Broken Roto-Grow Gets A New Perspective

This Roto–grow was missing its motor and the glass tube that shields the lights from water, as a result, we’re giving it a new perspective… literally… by turning it on its side and suspending eight florescent grow lights down the centre. Eventually, a small pump will bring water to the top where it will be allow to tickle down through the plants to a central reservoir.

@KPKNE Gardening

The Jasper Place High School’s Knowledge and Employability program sets up for another season of gardening. This year, they’re setting up a little supplemental lighting next to their West facing window. They’ll be growing heirloom tomato varieties, herbs, and annual flowers.

Lactic Acid Bacteria Starter For Homemade Ginger Ale

This lactic acid bacteria starter was created by adding ginger root, water, and sugar. The bacteria naturally found on the root consumes the sugar and performs an “incomplete” form on cellular respiration called lactic acid fermentation. Fed every day, the starter gets stronger over time and is eventually added to our homemade ginger ale as a way of carbonating it.

Aquaponics Expansion

Two of the four new aquaponics units at Jasper Place High School in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Original aquaponics system can be seen in the background. When complete the addition should allow us to grow all of the lettuce greens for the school’s Culinary Arts program and Cafeteria.

Expansion One of the great things about having had an aquaponics system at the school for over a year is knowing what you’d do differently the next time. Well, “next time” is hear and we have indeed learnt a few things:

• Ease of Access: In terms of assessing all of the plants, we wanted to try to get things as close to table-top height (36″) as possible; I think that we ended up 38″ high. In addition, each unit will be placed a foot and a half apart to increase access to the sides and back.
• Keep it Modular: In case we ever want to move or reconfigure the design, smaller connectable units was a better choice than one large system. In addition, each unit is assembled using bolts instead of nails or screws.
• Build in Versatility: Though, the tops of each unit are intended for plants, the lower tanks could be used as a simple water reservoir, to hold fish, to grow duckweed (tilapia love it) or even as another grow bed.
• Keep it Simple: The less there is the less chance there is that anything will go wrong. In our new design, we’ve combined our two (2′x3′) grow beds into a single (4′x4′) bed.

Interested in purchasing baby tilapia for your own aquaponics system?

If you have an opinion (I suspect that many of you do) please share it in the comment board. If the genetic engineering is inherently wrong, why? If not than under what conditions should genetic engineering be considered? I welcome your thought!

When you imagine nature, what comes to mind? A tree? A bird? What if I told you that these are products of nature (they are natural) but they themselves are not nature. To use an idiom, we can’t see the forest for the trees. Let me explain, but first, let’s examine a few mental roadblocks that we tend to get hung up on. As a culture, we tend to:

• view nature as something static and fragile; a things that needs to be protected so that it can remain in its original state.
• think of nature as competitive rather than cooperative; survival of the fittest.
• think of ourselves as separate and incapable of interacting with nature in positive ways.
• believe that we’re inherently at odds with nature; battling over resources.

Not only are these misconceptions fundamentally untrue and keeping us from experiencing nature’s true beauty but they’re preventing us from accessing the most abundant solution bank on the planet.

Nature Is A Network If we’re to solve many of the problems facing us, we need to broaden our understanding of nature as a collection of natural things to a network and the set of patterns and principals that make it function. In doing so, I believe that two things can happen (1) we can establish a framework for interacting with natural systems in ethical ways (ways that benefit the planet and ourselves) and (2) we can align our own systems with these same patterns and principals; we can become part of nature.

Nature is a network, created and governed by a set of patterns and principals that, over time:

• increase interconnectedness.
• increase complexity and diversity (diversity builds redundancy and resiliency).
• expand the adjacent possible (increases the potential for more connections, niches, etc)
• increase the ability to capture and store energy and resources.
• slows the flow of matter and energy (cycling matter and decreasing enthalpy).
• creates the conditions conducive to expanding.

