As I head out for a couple of months of sleeping in a hole
in the ground, I can’t help but reflect on what has come through the media in
these past weeks – and my subsequent perspective. We have seen a massive
backlash against the giant duopoly (Coles/Woolworths) for milk, and have seen
the cheap supermarket branded milk left on shelves while the more expensive farmer
branded milk sells out. Anything that allows farmers to meet their costs is
welcome, and is to be supported.
There were also reports of farmers without the same levels
of public awareness or pricing controls who are also struggling. One of these
was a farmer who has a couple of hundred acres of limes, who said that the
price he receives varies so much across the season that there are times where
he won’t pick, but rather drops the fruit to the ground as it just isn’t worth
sending trays of fruit to market.
Now, age and distance may have provided my perspective, but
I think what follows is common sense (as oxy moronical as that is in this age,
devoid of sense, common or otherwise). Distance – I am of the land, but spent a
couple of decades working in corporate industry. During that time, I always
dreamed of being back on the land, and we have now attained that dream. Almost.
I have researched extensively in how we might live lighter on the land, yet
pull what we need from it (including an income). And age – time doesn’t always
engender wisdom, but I would like to think that I have had the opportunity to
research many differing perspectives without being stuck inside a single
paradigm.
In any case, what follows is my thoughts on poly versus
mono-culture.
The fellow who is complaining about the market for limes,
yet has 200 acres dedicated to them has missed the mark (in my opinion). I feel
deeply for him for the financial struggles he is facing, but there is a better
way. He will be spending many tens of thousands of dollars each year on
maintaining his monoculture crop. This money will be spent on machinery,
chemical sprays and probably bee hives to pollinate his flowers. He will slash
the grass between his rows of trees, and have a massive packing shed to
maintain. In addition to this he will be bringing in external inputs by way of
fertilisers that provide short term solutions but eventually weaken the soil
his livelihood is planted in.
Because bees cannot survive on single pollen crops, the
hives he brings in each year will struggle to survive (as happens in California
with the almond orchard pollination each year). And for all of this heartache,
he reports that he is living close to the breadline.
On the flip side, there is a gardener in Canada named
Jean-Martin Fortier who has established a market garden with his wife
Maude-Helene on 10 acres in Quebec. Of the 10 acres they only crop 1.5 acres at
a time, and focus on growing better, not bigger. They maintain a diverse range
of crops (40 – 50 vegetable crops in a polycultural rotation), with the end
result that the soil quality improves with each rotation. The key thing to note
with this garden is that they have no mechanical liability, so no major capital
infrastructure that can impact on margins. They have not extended their
commitment past what they can handle with some limited assistance – and they
are making significant profits each year.
For the monocultural lime farmer, if there is a bug in his
orchard, his income is decimated. For the market gardener – white cabbage moth
might take his cabbages, but he has another 40-something crops to provide
cover.
In Australia we need to forget the idea that bigger is
better. Most land owners here are not farmers. They have no long term plan to
maintain or build the health of their soil, and simply seek to make as much
profit as they can while they can. They are industrialists, not farmers. There
are the farmers who have an understanding of what the land can give them – and
more importantly what they need to thrive as families.
The lime farmer could cut his costs significantly by making
a couple of simple changes. If he was to run sheep in his orchard in small,
intensive cells, they would take care of grazing meaning no need for a tractor
and slasher. They would also provide fertiliser, replacing a synthetic input
with a natural product. If those sheep were followed with chickens, they would
eat the larvae of bugs that impact on both sheep and the citrus trees. He could
go a step further. Now that there is no need to spray herbicides around the
trees, different herbs and grasses could be planted around the trees. This
would provide extra nutrients for the sheep, and (dependant on variety) act as
deterrent for bugs that damage the citrus.
In a perfect world, some of the trees would be removed to
allow for grass to be grown for hay to supplement the ovine diet in periods of
low grass growth, or to grow grains for chicken feed.
Whilst the removal of trees might reduce the potential
income from limes, there would be a corresponding potential increase in local
markets for eggs, chicken meat, lamb, wool, and herbs. The spreading of risk
across several potential income streams make much more sense than holding all
the eggs (or limes) in a single basket that relies on the evil duopoly to
provide revenue.
Who knows – he might even start to enjoy being on the land
again, and actually start farming…
There is much to be said for diversity. Certainly when we
get onto the farm we will make plenty of mistakes, although I am hoping we
won’t make the mistakes that others already have. We are planning for a range
of enterprises that will both stimulate our creative endeavours and provide
sufficient income to allow us to thrive as a family.
I also have thoughts about the relationship between the pending
food crisis, the large bodies of disaffected and un(der)employed urban dwellers
and the way we manage agricultural land. That management includes the
concreting over of our best land so we can ever expand out urban metropolises.
However – those thoughts need to be the subject of a future rant…
A future grumpy old man…
