By
George McRobie
Prepared for
Institute of Island Studies 1990
Macphail Farm:
Demonstrating Sustainable Agriculture
Introduction
On both sides of the Atlantic, there is a growing movement towards non-chemical, organic agriculture. Because a variety of definitions of “organic farming” have come into use – including non-chemical, biological, sustainable and so on – it is important to define the term as used in this paper.
One definition that is widely used is that of the United States Department of Agriculture’s report on organic farming (USDA 1980):
Organic farming is a production system which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetically compounded fertilizers, pesticides, of biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and tilth, to supply growth regulators and livestock feed additives. To the maximum extent feasible, organic farming systems rely upon crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, legumes, green manures, off-farm organic wastes, mechanical cultivation, mineral-bearing rocks and aspects plant nutrients and to control insects, weeds and other pests.
A more general definition which conveys the organic perspective while being less specific about the positions adopted – because these will differ in different parts of the world – is:
Organic farming seeks to create an integrated, sustainable agricultural system relying first and foremost on ecological interactions and biological processes for crop, livestock and human nutrition and protection from pests and diseases.
In Britain, and in varying degrees in North America and Canada, the principles and practices of organic farming include the following:
- protecting the long-term fertility of soils by maintaining organic matter levels, fostering soil biological activity and utilizing careful mechanical intervention;
- providing crop nutrients indirectly by using relatively insoluble nutrient sources which are made available by the action of soil micro-organisms;
- fostering nitrogen self-sufficiency through the use of legumes and biological nitrogen fixation as well as effective recycling of organic materials including crop residues and livestock wastes;
- practising weed, disease and pest control relying primarily on crop rotations, natural predators, diversity, organic manuring, resistant varieties and minimal direct mechanical, thermal, biological and chemical intervention;
- emphasizing the extensive management of livestock, paying full regard to their evolutionary adaptations, behavioural needs and animal welfare issues with respect to nutrition, housing, health, breeding and rearing;
- paying careful attention to the impact of the farming system on the wider environment and the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats.
(For a detailed description of the principles and practices of organic farming, see Nic Lampkin, Organic Farming, Farming Press, Norwich, 1990.)
There are several reasons for the present movement towards sustainable farming. One is that conventional (chemical) agriculture damages soil structure and increases soil erosion. Another is environmental damage caused by pollution, especially of groundwater by chemicals, and also the destruction of wildlife and its habitat by monoculture farming and the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides. There is, thirdly, a rapid growing concern about the effects of agricultural chemicals on human health: the health of farm workers, and all consumers. Many of the chemicals introduced in the food supply, including pesticides, fertilizers, plant-growth regulators and antibiotics, are health hazards. (Half the herbicides and practically all of the fungicides used in U.S. agriculture are suspected carcinogens.) Other problems associated with conventional agriculture include the intensive use of fossil energy in the food supply system; ethically unacceptable livestock systems; and the high and increasing economic cost of chemical farming for farmers, and society as a whole, especially from environmental damage.[1] Thus the June 1990 issue of Scientific American states that although conventional farming methods may be profitable now, the picture is different “if environmental and health costs currently borne by society are taken into account…. If these indirect costs were factored into the costs of conventional farm production, then sustainable systems would likely prove to be more profitable and more beneficial to society.”[2]
A major (400-page) study by the U.S. National Research Council (entitled Alternative Agriculture, National Academic Press, 1989) concludes “… that alternative farming systems do not necessarily decrease – in some instances they actually increase – per acre crop yields, and the productivity of livestock systems, and that wide adoption of alternative systems would result in even greater economic benefits to farmers and environmental gains for the nation.” The Science Council of Canada is currently undertaking a detailed investigation of sustainable agriculture in Canada. Its terms of reference are attached as Appendix A to this paper.
Reports such as these, along with the growing volume of research papers on the damaging effects of chemical agriculture and the sustainable alternatives, are the precursors of national legislation supporting sustainable farming systems. Already, eight of the U.S. states have formed “sustainable agriculture” programmes.[3]
The potential of organic agriculture has also been recognized by the governments of Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, the Netherlands and West Germany, which, along with France, has most of the European Community’s fifteen thousand organic farms. Under pressure from the EEC, the United Kingdom, which has probably about a thousand organic farms, has recently introduced the UK Register of Organic Food Standards.
A New Approach to Research
A great deal has yet to be discovered about organic farming systems and practices. There is already a groundwork of information, sufficient to assist farmers who are prepared to experiment can take risks, to undertake the difficult (and usually financially risky) process of converting from chemical to organic methods. And there is a steadily growing flow of information, both in the form of basic research and results of field trials, from bodies such as the Elm Farm Research Centre in Britain, Rodale and other centres in the United States, McGill and Dalhousie Universities in Canada, and other centres in Germany and the Netherlands. But it is certainly true that there exists no single easily available body of information on organic farming. There are relatively few places where farmers can readily get practical advice and guidance; and even fewer where applied research can be done on problems relevant to the crops, climate and soil conditions of the farms in a particular region.