Nature is a network of interconnected elements bound together by patterns and principals. So here’s the question: does the essence of nature reside on the elements (materials) being used or on the connections that bind them? A forest, as an example, is composed of trees, animals, soils, rock, carbon, water, oxygen, phosphorous, etc. but could a system of cables, electronics, data-storage, and users, bound together by similar patterns, also be natural? If a spider makes a web and we call it natural why couldn’t the human made “the web” be natural as well? In his 2010 book What Technology Wants author Kevin Kelly makes an exceptionally good case that technology is an extension of biology; he goes further by describing the “technium” as an emerging 7th kingdom of life. For me, this comparison becomes a lot more obvious when comparing the network maps of these two systems.

Side by side network maps of an ecosystem and the internet. Though, the materials they’re made of are different it’s hard to deny that their success relies on the use of similar patterns and principals.

Kelly takes another step describing good technology as opening more doors than it closes (expanding the adjacent possible) and that each stage in technological succession is built upon the preceding stage (creating the conditions conducive to expansion). I think that he’s dead on; it’s the patterns and principals of nature, not the building blocks, that make something natural and, if this is true, we’ve just greatly expanded our own adjacent possibles. Does technology have Coinstar point an ecological footprint? Absolutely, but I also believe that (good technology) is allowing us to do much more with much less and that if we continue to integrate natural patterns into our systems that the impact will continue to lesson while benefits increase.

Can humans create natural things? I think that we do already. Though, as with the internet example, I don’t think that we’re always aware of it. In his book, Ecocities, author and urban theorist Richard Register describes cities as places for “maximizing connections” and, for the first time in history, more than 50% of the planet is living is urban environments. Why? One explanation is that cities are networks; exceptionally rich places for sharing experiences, commerce, culture, genetics, etc. and that they offer more opportunities than rural environments. According to studies done by physicist Geoffrey West, cities scale sub-linearly; this is to say that the larger a city is the less resources it needs to function. As an example, the average New Yorker has the smallest carbon footprint in the United States, “less than 30% of the national average” because of the city, not the people. How did this happen? Naturally, of course; stacking connections and opportunities is analogous to stacking layers in a forest. In close proximity, resources are shares and opportunities are created; in fact, according to West, if you double the size of a city you more than double the innovation within it (supra-linear scaling). Imagine the possibilities of further integrating natural systems into urban settings; urban ecology could grow food, increase biodiversity, capture and clean water, and process waste. As I’ve said before, cities could be among the most biologically rich places on the planet.

Curb Cut Swales, Layers of a Forest, Layers of a Forest City

So what’s the big deal? Why redefine nature if we’re already unconsciously adopting it to create solutions? I think that part of the answer comes from nature’s subtleness; we’re used to seeing the products of nature but not the underlying patterns that creates them and that’s understandable; they’re hidden. However, if we can consciously bring these patterns and principals to the front of our minds and embrace them, I believe that they could serve as ethical and life affirming guides to designing human systems; for we are their product so too can we use them to expand nature’s adjacent possible.

To make 1 Gallon (3.78L) of ginger ale, you will need:

• Chopped Ginger Root – 190g
• Cinnamon Sticks – 1 or 2 (to taste)
• Star Anise – 3 or 4 (to taste)
• Cloves – 3 or 4 (to taste)
• Water – 1G (3.78L)
• Sugar – 440g (or, if you have a hydrometer, to a specific gravity of ~0.03)
• Lactobacteria Starter (cultivated from ginger root, in advance; post coming soon) OR a previous batch of homemade ginger ale (it will contain lactobacteria).
• Bottles capable of withstanding pressure from carbonation.

Combine all ingredients except the Lactobacteria Starter; bring to a boil and reduce to a simmer for ~20 minutes. Let the contents cool to room temperature before adding the Lactobacteria Starter.

Let the Lacto Bacteria establish itself for 24 to 48 hours than syphon into bottles that are capable of taking pressure; the lactobacteria will reproduce and consume sugar, expelling carbon dioxide and lactic acid (anaerobic lactic acid fermentation).

Remember, your ginger ale is a living thing: the longer the ginger ale stays bottled the less sugar there will be and the more lactic acid and carbonation it will have.

