to those urban/suburban homes with vey limited space. She manages to cover most of the basic growing information efficiently, with useful suggestions on the best varieties and planting schedules for nearly year-around growing. She also includes details on container gardening, which is “gardening” to more and more people. Bellamy’s work creates integrated, food landscapes that blend in more naturally while maximizing growing space.

If you are looking at gardening more from the chef viewpoint, check out another Timber Press book, The Kitchen Gardener’s Handbook, by Jennifer R. Bartley. This book provides similar growing information and designs, but the real focus is the end products…the many recipes that use seasonal vegetables and fruits. As more cooks learn to use new vegetables and desire fresh ingredients, a home kitchen garden will probably be the focus of any landscape that replaces turf.

Finally, books with ambitious plans and growing information are useful to those getting started. But, does it really work? Can our neighbor’s yards become small farms? Edible Estates…Attack on the Front Lawn (Metropolis Books) edited by Fritz Haeg, with essays by food writers such as Michael Polland and Rosalind Creasy, take the issue head on. This is not a gardening guide, but an inspirational showcase of actual front lawns that have made the transition to “farm” successfully. Eight yards are examined, with design plans and step-by-step photos of the actual landscaping process.

Once you start this process, my advice is to take it slow and have a sense of humor. To keep you going, read Manny Howard’s My Empire of Dirt (Scribner), subtitled “A Cautionary Tale,” He seemed to run into an inordinate set of problems (it would discourage many beginners), but takes it all with a slightly dark sense of humor. There are a number of these autobiographical records of “becoming a farmer or urban homesteader” on the market today, but few work at this level of humor.

This whole trend is morphing, especially for young adults and young families, into a new homesteading movement…a reclaiming of the urban environment. It moves well beyond just having a small, kitchen garden to creating landscapes that more mimic the natural surroundings. It includes shrubs and trees that provide food, added diversity to draw beneficial insects and birds, trap and re-use rain water, adding chickens, rabbits and other small animals, composting, etc., etc. A visually strong introduction to this concept comes from the wonderful DK Press. Titled Self Sufficiency for the 21st Century, this larger format book runs through all the main activities that fall under this general heading. Written by Dick and James Strawbridge (co-hosts of UK television series It’s Not Easy Being Green), it is packed with how-to sections on building a home, energy and waste, growing food, animal husbandry, and many traditional home kitchen, natural medicine and craft skills, all aimed at living as far off the grid as a family might get in the urban environment. Most readers will probably only start with a few of the book’s actions, but it will give anyone a solid, visual introduction to this topic. I just love DK’s approach to making their books so visual and clear. When I travel, I use their city books because they, again, are visual. So, if you are dreaming of urban homesteading, study this book and read Howard’s view of the reality, and you might be ready to start.

COMING NEXT: The New Lawn, Part II: But, not all homeowners are interested or willing to make their lawn into a farm. No problem. There are many other options to the traditional lawns. The high maintenance turf can be replaced by more natural landscape spaces that mirror the surrounding environment. The post will cover some more recent releases that look at alternative landscapes.

Monrovia Falters…Industry Feels the Tremors

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 2, 2011  |  No Comments

Monrovia’s recent sales woes may indicate that a new marketing message is needed to revive a shell-shocked consumer.

I now look back at my years working for the Oregon nursery industry and realize it may have been a Golden Age for wholesale plant growers. The state’s sales skyrocketed over several decades from few hundred million to nearly one billion. Then it all collapsed. As the housing market dropped, so did landscape plant sales. Then, almost all commercial work stopped abruptly. Architectural firms shrank over night. This ripple hit the plant industry, especially the growers, and we have seen numerous growers go under or move into other horticultural crops. Sales this spring will probably improve slightly, but not enough to save many growers.

Monrovia has represented the peak of nursery industry production and marketing. Yet, like any industrial designed production systems, the operating costs are substantial. The company created new plants, led the “branding” effort (a marketing strategy that I always thought was over-sold), and used the garden centers to provide an effective distribution/sales platform. Now, with sales down drastically again, the company has been forced (by the banks) start selling “non-branded” plants to Home Depot to force sales. This obviously undercuts a basic part of their marketing/branding strategy of selling only to the independent garden centers. It has also created some severe comments from their customers.

But, it is not all their fault. All the quality products and clever marketing cannot “create” markets if there is, in this case, very little building going on. Add to this the panicked consumer…a one-two punch that has not just Monrovia but an entire industry on the ropes.

