The January issue was so deeply stocked with great info that I have to say something. Reading Kirsten Simmons’ article was the icing on the cake, with her amazing and shattering second question, and that reminded me so much of Megan Neubauer’s related thesis about u-pick operations. The article about Rick Clark and the concept of growing maslin crops has me hoping to grow them someday. All of this fits beautifully with the four other articles about seeds and microbes. The level of organizational thinking, of pure effort behind all of this, reflects the urgency of these times and feeds the knowledge base we need to survive them. I am already putting some of the information on inoculants to work, and your team has made an inspirational difference in my life this month.
— Gerry Wass
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion on solar panels in the February 2024 issue. The solar industry, another significant societal change, is here to stay until something better comes along. (How many people who bought Model Ts went back to horse and buggy?)
Local farmers in coal-rich Somerset County, Pennsylvania, who were wary of destructive strip-mining years ago, because they feared the loss of topsoil it caused, now are leery of using land for solar panels, but when coal companies learned to remove the topsoil before stripping and then replace it, most farmers jumped at the royalty income. Some of the many dairy farmers who were forced out of business since then because of overproduction of milk and consolidation are signing solar contracts. The profit per acre will be much higher than for the grain, soybeans, or hay they grow now. And in another historical change in land use, most of the micro-farms and Victory Gardens that were still common after WWll, before being replaced by mega farms and supermarkets, now are huge lawns. An old-timer, puzzled by the conversion of large vegetable gardens in the area back then, asked, “Are they going to eat that grass?” He did not foresee that millions of people someday would earn their “bread” in the lawn industry by providing “eye candy” to consumers.
— Nick Russian Central City, Pennsylvania
The debate over solar installations on farmland was interesting to read. I suggest agriculture refocus efforts on conserving energy. Three things come to mind about ways organic farms may effectively reduce the demand for commercial energy. But a complete lifecycle analysis needs to be done to confirm that the savings are significant. First, organic farms may conserve energy by using biological nitrogen fixation from legumes powered by sunlight instead of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. In non-organic farming, the Haber-Bosch process to manufacture synthetic commercial N fertilizer is estimated to use about 1 percent of the global primary energy supply (Nature Geoscience, 2008). Second, organic farmers should focus on feeding ruminants on pasture. A pasture-based farm is effectively a no-till system where the livestock do much of the harvest and spread their manure. This minimizes the use of petroleum-powered tractors. Third, organic and other dairy farmers who produce and direct market carefully produced raw milk avoid the energy-demanding processes of pasteurization and homogenization. Just consider the fact that a pasteurizer heats the milk to a high temperature (often after the milk has already been cooled in the bulk tank) and then after the heat treatment, it needs to be rapidly cooled down again. All this processing must take a considerable amount of energy. And tragically, pasteurization and homogenization degrade the special health benefits associated with drinking fresh, unprocessed milk.
— Joseph R. Heckman, Ph. D. Extension Specialist Rutgers University
I love Acres U.S.A. magazine, but I thought that Joel Salatin’s recent piece was journalistic refuse based on biased anecdotes and pseudoscience. There is no evidence that solar panels emit harmful electromagnetic frequencies. Electricity from solar panels and transmission to the power grid emits extremely weak electromagnetic fields. Exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields has been studied extensively, and there is no evidence that it is harmful to human health, according to the World Health Organization.
I don’t have the answers to the problems of renewable energy, but obviously neither does Joel. And making wild unscientific claims about the topic will also not help the situation. Making the renewable and solar voltaic companies the villain is not a solution.
I did appreciate Anna Monlezun’s take and somewhat of a rebuttal to Joel. Her point that we are OK with millions of monocropped acres of land to be used for ethanol production, but not another form of renewable energy, seems hypocritical. Anna makes some great and logical points. I agree that prime agricultural and natural habitats should not even be considered as potential sites for panels. She seems to be channeling Aldo Leopold, who has always been an inspiration in my ecology-based career.
I also valued your thoughts on the issue. I think we should be open to newer technologies, but I also feel like we have waited too long on the transition to renewable energy sources. It worries me to sit and wait any longer for the new optimal clean source of energy. I know solar has several downsides, and I am not in favor of sacrificing prime farmland for these projects — but one could claim we already have in using our current prime farmland for commodity crops and not food.
Thanks for listening.
— Adam J. Brown Suttons Bay, Michigan
I would like to compliment you on your February issue of Acres U.S.A. I was very pleased with your editorial and the other two articles dealing with the downside of solar farms. Thank you for interjecting some common sense into the debate. In my opinion, the absolute worst thing the “green” side of things does is advocate for solutions without problems and to try to mandate behavior that makes no scientific, financial, or common sense. Thanks again for your excellent magazine and the courage to take on some of the most contentious issues.
— Lee Fulton Rice Lake, Wisconsin
On pages 4 and 5 of your February 2024 issue of Acres U.S.A. magazine, you make two statements to the effect that “…immersed the surrounding area (or neighborhood) in electromagnetic frequencies…”. This is irresponsible and totally inaccurate. Solar panels emit DC power (not AC power), and thus do not emit any electromagnetic energy. Yes, there are electromagnetic emissions associated with overhead power lines, cellular phones, WiFi, computers, and television sets (etc.), but billions of people on this planet exist alongside them without any measurable issues. Solar farms are typically sited in locations where overhead power lines already exist. I totally agree with your assertion that converting good farmland into solar farms (or housing developments) is not good practice. But please stop spreading falsehoods about solar panels emitting electromagnetic energy. You do yourself and your magazine and your organization and your readers a great discredit by doing so.
— Bruce Waggoner Pie Town, New Mexico