Masdar, a renewable energy company based in Abu Dhabi asks “What steps can individuals, businesses or world leaders take to address the most pressing and often interrelated water and energy challenges?”

The Power Of Ecology I believe that the solution lies within the resource capturing and cycling patterns and principals of ecology.

Let us draw some Western union locations ecological comparisons; what happens to a bucket of water when it’s poured onto a concrete surface? Not much; it puddles and evaporates. In contract, when a bucket of water is poured onto a forest floor it’s wicked up by the deep, rich, organic mulch that covers the ground. This water, in contrast, is not gone but instead stored and put to use; as soil organisms live and die, each molecule of water is passed from organism to organism. As plants begin to drink, they incorporate these same molecules into their bodies, making up to 95% of their mass. From this perspective, trees can be seen as vertical columns of water and forests as lakes. As insects and animals feed on plants these molecules transfer again and again and as these animals respire, defecate, and die these same molecules are often returned to the ecology to start anew. In this way, water, carbon, and minerals, are captured, stored, and cycled by ecological systems. As plants capture, fix, and deposit carbon on the forest floor, the systems capacity to retain water is increased and more life is able to flourish adding, once again, more water capturing carbon to the forest.

Using every resource twice is the same as having twice as many resources. The solution isn’t finding more but using what we have many times. A forest uses every resource tens or hundreds of times; the key is to harness these patterns within our own systems.

For all of it’s water capturing and holding capacities, one might wonder if ecology is robbing valuable water from people. Not at all; by capturing and cycling resources, ecological systems slowly release their resources back into the surrounding environment; this helps explain why forested areas seldom (if ever) experience flooding while ecologically poor environments do. Ecology soaks up rain and releases it slowly, over months or years which helps explain why streams, rivers, and aquifers surrounded by forest generally flow year-round. These ecological characteristic ensure the consistent, perennial availability of fresh water; decreasing the need to rely on expensive sources (such as desalination).

Create Ecologically Inspired Landscapes Nowhere is it written that humans and ecological systems cannot partner with each other and I believe that it is in our best interest to do so. The following is a general description of how to establish water harvesting and storing ecology; it should be emphasized that each site will be different.

• Source areas that typically shed water. Slightly higher elevations are best, as they are protected against flash floods from above and reduce flooding below.
• Create features that capture rather than shed water; check dams, swales, depressions, etc.
• Heavily mulch the site (use organic municipal or agricultural waste to reduce energy).
• Plant hearty pioneer species of plants to reduce erosion, shade the mulch, and sequester nutrients. Encourage biodiversity and mimic the layering effect of forests.
• Plant food and fiber producing species amongst hearty species (productive species reduces energy for imports).
• Mulch the site by cutting back pioneer species; providing more room for food and fiber species.
• Repeat process down-slop.

In comparison, implementing ecology is very inexpensive and independent of complicated or inaccessible technology. By partnering with ecology we can capture and store water, reduce albedo and evaporation, sequester carbon, reestablish perennial water systems and aquifers, increase biodiversity, and produce food and fiber; it’s becoming quite clear that ecology could be a major contributor to our future security.

The first time I’d ever heard of a roto-gro, I remember inwardly cringing; to be honest, I found the whole idea a bit gimmicky and overly complicated… but when one landed on our doorstep I thought that we might as well give it a shot.

What’s a roto-gro? In short, it’s 63 square feet of garden rolled into a cylinder and rotating around a light source. The whole thing is hydroponic so the plants are grown in a rock-wool medium, when the plants pass by the bottom of their never-ending circular journey, they dip into a reservoir of water. How does it work? We’ll find out.

JP Permaculture students join me in the greenhouse on a Saturday afternoon to start 160 new cuttings; two varieties of heirloom tomatoes, basil, lavender, and rosemary. The cuttings are exposed to a constant mist of water and aeration. After a week, new root growth had appeared. Soon, we will transplant each cutting into its own pot or into the our school aquaponics system.