There is, of course, ample information available about conventional farming, for which a network of research, extension and supplies and markets has been established over the past forty years. No such support is available for farmers wishing to practice organic methods.
If the farming community of Prince Edward Island is to be offered a genuine choice of farming systems and methods, and the opportunity of taking advantage of the best knowledge available, there is a need to establish a resource centre for sustainable farming on the Island: a centre capable of providing an appropriate support system for farmers who want to farm without chemicals. Such a centre would have two principal roles. The first is that of applying research results in ways that are appropriate for Island farming conditions and priorities, and mobilizing and sifting relevant information from external sources of basic and applied research. This role is akin to that of research centres set up to support conventional farming. Thus, to take an example, the Elm Farm Research Centre in Britain has done invaluable work on nutrient budgeting and rotations, weed control, fertilizer suitability and eligibility, variety trials, manure handling, stockless systems, nitrogen transformation, green manures, herbal leys, intercropping, food quality and consumer demand. (See David Ursall, “Elm Farm Research Centre – Nine Years On”, New Farmer and Grower, Summer 1988.)
But there is another – and it could well be the primary – role that such a centre must fill: the support of on-farm adaptation and experimentation by individual farmers or groups of farmers.
Managing farms without chemicals means that the farms must be more efficient in biological terms, and the essence of biology is variability and adaptability. David Patriquin (Biology Department, Dalhousie University) sums up what this means for practical experiments as follows:
Chemicals eliminate most of the biological variability on a farm by saturating, circumventing or destroying biological systems. In effect the environment is modified to make it more uniform for plants. Under such conditions there is a high probability that the results of research conducted at one of a few sites will be replicable over a much larger variety and number of sites. But once we start relying more on biological processes, this is no longer true: each farm, each field has its own “best solution” or “set of good solutions.” This calls for practical research and experimentation in collaboration with farmers, individually or in groups.[4]
There has been little institutional interest in organic agriculture, Patriquin continues, and consequently there is very little formal (scientific) information on how to go about it. Given the rapidly growing demand for bona fide organic produce and the interest of farmers in organic farming, this poses two problems: first, it would take too long, even if it were affordable, to acquire such information through the traditional research channels, and secondly, if farmers rush into it without good information, there is a high likelihood of failure. We need to develop research models that encourage genuine experimental cooperation between farmers and scientists (on the line of the Plan Puebla in Mexico and its offshoots in Mali, Zimbabwe and Tanzania). Specifically, we need to 1) focus formal sector research on the problems farmers cannot handle by themselves, and 2) we need to ask what kinds of inputs on the part of the formal sector might best sustain this self-reliant research by farmers.
A Sustainable Agriculture Resource Centre for Prince Edward Island
To open up feasible choices for Island farmers, a resources and support centre is needed which can mobilize information, conduct field trials, and collaborate with farmers in working towards sustainable husbandry systems and methods. The opportunity to create a centre of this kind is presented by the Sir Andrew Macphail farmstead, a property of some 150 acres, of which about 40 acres have been cleared as farmland and the rest is forested. The property includes a very large and soundly constructed barn and storehouse which could house the offices, library and other facilities required for such a centre.
Currently, the Friends of Macphail Board of Directors have plans for the Macphail mansion house and a small piece of land around it: these include refurbishing the house as a heritage centre and building a hostel nearby. Together with Orwell Corner, already laid out as a heritage village, this would preserve and keep alive a unique piece of island history and culture, as place for public recreation and education.
During my visit to the Macphail property in June, the Friends of Macphail discussed the possibility of an organic agriculture centre being developed on the 150-acre site. There was general support for this idea, in the light of the crucial role that such a centre would perform, and of the contribution it would make to fostering good health and community self-reliance, two ideals powerfully advocated by Sir Andrew Macphail. It was also felt that a centre for sustainable agriculture would attract many visitors through its educational and public information functions, and thus add to the attraction of the heritage site. As a centre of excellence in matters concerning sustainable agriculture, the centre should, of course, build up facilities for public education, including appropriate literature, farm visits, films and lectures and the like.
New Ways with Forest Land
The fact that some two-thirds of the Macphail property is woodland opens up the possibility of including, parallel with the Farm activities, an experimental and demonstration unit specializing in woodlot management. Its purpose would be to promote and enhance the sustainable development of forest resources, through environmentally sound forest management. It would concentrate on designing systems that are not dependent on chemical pesticides, and would use native plants to help rebuild the soil as well as provide good habitat for flora and fauna. At the same time it would be accessible to the public and the educational system, and would provide meaningful employment.