There are a few bright spots. Some narrow niche producers are keeping their sales at least even. Greenhouse operations that concentrate on annuals and especially vegetables are surviving. There was actually shortage last year of organic vegetable starts. Food costs, food safety concerns and a desire for better taste/nutrition are all driving this home garden trend. (See the next post on the urban homesteading movement.) A complimentary trend uses permaculture techniques to add native plants and create more plant diversity to draw beneficial wildlife.

But, the more general ornamental plant growers will need another marketing hook to push up sales. I propose turning to the strength of plants to provide a better, less polluting environment and lower energy use. I like to call the many uses of plants to improve our water and air a new “plant technology.” Sell plants because they provide solutions, not because they “decorate” our world. It is an old idea really. There is adequate research and successful examples to get consumers to look at plants, not as a “discretionary” expense, but necessary to improve one’s home and life. This “message” will sell better in the new consumer economy, one that is moving away from the wild spending of the last two decades.

Nursery Industry Explores Biodegradable Containers

Posted by sustainable_hort on May 31, 2010  |  No Comments

Plastic containers revolutionized plant production. Now a significant percentage of plants are grown in some type of container. At the retail level, containers not only hold plants and soil, but they have become a visual part of the marketing.

Yet, environmental concerns increased with plastic products, both in how they are made and how they become a waste stream. So, container manufacturers began to look at other materials. The challenge was to find materials that could contain the soil and plants as they moved through the production and marketing system, yet breakdown after they were used, usually in composting systems.

Numerous substrates are being used and tested to create a range of biodegradable pots including waste paper, peat, coir, cornstarch resins, wheat, bamboo, and even cow manure.

Finding plastic replacements for containers has become an important research topic, with the American Nursery and Landscape Association (ANLA) starting research several years ago to identify useful container substrates (see below). The key challenge is finding compounds and resins that, when combined, will stand up to normal environmental pressures.

“We need materials that will stand up to the south’s warmer temperatures, heavy irrigation schedules, and high levels of nitrogen,” explained Agricultural Research Service horticulturist Donna Fare. She said these environmental factors work together to break down non-plastic pots in the field. Fare is heading up the ANLA-sponsored research project in McMinnville, Tennessee, which will finally test a chicken-feather based container during this year’s growing season.

Recycled Plastic a First Option
Many nursery container producers have morphed from using virgin plastic to using recycled materials. This is a major step toward sustainability, since it at least recovers the plastic already in use in the nursery industry, plus absorbing some of the consumer waste stream.
For instance, ITML Horticultural Products Inc. has a line of recycled containers, called Elite and Euro System Nursery Containers, made with “100% recycled, indestructible polyethylene material.”

Another example is the Root Pouch containers from Averna and Associates. These pouches are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PETE), which comes from recycled plastic beverage bottles, which are turned into non-woven fabric. It is used to manufacture a full line of nursery containers including propagation liners and various sizes of plantable pouches, available in different densities and degradable life spans.

Finally there are oxo-biodegradable products, which I have not found yet in the industry. Wikipedia defined the plastic as follows:

“Oxo Biodegradable (OBD) plastic is polyolefin plastic to which has been added very small (catalytic) amounts of metal salts. These catalyze the natural degradation process to speed it up so that the OBD plastic will degrade when subject to environmental conditions to produce to water, carbon dioxide and biomass. The process is shortened from hundreds of years to months for degradation and thereafter biodegradation depends on the micro-organisms in the environment.” I am going to look into this more, so keep reading.

What are Biodegradable Containers?

While there are differences between aerobic and anaerobic degradation, “biodegradable” is usually considered as a material can be broken down into its organic components. Essentially, biodegradable materials avoid increasing landfills by eventually returning them to the soil through effective composting.

As a note, the “effective composting” is a key step to making any of these containers actually biodegradable. In fact, some national and international standards have stricter criteria, defining compostable as having three requirements:

• First, again they must “biodegrade” which is defined as “breaking down into carbon dioxide, water and bio mass.”
• Secondly, they must “disintegrate,” so after three months of composting and subsequent sifting through a 2 mm sieve, there is no more than 10% residue remaining.
• Finally, no “eco toxicity,” so the bio-degradation does not produce any toxic material and the compost can sustain plant growth.

Unfortunately, these global standards exist to certify compostable plastics (ASTM D6400) and compostable packaging (ASTM D6868), under controlled composting conditions typically found only at industrial composting facilities. It is uncertain whether many of these new “plastics” will degrade quickly and effectively in standard landfills or backyard compost bins.

Molded Fiber Early Option

But, many decades ago, molded pulp or fiber first found uses in the horticulture industry. Molded pulp products are made from natural cellulose fibers, including waste papers and peat, and are biodegradable breaking down in compost systems and most landfills. These molded fiber products, were often used in early propagation stages in combination with rigid plastic trays.