Okay, here me out; I’m probably not going to convert your vegetarian ways but I would like to make the case that the debate isn’t as clear cut as it seems. Heresy, I know. Before sending me to the proverbial butter’s block, hear me out.

According to the NaturalNews.com article Four Reasons People Become Vegetarian most people are vegetarians for one or more of the following reasons (Jones-Shoeman, 2011): health, environment, ethics (the killing of animals), and global food shortages. In defence of meat, I will attempt to address each of these, though, as I feel that issues of health, the killing of animals, and food shortages are extremely debatable, I will more heavily focus my attention on environmental impact (which I will address last).

Eating Meat is Unhealthy No; eating a pound of bacon for breakfast each day is unhealthy. Like anything else, meat should be consumed in moderation and offers a variety of health benefits and risks that vary according to each species, the conditions in which it was raised/grown, processed, stored, and the manner in which it was prepared. I would never advocate only eating meat and, as a general statement, am an advocate for eating less of it; North Americans, especially, consume more meat than is recommended, needed, or likely healthy. However, that doesn’t mean that meat is unhealthy or evil.

Ethical Reasons (The Killing Of Animals) I have personally killed an animal, for the purposes of consumption and, I’ll be honest, it is hard. For the last year and a half, students and I have been raising tilapia in an aquaponics system at Jasper Place High School. On more than one occasion, I have helped students remove a large fish from the tank and killed it; I have come to realize what it means to consume an animal. It is a very strange thing to look an animal in the eye, to understand that it knows that you are going to take its life, and to do it anyway. In truth, it hurts. Killing an animal is a sobering experience and when I look around at the ten or so culinary arts students who are standing there with me, I can see that each and every one of them is feeling the same thing but that’s the point. Most people have no idea where their food comes from, let alone the significance of slaughtering an animal; pre-packaged, pre-prepared food removes consumers from the processes that sustain life. Though, here’s the kicker, that fish-stick you had for lunch was also a living breathing being that someone killed on your behalf. That is important to understand. It may sound like I’m arguing in favour of vegetarianism but what I’m really advocating for is a closer connection to our food. In truth, to say that it is ok to eat vegetables but not animals is to anthropomorphize one kingdom and not another. A living thing is a living thing and to say that one species is more important than another is to forget that each organism contributes to the resiliency of life. Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense that we more easily identify with animals, as animals ourselves, it is probably much easier to empathize with closer relatives. Hence the “I won’t eat anything with a face” philosophy. Don’t get me started on mushrooms who are more closely related to the animal kingdom than the plants.

Global Food Shortages Isn’t meat production far more resource intensive? Absolutely, and we could produce far more vegetables (and food) if we moved away from producing animals for consumption (I will address this, in a moment). In truth, the world already produces enough food to feed ten billion people (Holt Gimenez, 2012); the problem isn’t one of production but of distribution and inequality. However, I do think that we could be growing our food better and on less land; using urban agriculture, as an example.

Environment Before beginning, just to prove that I don’t have my head in the sand, here are some frightening statistic about the current state of meat production:

• Producing one kilogram of meat causes the emissions equivalent of 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide” (“Lifestyle changes can,” 2008).
• On average, it takes 54 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of meat protein (Bluejay).
• On average, to takes 5 214 Gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, 1 630 Gallons to produce a pound of pork, and 815 Gallons to produce a pound of chicken (Bluejay).
• 2.5 acres of cattle could only support the annual caloric intake of 1 person while (apparently) the same area of land producing cabbages could support 23 (Bluejay).
• A staggering 30% of global land is used directly or indirectly for livestock production (“Meat,” 2012)

Wow! That is some terrifying stuff of which I can not possibly justify; luckily, I don’t have to. Honestly, if I thought that this was the only way to produce meat, I’d stop; done, finished, quit cold turkey (literally). Clearly things need to change but I think that blaming it exclusively on meat production and not the system from which it was produced is shortsighted.