Thus taken as a whole, the Macphail property would serve three purposes:
- the Macphail house, garden and hostel (along with the village) comprise a heritage and study centre of cultural and recreational value, focusing on the life and times of a man who was convinced that self-reliant rural communities were the very backbone of Prince Edward island;
- the farmland part of the property, along with the barn and storage building, become the Macphail Farm, a resource centre of information and practical assistance to farmers wishing to convert to organic, sustainable systems and methods, including a major outreach component of on-farm experiment and adaptation. It would also have a public information and education component;
- the forest part of the farmstead become a demonstration and experimental area for different forms of woodlot management and practice, with the emphasis on sustainability and sound environmental practices.
No one who is seriously concerned about the environment, about health, and about te sustainable use of resources can doubt that a publicly accessible agro-ecological centre on these lines is essential for the future well-being of Prince Edward Island.
A Proposal for Action
This paper is not intended to provide a detailed blue-print of an agro-ecological farming and forestry centre. Its purpose is to argue that such a centre is needed now, if farmers and woodlot owners and rural communities are to be in a position to exercise choice about their futures: to be able to decide – rather than simply to react to external pressures – what systems and methods of growing food and timber suit them best in the light of contemporary, rapidly growing concerns about the health, the environment and resource use.
If it is accepted that the Macphail property offers an ideal opportunity to create a centre of this kind, and is a good place to start it, many questions arise. What would be the capital and recurrent costs involved? How should the centre be organized, operated and financed? What are the priority functions, and hence the staffing requirements?
As a first step towards creating the Macphail Farm for Sustainable Agriculture, it is proposed that an Advisory Council be set up, to advise and guide the Friends of Macphail Board of Directors about initiating the Farm, and to draw up an outline plan of operations, including the priority functions of the Farm, estimates of cost, staffing and timing, and indications of funding sources. The next stage would be a detailed feasibility study.
The Island is especially well-endowed in terms of people knowledgeable in this field and capable of organizing and running the proposed Farm. There should be no problem putting together an effective Advisory Council.
There is also the experience of the Prince Edward Island Sustainable Agriculture Assistance Program to be drawn upon; and, along with the help that could be expected from Dalhousie University and McGill’s University’s Macdonald College, there would undoubtedly be support from a number of local and national environmental organizations.
My concluding observation is simply this: the environmental, social, scientific and political pressures against chemical and in favour of biological, sustainable husbandry are rapidly building. Within a few years they will be translated into legislation, into farmers’ costs and food markets and prices. To set up a centre such as the Macphail Farm would be no more than a prudent anticipation of what farming and community needs will be within the next few years. The Institute of Island Studies’ initiative in pursuing this possibility with the Friends of Macphail could make a major contribution to the economy of Prince Edward Island and the self-reliance and welfare of its communities.
George McRobie
August 1990
APPENDIX A
Terms of reference for
Science Council of Canada
Project on Sustainable Agriculture
As we move towards the end of the present century, many forces – both national and international – are bringing about major changes in Canada’s agriculture and food system. These forces include a substantial global population growth, international trade conflicts, economic and political reforms in the USSR, China and eastern Europe, and Third World debt. But perhaps no factor will be as important or as pervasive in its consequences as the growing global preoccupation with environmental issues – issues that result from the collision between accelerating demand for products and the earth’s fragile ecosystem. Agriculture cannot remain isolated from the general call for the development of a sustainable society.
The transition to environmentally sustainable agriculture will mean substantial changes, not just for farmers, but throughout the entire food system, including processors, retailers and consumers. It will challenge our production, processing and food consumption practices, our agricultural policies, even our basic values.
Why are major changes necessary in a system that has for so long provided so much to agricultural producers and food consumers? After all, technological advances in Canadian agriculture since the Second World War have provided the basis for:
- a prodigious increase in agricultural productivity;
- an abundant, highly nutritious, relatively low-cost food supply for Canadian consumers;
- an increasing volume and variety of highly competitive agricultural exports.
But it is also a system that must now confront some basic questions relating to its sustainability from an environmental and food safety point of view.
The economic and industrial changes that have resulted from technological advances in agriculture have led to the development of a complex, integrated agriculture and food system, which includes:
- approximately 300,000 producers, largely family farms, which vary greatly in size, tenure and capital investment;
- an extensive agricultural supply and service sector, which provides inputs to farm producers in the form of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, credit services, machinery and equipment;
- a major processing, transportation and distribution sector, which moves an enormous range of agricultural products from the farm gate to consumers in both national and international markets;
- extensive government participation in the form of regulatory activities, taxation and expenditure policies, commercial initiatives, research, market development and involvement in matters of international trade and commerce.