But, as plants moved into gallon sizes, most growers continue to use plastic pots, especially if they are shipping plants. The early fiber pots were just not rigid enough to withstand damage during handling.

One of the earlier producers of non-plastic containers was active here in Oregon…Western Pulp Products. The company has more than a 50-year history of making containers using waste paper, collected by charitable organizations (“post-consumer”), while other sources are “pre-consumer,” including Kraft, waxed, and other waste paper. Only the metal rings and hanging wires are not decomposable.

“Even the wax paraffin used to bind the pulp will degrade during composting or in the soil,” said sales manager Jim Lee

While their products are not considered “organic,” they can be used to grow organic plants, according to Lee. He said their growers received approval from Oregon Tilth that organic vegetable transplants can be grown in their molded fiber containers but the plant must be removed from the container before it is planted in the soil. 


Jiffy pots are another decade-old name in nursery containers, entering the market in the mid-1950’s. The George Ball Company bought the U.S. rights from the Norwegian firm that developed the technology. They found numerous uses in nursery propagation, becoming a standard tool for growing plants. But, again, they tended to be too fragile for field and shipping uses.

Wide Range of Substrates Now Available
Many of the newer biodegradable containers are actually manufactured by processes similar to the Western Pulp method…a plant based substrate held together with a binding agent. The choice for substrates continues to expand.

One example are the Fertil biodegradable plant pots, made from 100% natural biodegradable wood fibers, composing 80% of the substrate, plus 20% peat moss. Meanwhile, Summit Plastics Company has a biodegradable line, “Eco 360,” that features containers made of corn, wheat and wood fibers.

Another company, T & R, Woodburn, Oregon, is offering a new line of containers called Ecotainable®. Manufactured by Kelmar’s Creations, the products use ‘patented’ bioresin materials, made from wheat, tapioca, potato starches and corn, to form pots and other products.

CoCo Coir Pot, made by Green Neem, is a biodegradable cultivation pot made of coconut fibers, which have exceptionally high permeability to water, air and roots. Coir products are now available through several companies.

Cow Pots is taking a different approach, using “odor-free, 100% composted cow manure” as the substrate. They claim the manure also adds more nutrition when the plant is growing or transplanted.

Fungi Grows Containers
A radically different approach is the EcoCradle products.
The new product is made from agricultural byproducts including cottonseed hulls, buckwheat hulls and rice husk that are mixed with a filamentous fungi — mycelium — as a bonding agent — and allowed to grow inside molds. The mycelium secretes an enzyme that decomposes the organic waste as it grows. After seven days at room temperature in the dark, a compact, ultra light, malleable material is formed that can resist high temperatures, according to company literature.

Downsides?
While there is an increasing availability of alternative containers, most nurseries have been slow to switch from plastic. Even Northwoods Nursery, Molalla, Oregon, well known for its many sustainable efforts, is still using plastic pots.

“We are just not sure they will hold up over a longer time frame,” said Laura O’Leary, sustainable director for Northwoods. While the nursery has implemented other “sustainable practices,” including recycling plastic containers, they are still holding back on moving to these newer options, she said. Like many nurseries, they plan to test new products, hoping to find products that prove tough.

In addition to needing perfect conditions to decompose, some manufacturers are also cautioning consumers that the pots need to be handle correctly when planting to avoid problems.

For example, Bonnie Plants, uses biodegradable pots extensively, with the smaller versions made by Jiffy. They listed the following rules for using their pots:
• To ensure success, drench the pots thoroughly just before planting.
• Remove the shrink-wrap label from the rim of the pot by cutting it with scissors.
• Also tear away the top of the pot so that the rim is not exposed above ground after planting. If the pot dries out, it can rob moisture from the roots when capillary action pulls water up to the dry rim.
• Finally, tear away the bottom half of the pot before placing the plant in its hole to exposes some roots to direct contact with the soil.

Like any new technology, biodegradable containers will need further refinement and testing to create products that growers will use confidently, especially if plants are shipped.

While there are ongoing research projects (see above) testing how well plants grow in these non-plastic choices, work done over a decade ago showed that plants would grow as well, or better, in biodegradable pots. So, it seems that chief concern remains durability. Once that is solved, biodegradable products could have a bright future in the nursery industry.

You can continue to follow this topic here. I am convinced that we will find more and more organic “waste” products that can be turned into various compostable or plantable pots and containers. Ultimately, they will prove their economic advantage.