A Tale Of Two Systems

Industrial Agriculture Perhaps my biggest criticism of our current agricultural system is that, well, it is not a system; or a very good one, at least. Systems are the sum of their elements and the connections that bind them together; stable and resilient systems are diverse and complex interconnected networks. Conventional agriculture, as it stands, is neither stable or resilient. Its lack of connections have given agriculture the following characteristics:

• Overly linear (little or none of its yields fulfill its own needs and, as a result, is resource and waste intensive.
• Lacking in diversity (hence opportunities for connections).
• Broken nutrient cycles (produces yields that don’t fulfill any needs).
• Single functioning (does not stack functions to produce multiple yields).

An Ecosystem Who waters an ecosystem? Who weeds, tills, fertilizes, and kills the insects? Nobody, of course! Ecology is self-sustaining, self-regulating, and self-perpetuating; containing the diversity to support countless connections, it cycles nutrients and resources, establishes feedback loops, sequesters carbon, and increases in biodiversity, complexity, and resiliency over time. If a forest burns down, it will self-assemble. Unfortunately, we typically cut forests down to build farms. Ecology generally contains the following characteristics:

• An interconnected complex system.
• Rich in diversity; often increasing over time.
• Intact nutrient cycles that largely stay on site.
• Functioning at multiple levels; the end of each process becomes the beginning of another.

Now, let us turn our attention to meat production within each system; at first, this may appear strange, as we’re not accustomed to thinking about ecological systems in terms of food production. Animals, however, only represent a small fraction of an entire ecosystem; the vast majority of which are plants. Now imagine that you are given the following two choices; to harvest all of the plants or all of the animals from an ecosystem. Though, consuming all the animals would, in itself, be detrimental, the overall ecosystem would remain relatively intact and be able to continue. Consuming the plants, on the other hand, would completely strip the ecological pyramid and cause the entire system to collapse.

This is, of course, an over simplification to prove a point. In reality animals also perform many crucial services for plant and I would never advocate the removal of such an integral part of the ecosystem nor am I advocating meat only diets. In fact, as Chef Dan Barber put it in his 2010 TED Talk, How I Fell In Love With A Fish, a sustainable farm should ”measures its success by the success of its predators” (top trophic levels).

Industrial agriculture, on the other hand, is the worst of both worlds; generally consuming all the producers and consumers at once, or worse, harvesting an entire vegetative trophic level in one system to sustain a separate system that lacks its own; one monoculture feeding another (conventional meat production).

The key is recognizing the amazing (and free) services that animals can contribute to plant production. Consider the role of a large herbivore living in a forest; they consume vegetation, redistribute seeds, prune back branches, rut up patches of earth, redistribute nutrients (manure), and act as a water reservoirs (72% water). What I’m advocating for is the restructuring of our current agricultural systems in such a way that they behave like ecosystems. While taking my permaculture design certificate (PDC) my instructor, Jesse Lemieux, recalled a story from when he had worked at an apple orchard. As I recall it, one of Jesse’s least favourite chores was picking up fallen apples. Obviously frustrated with this never-ending task, Jesse proposed introducing pigs to the orchards, as pigs would happily consume the fallen fruit on site, drastically reducing labour while simultaneously offering the additional yields of manure and pork. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that his advice was ever taken. As this example illustrates, the addition of pigs has a net positive effect on the farm while reducing inputs (labour) and turning “waste” products into a yields (manure and pork).*

Agricultural systems that mimic and adopt the patterns and principals of ecology could create mutually beneficial polycultures of plants and animal species. The goal then is to create agriculturally productive ecosystems; systems in which animals play integral roles in increasing productivity. In these systems, farmers would benefit from increasing the health of their farms trophic pyramids and by harvesting “slices” of plants and animals as abundance permits.

Harvesting is done in such a way that ensures that the system remains intact for future production.  In this system harvesting plants from the base of the system must be accompanied by a proportional harvest of the animals that depend on this base; if not, the system will be out of balance and correct itself.