The agriculture and food system, as it has evolved over the past four decades, is big business. Although there are only 300,000 farmers in Canada, the system as a whole provides the basis for substantial employment and investment. In 1989, Canadian farmers spent $15.5 billion on inputs such as fuel, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, machinery and debt service charges and another $2.6 billion on depreciation charges. Equally significant economically are the activities associated with the processing, transportation and distribution of farm products. In addition to providing a wide variety of food products to twenty-six million Canadians each year, farmers export nearly $10 billion worth of goods (about ten per cent of Canada’s total commercial export trade). The agricultural system has an important role in the general economy, and the consequences of rapid growth or recession in the system are quickly transmitted to other sectors.
But farmers and others in the agricultural and food system are struggling with economic viability. Canadian farm debt increased from $10.3 billion in 1977 to an estimated $21 billion eleven years later. Between 1979 and 1988, 3,681 farmers went bankrupt in Canada – about one a day. At the same time, the sustainability of farming is threatened by serious environmental problems. For example, five major droughts in the prairie region of Canada during the 1980s have underscored the vulnerability of the farm economy to climatic change. Drastically reduced crop yields, widespread soil erosion, acute shortages of water, and the damaging impact on livestock operations illustrate the fragile relationship that exists between farmers and their natural resources, soil and water.
Other issues of direct concern to agricultural producers include the contamination of ground and surface water by fertilizers, pesticides and waste disposal; the effect of pesticide residues, chemical preservatives, irradiation and animal hormones on food safety; aerial spraying, air pollution and land use conflicts; waste management; environmental regulations; and a variety of other technological and management issues.
Farmers and others associated with agriculture and food production need to know what “sustainable development” means for them, and how the requirements for sustainability can be reconciled with the economic viability of their operations.
If Canadian agriculture is to deal effectively with the new challenge emerging globally and nationally, a much broader and more systematic approach to managing technological change and policy development is required. The adoption of new technologies and the wise use of those already available are critical if Canada is to maintain its ability to compete on world markets. Equally important is the ability to manage science and technology in a manner appropriate to existing natural and human resources. We as Canadians not only must clarify our goals, but we must also assess the impact of technological change on the structure and character of our agricultural system, on the associated natural and human resource base, and we must identify policies that will shift the course of that system towards a more sustainable foundation.
Project Objectives
The Science Council believes that there is an urgent need to use the collective expertise within the scientific community in Canada to assess, insofar as possible, the potential of technological developments to promote sustainable agriculture. This knowledge must be expressed in a way that lay persons can understand. To achieve this, the Council aims to:
- examine the capacity of technology to shape and define the Canadian agriculture and food system to the year 2000 and beyond;
- assess the adequacy of existing institutional arrangements to exploit technological developments for a sustainable Canadian food agriculture and food system;
- identify the policies needed to ensure an agricultural system that is economically viable and environmentally sustainable.
These objectives raise a series of fundamental questions. How adequate are existing technologies to meet future environmental and economic needs? Is our present research infrastructure able to generate the S&T necessary to satisfy future requirements? Are existing arrangements to develop and apply technologies for sustainable agriculture adequate? What new policies are needed to promote agriculture that is both economically and environmentally sustainable? Who is responsible for initiating action? And what initiatives are required?
Ultimately, securing these objectives requires a clear vision of the kind of agriculture Canadians want to emerge in the 21st century. The goal of sustainable agriculture is now broadly accepted at both the federal and provincial levels. The Science Council plans to establish a road map for reaching that goal.
The Role of the Science Council
The Science Council’s involvement in Canadian agricultural issues s back to the early 1970s. Since then a number of Council publications have examined specific aspects of agriculture, but none has attempted to tie together the changes under way in the agriculture and food system or to develop long-term policies for this sector.
The Science Council will bring together disparate stakeholders to build consensus on courses of action, The Council will draw on the expertise of scientists academics, agricultural producers, consumers, business people, government officials and other interested parties to develop the policies necessary to apply science and technology to promote sustainable agriculture. To this end, the Council will solicit submissions and hold national workshops, leading to the publication of a final report in December 1991.
[1] Some ten years ago, a report by Bill Yansen, former Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Saskatchewan, prepared for Prince Edward Island’s Institute of Man and Resources, anticipated all the concerns now expressed about chemical, non-sustainable agriculture. It is a brilliant and forceful paper: it recommended the setting up of a sustainable agriculture research center on Prince Edward Island.
[2] The rising price and falling productivity of agricultural chemicals has hit American farmers hard during recent years. See Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet, Pantheon 1990, pp. 85-87.
[3] California, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin.
[4] Summarized from a discussion paper by D. Patriquin, conference on Sustainable Agriculture, Quebec, February 1989.