Show Me the Research – Volcanoes & Monsanto

Posted by sustainable_hort on April 27, 2010  |  1 Comment

Dear Readers…Sorry about the long break between posts, but farming requires one to take advantage of weather breaks…we finally had a break from several weeks of rain, tilling and planting had to get done.

But, I am back at the desk and this is the first of several posts that will go up over the next few days. The first section here is not really research but I do want to point out actual, current phenomenon that relate to this theory of sustainability. These entries are clarifying examples of why we need, and may be forced, to do things differently when it comes growing and consuming food.

Gaia Gets Back or Free Fertilizer?
First, the Iceland volcano situation. I started college many decades ago in geology and it remains a reference point for me when I look at the environment, agriculture, soils and soil fertility. Volcanic action may be part of a natural cycle of nutrients.

In fact, this is a key aspect of the theory of “paramagnetism.” Work by Carey Reams, and covered in the book “Paramagnetism,” by Dr. Philip S. Callahan, discuss this idea. It reduces much of soil nutrition into physics, the transfer of electrical energy at the molecular level feeding growth. This is why we see glacial dust and worm castings being sold as soil amendments. Rocks feed the soil organisms that break them down so the plant roots can absorb them as nutrients, especially the many minor elements.

When Mt. Saint Helens exploded and dumped a layer of ash over central Washington, it was, at first, a huge nuisance. But, within a few years, growers in the rich, agricultural region noticed their crops were doing fine, in some cases, better, since the eruption. The mountain had brought up a rich mixture of raw nutrients, and broadcast them over a wide region. It turned out to be free fertilizer!

But I had not thought of volcanic activity being the problem it became. Not only can an extended eruption play havoc with the transportation, affect economies and public health, but it could lead drastic climate change. One European climate expert said it could lead to extended, colder winters and reduced crop production for several years. Luckily this specific event seems to be settling down, but I don’t want to think where it could send the fragile world economy if it continued.

Yet, it also seemed almost a practice run of what would take place, over several decades, if there does become an oil/natural gas shortage. I mentionedThe Long Emergency several posts ago and have continued to re-read it. James Kunstler’s chapter on banking, investing and our financial system was probably written in 2004. His predictions were dead-on for what finally happened in 2008. You tend to listen those whose predictions start ringing true, so again, this book deserves your time. Since it is older book, I am sure it is available in many libraries or used. Check with Powell’s Bookstore online at www.powells.com.

As I mentioned, the eruption actually, in the long run of a few years, had a positive effect by providing a fresh, dusting of rock that used in the complex soil microbiology as food. So, let’s not hate volcanoes.

Monsanto Products Questioned
This week two articles appeared concerning Monsanto’s products, one an herbicide, the other a transgenic crop.

First, here in Oregon, we are following a regional alfalfa grower who has forced the company all the way to the Supreme Court today (April 27). His claim is that Monsanto’s transgenic alfalfa crossed with his crop, which then limited where his alfalfa can be sold. The article in the Oregonian points out the existing rules for approving this crop for general release were not even followed.

Then, another report on recent research showed that the “Round-Up resistance” is spreading to other plants, many which are common weeds. Won’t that eventually defeat the strategy and require another new herbicide to be developed? I guess Monsanto wins either way, but weed control can be simpler and weed growth greatly reduced just by having healthy soil. Believe it or not, weeds tend to grow in poorer soils and can be indicative of specific nutritional problems. More on that in a later post.

A related research story from AgCanada.com reported that scientists at the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture Crop Protection Lab confirmed herbicide carry-over in ag soils. It was at levels that damaged the following sensitive crop. This is another reason for planting fields with certain cover crops that remove the negative compounds so other following crops are not harmed. And another reason to revisit how we control weeds, again looking at healthier soils.

And then, the other night, I stumbled across a 2008 documentary on Monsanto, called “Monsanto,” on the Sundance Channel. I knew much of the history, having followed the company for years and having read many well-researched commentaries. It was clear that the company focuses on stockholder demands. This drives it to take what are interesting technologies, combine them with rigid market agreements, and twist it into a rather arrogant sales strategy. Much of genetic engineering may be fine, but let’s just take one step back and study it more.

But, actually, my main concern is Monsanto’s deliberate, and brilliant, plan to corner the “seed” market. I am not just talking about Round-Up Ready soybeans, but a much, much wider net the company has thrown over the entire seed industry. The company has bought dozens of smaller seed companies over the past decade. Once they “own” all the genetic material that creates the annual food cornucopia, they can slowly (or not so slowly) ratchet up prices and demand the growers not save seed from “their” crops. The documentary includes several instances of just how far Monsanto will go to harass growers that don’t use their seed.