So, is eating meat ethical? Well… I don’t think that it is unethical. The deciding factor probably depends on the system from which it was derived. Under the current agricultural system, let us face it, there are issues. Though, under an ecological model eating meat is justified (even ethical) if it helps maintain a balanced trophic level pyramid. I personally feel that vegetarianism is a perfectly normal reaction to a misguided agricultural system that is particularly bad at producing meat and that it is the system (not the meat) that we should be trying to avoid. By now, you have probably realized that this article has more to do with a need to move towards ecologically inspired agricultural systems than it has to do with meat… see what I did there?

Note

*It might be interesting to note that in the example that introduces pigs to an apple orchard that the addition of animals followed the successful establishment of an orchard (plants before animals). This is the order in which ecological succession would predict and it might be interesting to explore if this should always be the case.

References

(2012). Meat. http://www.globalagriculture.org, Retrieved from http://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/meat.html

(2008). Lifestyle changes can curb climate change. AFP, Retrieved from        http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIVBkZpOUA9Hz3Xc2u-61mDlrw0Q

Bluejay, M. (n.d.). Lifestyle changes can curb climate change: Ipcc chief. AFP, Retrieved from http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html

Holt Gimenez, E. (2012, May 02). We already grow enough food for 10 billion people — and still can’t end hunger. http://www.huffingtonpost.com, Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html

Jones-Shoeman, C. (2011). Four reasons why people become vegetarian. http://www.naturalnews.com, Retrieved from http://www.naturalnews.com/030890_vegetarian_reasons.html

Why you ask? Ecology is the most resilient and stable system that we know of; ecosystems are self-replicating, self-propagating, and self-maintaining. As natural systems increase in complexity and resiliency over-time, they use their resources more effectively by cycling them though their tens of thousands of interaction. As it turns out, the web of life is a net that’s held together by the connections. I personally believe that observable ecological patterns and principals have profound implications for the design of all systems… including those that educate.

In an earlier post, Eliminate Work And Waste, I argued that creating connections creates resiliency. Some simple ecological examples may be:

• trees being able to draw water from multiple resources (precipitation, aquifers, water trapped in organic mulch) are less likely to suffer drought.
• birds that have a diverse diet of seeds and insects to choose from are less likely to starve.
• the branching patterns of trees and rivers ensure maximum contact and distribution of nutrients and water.
• biodiversity ensures that there are many occupied niches and that nutrients are used as many times as possible before leaving the system.

Sure, that’s great but can we really apply these lessons to education? Well, here’s a few that I see:

• students being exposed to multiple ideas, concepts, and possibilities have more choices to draw from when solving complex problems or working on creative tasks.
• school projects that bridge curricular content (science and social studies, as an example) help reinforce and connect concepts.
• the physical structure/layout of schools could set up to help facilitate cross-curricular initiatives by helping to facilitate dialog between teachers of different disciplines.
• differentiated instruction and approaching outcomes from multiple learning angles helps ensure that each student is likely to experience concepts in a form that is accessible to them.

Coming from an ecological perspective, I would argue that the goal of education should no longer be cramming as much information as possible into the minds of students but, rather, to foster resiliency. In an age of instant access, I argue that knowledge is less important than skills. Education should be less about regurgitating facts and more about finding the right information for the situation and applying it; often in new and unexpected contexts.

In his book, Where Good Ideas Come From, Steven Johnson speaks of the importance of expanding the adjacent possible. The concept is simple enough to understand; actions that expand the adjacent possible open doors; that is to say, they increase opportunities and potential. Like a forest Moneygram online moving through succession, each stage expands the number of possibilities for the next, until one day, bare soil becomes an interconnected forest. From a pedagogical perspective, we too, are in the business of expanding adjacent possibles; learning is a successional process that builds off of past learning and expands possibilities for next. I propose that the resilient student is one who’s adjacent possible is so wide and vast that their potential is limitless; to have been exposed to as many different ideas, concepts, and experiences as possible so that by the time they leave high school they have more options then they’d ever though imaginable. As often pointed out by educational expert Sir Ken Robinson, we are preparing students for a future that we do not know; the resilient student then, the one who’s adjacent possible is the widest, is best positioned for success (however defined).