Seeds are literally the transference of life. Groups like Seed Savers have formed networks so there will be a genetic base of common vegetables and other food plants readily available to gardeners. It is an effort worth supporting. It is an effort that is part of making sure we can feed ourselves.

Enough for now…see you soon.

Trees for CO2 Sequestration?

Posted by sustainable_hort on April 14, 2010  |  No Comments

(This is the first part of a two-part post on trees and CO2 sequestration, which looks at whether trees actually play a positive role. The second part will discuss the actual trees we should be using for this perceived benefit)

Trees can play an important, positive role in helping control the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by absorbing that key greenhouse gas. The process, called “sequestration,” uses a tree’s photosynthesis to convert the problematic greenhouse gas to cellulose and oxygen.

As this concept has become more widely accepted and, as researchers continue to document trees’ benefits, it may expand market for some nursery crops. But, is all this excitement warranted, or do some recent questions contradict the enthusiasm?

What We Need to Know
The crucial questions at this stage become “does sequestration really work,” and if so, “which trees are most efficient at sequestration?” Research continues to delve into varietal and climate issues that affect how well a specific tree will capture CO2.

“We can certainly argue that trees, when they absorb CO2, buy us a period of sequestration,” said David Nowak, researcher at SUNY-CESF, Syracuse, New York.

But, Nowak, who has lead several major sequestration studies, points out there are many variables that need to be studied, including climate effects, tree species and age, and even the general maintenance issues.

“These all can impact the effectiveness of a tree to sequester CO2,” he said.

Other research has pointed out some distinct differences based on climate. In fact, recent computer models are even speculating that non-tropical trees might even increase planet temperatures.

But, planting trees in [any] climate is better than not. So, how does it work and what does research indicate as the best options for using trees to reduce atmospheric CO2?

What is Sequestration?…Removal of Air Pollutants
Air pollution can be reduced dramatically when plants take up CO2 and many airborne particles through their leaf stomata. Some other gases are removed by the plant leaf and stem surfaces. Gases absorbed by the plant stomata later diffuse into intercellular spaces. They then are absorbed and react with water films to form acids, or they react with inner-leaf surfaces. Some particles can be absorbed into the tree, though most particles that are intercepted are retained on the plant surface.

Some polluting particles may return to the air during transpiration or be washed off by rain. Later, the leaf and twigs may drop off the to the ground and start to decompose. This also releases some of the CO2 back, which offsets some of the early gains. Consequently, vegetation remains only a temporary site for retaining many atmospheric particles.

Benefits of Trees
Plant-It 2020 uses a ‘scientific estimate’ to develop the following statistics based upon the tree species, soil conditions and tree-planting methodology,

Their research indicated that 600 trees in the tropics would fill one acre, which could sequester up to 15 tons of CO2 annually. Other statistics include 40 trees (common varieties) will sequester one ton of CO2 each year; and that one million trees covering 1,667 acres could capture 25,000 tons of CO2 annually.

Research in major metropolitan areas showed the urban forests could have an impact. It was reported by David J. Nowak in “The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality” showed that in 1994, trees in New York City removed an estimated 1,821 metric tons (t) of air pollution at an estimated value to society of $9.5 million.

His research showed that while New York’s urban forests removed pollution more than Atlanta’s (1,196 t; $6.5 million) and Baltimore (499 t; $2.7 million), but pollution removal per square meter of canopy cover was similar among these cities (New York: 13.7g/m2/yr; Baltimore: 12.2 g/m2/yr; Atlanta: 10.6 g/m2/yr). These standardized pollution removal rates differ among cities according to the amount of air pollution, length of in-leaf season, precipitation, and other meteorological variables. Nowak’s work noted that large healthy trees (greater than 77 cm) annually remove about 70 times more air pollution (1.4 kg/yr) than small healthy trees (less than 8 cm in diameter) at 0.02 kg/yr.

His 2002 work matched earlier research regarding total CO2 sequestered within the US. Total carbon storage by urban trees in the coterminous United States is estimated at 700 million tons. These data correspond with previous analyses that estimated national carbon storage by urban trees as between 350 and 750 million tons and between 600 and 900 million tons. Carbon storage by urban trees nationally is only 4.4% of the estimated 15,900 million tons stored in trees in USA non-urban forest ecosystems. The estimated carbon storage by urban trees in USA is equivalent to the amount of carbon emitted from USA population in about 5.5 months based on average per capita emission rates.

The research reported that “urban forests in the north central, northeast, south central and southeast regions of the USA store and sequester the most carbon, with average carbon storage per hectare greatest in southeast, north central, northeast and Pacific northwest regions, respectively. The national average urban forest carbon storage density is 25.1 t/ha, compared with 53.5 t/ha in forest stands.”

He felt this data could be used to help assess the actual and potential role of urban forests in reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, a dominant greenhouse gas.

Nowak’s research report stated the following:
“Air quality improvement in New York City due to pollution removal by trees during daytime of the in-leaf season averaged 0.47% for particulate matter, 0.45% for ozone, 0.43% for sulfur dioxide, 0.30% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.002% for carbon monoxide. Air quality improves with 2 increased percent tree cover and decreased mixing-layer heights. In urban areas with 100% tree cover (i.e., contiguous forest stands), short-term improvements in air quality (one hour) from pollution removal by trees were as high as 15% for ozone, 14% for sulfur dioxide, 13% for particulate matter, 8% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.05% for carbon monoxide.”

Meanwhile, www.plantit2020.org, has summarized recent forestry science studies in carbon sequestration related to trees, including the following:

The U.S. Forest Service estimates that all the forests in the United States combined sequestered a net of approximately 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1952 to 1992, offsetting approximately 25% of U.S. human-caused emissions of carbon during that period.

The US Forest Service also feels that large diameter; long-lived, leafy trees are more beneficial in regards to carbon sequestration. For example, they point to the fact that Atlanta’s 9 million-plus (mostly mature, broad-leafed) trees absorb about twice as much as Calgary, Canada nearly 12 million trees (many conifers).

They also noted that tree species is a strong determining factor regarding carbon sequestration, which vary by species in their rate of storing carbon, though research is still needed.
But, as a counter action, trees also vary in how many and how much harmful volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) they emit. One common example is isoprene, which produces the greenhouse gas ozone.

So, the best tree species is one that rapidly sequesters carbon but does not register high outputs of VOC’s. Long-lived trees (those living more than 50 years) are preferred by the Forest Service for carbon sequestration as dead trees rot – releasing all of the carbon that has been stored. US Forest Service recommends the following species for the United States…American basswood, dogwood, Eastern white pine, Eastern red cedar, gray birch, red maple and river birch.

Nowak does point out that the placement of trees actually has more impact that sequestration.
“The bigger impact comes from planting a tree in the proper location where it can provide cooling for buildings,” he said. “Just by preventing the added CO2 being emitted during air conditioning, trees can have four times the impact they have in sequestration.”

So, there are many functions to consider to maximize a tree’s impact on the environment, he cautioned.

Tropical Versus Temperate Zones
Another study, lead by Lawrence Livermore National Lab, indicated that trees planted closer to the equator sequester more carbon than those planted far to the North. Why this might have happened is still unclear. Some expert speculated that Southern tree species are often larger, long-lived, leafy trees compared to northern species.

Their computer models seem to confirm this observation. They built a model to determine the impact on temperatures forests have in different parts of the planet.

They focused on three key factors in their analysis:
• Forests can cool the planet by absorbing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide during photosynthesis.
• They can also cool the planet by evaporating water to the atmosphere and increasing cloudiness; a deck of white clouds reflects incoming solar radiation straight back out into space.
• But, trees might also have a warming effect. They are dark colored, absorb sunlight and hold heat near ground level

“Our study shows that tropical forests are very beneficial to the climate because they take up carbon and increase cloudiness, which in turn helps cool the planet,” explained Dr. Bala, an author on the Livermore study.

So, the further you move from the equator, the more these gains are eroded she stated. The team’s modeling predicts trees planted in mid- and high-latitude locations could cause a net warming of a few degrees within a hundred years.

“The darkening of the surface by new forest canopies in the high-latitude boreal regions allows absorption of more sunlight that warm the surface,” Dr Baal said.

Counter Views
But, despite the general excitement over planting trees, no, literally planting forests as a solution to global warming, has hit some speed bumps recently.

In addition to the Livermore computer model concerns, two other recent papers in the scientific literature raised questions about the benefits of terrestrial carbon sinks. One paper, by Frank Keppler, Max Planck Institute, discovered that plants emit significant amounts of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, which traps heat much more efficiently than CO2.

Another study, by Robert Jackson, Duke University, found that plantations could reduce stream flow and increase salinization of soils to a greater extent than previously recognized. It looked at existing conversions and showed that the growing trees had larger water demands than crops or pastures “dramatically decreased stream flow within a few years of planting,” the authors wrote.

They also found that water use within existing tree plantations of all ages resulted in average stream flow reductions of 38 percent. Losses increased as the trees age, and “13 percent of streams dried up completely for at least one year,” the study said.

Overall, the tree farming used about 20 percent more rainwater, the study estimated. So, additional tree planting for carbon mitigation could have large impacts on nation’s water resources. This is ore of an issue in nations that net less than 30 percent of their total annual supplies of fresh water from rain, the authors predicted.

This has lead to experts some questioning the overall tree planting strategy, but others view this speculation as overblown.
Nowak also cautioned that urban tree management practices could diminish the net effects of urban trees on atmospheric C02. Activities used to maintain vegetation structure and health (e.g. from chain saws, trucks, chippers, etc.) emit carbon via fossil fuel combustion. Thus, too much maintenance could cause urban forest ecosystems to become net emitters of carbon unless secondary carbon reductions (e.g. energy conservation) or limiting of decomposition via long term carbon storage (e.g. wood products, landfills) can be accomplished to offset the maintenance carbon emissions

“Carbon released through tree management activities needs to be accounted for to calculate the net effect of urban forestry on atmospheric carbon dioxide,” he said.

He argues that unless there are secondary carbon reductions (e.g., energy conservation) or limiting of decomposition via long-term carbon storage (e.g., wood products, landfills), urban forests lose much of the sequestration gains. This, in turn, affects the species composition and tree maintenance activities chosen for an urban forest.

Some Conclusions
So, where does all this leave with trees and their effects on CO2 sequestration?

To maximize the net benefits of urban forestry on atmospheric carbon dioxide, Nowak wrote that urban forest managers should focus on the following:
• Planting long-lived, low-maintenance, moderate to fast-growing species that are large at maturity and matched to site conditions;
• Using maintenance activities that increase tree survival and longevity;
• Minimizing fossil-fuel use related to management and maintenance activities;
• Using wood from removed trees to delay decomposition or decrease the need for energy from fossil-fuel-based power plants (e.g., develop long term wood products; burn wood to heat residences); and
• Planting trees in energy-conserving locations.

This was summarized clearly by Greg McPherson in a Arbor Age article “Urban Tree Planting and Greenhouse Gas Reductions.”

He wrote that…”The climate benefits of trees in mid-latitude cities are not an illusion, although they certainly feel good. Reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide are achieved directly through sequestration and indirectly through emission reductions. Still, planting trees in cities should not be touted as a panacea to global warming. It is one of many complementary bridging strategies, and it is one that can be implemented immediately. Moreover, tree planting projects provide myriad other social, environmental, and economic benefits that make communities better places to live.”

Thus, while CO2 absorption can be positive, putting the right tree in the right place remains critical to optimizing its benefits and minimizing conflicts with other aspects of the urban infrastructure.

Next part…coming soon. We will look at where trees work best, which trees might be the best, and include a long list of references on this topic. See you soon.

What Is Sustainable Horticulture?

Posted by sustainable_hort on March 24, 2010  |  No Comments

This is a quick thank you to all that have checked this blog and made so many positive comments. And more…a short view of where we are headed.

This blog was started to document, explain, revise, suggest and predict where the wide world of horticulture can honestly to create systems to grow plants that do not depend on petroleum based inputs (which at some point become scarce or at least much more expensive), but finds closed systems to supply those inputs. No one is saying it is easy, it still needs work and research, but natural systems are being identified. We just need to rethink some obvious biology, especially relating to soil, and how it has worked “sustainably” for millions of years.

Definitions are tricky…and “sustainability” is seems to be the rule in this case. There are many definitions, the majority of which tend to be bent to service those defining it. But, after reading numerous definitions, it seems to boil down creating ways to grow plants that will without harming workers or future generations later. Many include the definition of “environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity.” This must mean “we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” So, “stewardship” requires “maintaining or enhancing this vital resource base (soils, water and closed inputs) forever.”

Certain food and ornamental products have identified with this “sustainable” vision. More than identified, they have built businesses, created organic fertilizers and pesticides, established networks and distribution systems that are a first stage in creating a more sustainable horticulture. It might even lead to a more sustainable agriculture…a different conversation.

Even Miracle Grow, not the most organic product in the world, is now selling two soil amendment products. These miracle products, which the company promotes as containing “organic” components, promise healthy soils that “grow plants twice as large.” The company has recognized the concept, along with much of agriculture, that healthy soil is the literal and environmental foundation of sustainable horticulture, whether in farms or landscapes.

So, this blog first focuses on ornamental plant production. I am working with a wholesale grower in the wonderful Willamette Valley, Oregon, where plants like to grow. It is one of the main reasons I live here today. We are seeing if a grower of shrubs and trees can work towards a sustainable sustainability…one that works economically long term. A key phrase in this sentence is “long term.” And it may mean growing not the largest plant, but the healthiest plant. This is not just speculation, but has a background, starting with the works of Sir Alfred Howard and William Albrecht, and continuing today with the Rodale organization, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, and ATTRA. I suggest reading New Opportunities in Sustainable Landscapes and Can Nurseries be Sustainable? on this blog, and investigating the references. Let’s keep the discussion going.

At the same time, this site will point to new uses of plants from green roofs and walls, to storm water control with green streets, to growing food on empty rooftops and in our neighborhoods. We find cities planting more trees, urban agriculture sneaking into backyards and along cities edges, plants being used to clean water and air, and cool our heat islands. This is all positive and needs to be recognized as an important environmental strategy, one that can also create jobs. Obviously, without plants, there is no food or air, there is no “us.” So, it becomes important to recognize and utilize plants at every level we can.

Finally, this discussion site will lead to the introduction and testing of organic input products here in the Northwest (with application nationally), and we will be providing some of those products through this site and with advertising support. This all works toward my focus, helping horticultural growers (both food and ornamental) move, step by step, to a sustainable future while still providing the planet with plants.

And, a main test site will be our organic produce operation, 19th Street Farms. Since the links on this template are not working right, just type in “www.19thstreetfarms.com/blog/” to get to the site. I will use this blog for other content, but the site will busy in summer. It is also our CAS/Farmers Market site where we are continually talking with our customers. So look under specific categories for your favorite topic.

MORE COMING SOON…

Pest Invasion Tests Sustainable Strategies

Posted by sustainable_hort on March 21, 2010  |  No Comments

Sustainability requires a careful, optimized use of a farm’s natural systems. Healthy soil, right plants in the right places, IPM strategies and diversity are all used in successful farms. It can and has worked.

But, add an outside/alien invasive force…plant, disease or pest…and that natural system is taxed and cannot respond initially. Response is possible, but it would take at least years, if not decades.

So, the story rapidly developing around the Spotted Winged Drosophila (SWD) deserved the Portland Oregonian’s huge two-word headline…”CROP KILLER.” You may have read or heard about it. This invasive, Asian pest is causing near panic on the West Coast and particularly here in the berry and fruit production areas of Oregon. Florida has also found the pest. Just type the pest name into your search engine to find numerous sites describing and discussing the SWD.

It first appeared last summer and devastated some berry and fruit crops with its “voracious” appetite for ripening fruit. Most flies prefer over ripe or damaged fruit, not ripening ones. The damage destroys the fruit with frightening speed. OSU and other researchers have jumped in. There is and will be an interesting story as scientists, extension and growers race to find some control strategy. It is especially difficult since wild blackberries are common around the edges of the rich agricultural areas, a perfect host plant for the SWD to live and thrive on. Add to this the variety of hosts within any urban environment, many of which are not treated or sprayed…this is a serious test.

What is the test? Well, more precisely, what are the tests?

First, can the agricultural/governmental infrastructure organize an effective response? Do they have resources to bring together an educated, scientific team from various inter-related fields? As a community, or state, we have slowing been strangling our agricultural depth at places such as OSU, ODA, local and regional extension offices. It is a slow death by many cuts. Again, will we still have a coordinated army of specialists to deal with SWD?

Secondly, will the ODA, dealing with other states, be able to keep Oregon’s myriad of horticulture crops moving, both nationally and internationally? It is difficult enough to battle an invasive insect when the potential damage is more limited. But, this pest attacks, from the various descriptions, across the range of berries and fruit. I am trying to find out if they like tomatoes. As a grower, this would change my tried and true systems.

Which leads to a third question…what do the organic growers do?
Conventional growers have a list of weapons that will work. But, it still adds to their projected costs which with most crops would impact bottom lines. Organic growers do not know enough yet to identify even a control possibility. They need to know if “fruit” might later include not only tomatoes, but many varieties…peppers, eggplant, squash. Any organic option will require many applications and this pest is prolific…10 generations a summer, over 100 eggs per female…you do the numbers.

Once all the crops in danger are indentified, then strategies can be developed. In some cases, I may go for a literal cover strategy…closed hoop houses, possibly enclosing with row crop floating covers. But this is a very tiny fly, so there is question what will keep them away?

Meanwhile, this type of challenge seems to support the idea of more diversity in the growing of many crops; and more smaller, local producers serving surrounding communities. This lessens the opportunity for pests moving into vital food chains. I mean, Oregon’s blueberry fields and peach orchards must have looked like SWD nirvana…”here’s a neighborhood we can settle in.”

At this point it’s more questions and a scramble for information. Stay tuned.