Weed Breezes Agriculture

Electro-Culture

2011-10-13T14:23:00.000-07:00

Electro-Culture
( The Electrical Tickle )

by

Robert A. Nelson

Introduction
Antennas
Electrostatics
DC
AC
Magnetism
Electrogenics
Sound
Monochrome & Pulsed Light
References

Introduction

The application of electricity, magnetism, monochrome light, and sound can stimulate the growth of plants to a great extent. This little-known technology, called Electro-culture, can accelerate growth rates, increase yields, and improve crop quality. Electro-culture can protect plants from diseases, insects and frost. These methods also can reduce the requirements for fertilizer or pesticides. Farmers can grow bigger and better crops in less time, with less effort, and at a lower cost.

The several approaches to Electro-culture include: antennas, static electricity, direct and alternating current, magnetism, radio frequencies, monochrome and intermittent lighting, and sound. The energies are applied to the seeds, plants, soil or the water and nutrients.

Antenna Systems

The French farmer Justin Christofloreau attracted attention in 1925 with his apparatus to collect atmospheric energy for his crops. Clover treated by his method grew 7 feet high. Christofloreau's apparatus consisted of a 25-ft wooden pole; at the top was a metal pointer aligned north-south, and an antenna. Copper and zinc strips were soldered together to generate electricity from solar heat. Several of the poles were set about 10 ft apart, and the wires leading from them extended about 1000 yards. Christofloreau claimed that the accumulated electricity destroyed parasites and promoted beneficial chemical processes in the soil.(2)

In 1924, Georges Lakhovsky devised his Oscillator Circuit, a one-turn copper coil with overlapping ends separated by a gap. Capacitance generates oscillating currents that benefit the plants. The ring is supported by an insulator such as a plastic rod. This extremely simple arrangement stimulates plant growth (Fig. 5.1). (3)

Other configurations also enhance plant growth. A conical coil of stiff wire wound with 9 turns (counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, clockwise in the Southern), when stuck in the ground about 1 ft north of a plant, will collect atmospheric electricity. Connect a wire from the fence to a metal rod near the plants. A tv antenna also can be used. Rebar can be sunk into the ground at each end of a row of plants, connected by a bare wire under the soil and/or in the air. A north-south orientation will take advantage of geomagnetic polarity.

Electrostatic Systems

Experimental study of the effects of electricity on plant growth began in 1746, when Dr. Maimbray of Edinburg treated myrtle plants with the output of an electrostatic generator, thereby enhancing their growth and flowering. Two years later, the French abbot Jean Nolet found that plants respond with accelerated rates of germination and overall growth when cultivated under charged electrodes.

Beginning in 1885, the Finnish scientist Selim Laemstrom experimented with an aerial system powered by a Wimhurst generator and Leyden jars. He found that the electrical discharge from wire points stimulated the growth of crops such as potatoes, carrots, and celery for an average increase of about 40% (up to 70%) within 8 weeks. Greenhouse-grown strawberry plants produced ripe fruit in half the usual time. The yield of raspberries was increased by 95%, and the yield of carrots was increased by 125%. However, crops of cabbage, turnips, and flax grew better without electrification than with it. The Laemstrom system comprises a horizontal antenna suspended high enough to permit plowing, weeding and irrigation. The voltage applied to the antenna varies from 2 to 70 KV, depending on the height of the antenna. The current is about 11 amps. (4, 5)

Spechniew and Bertholon obtained similar results a few years later, and so did the Swiss priest J.J. Gasner in 1909. Also that year, Prof. G. Stone showed that a few sparks of static electricity discharged into the soil each day increased soil bacteria up to 600%.

In the 1920s, V.H. Blackman reported his experiments with an aerial system similar to that of Laemstrom. He applied 60 volts DC/1 milliamp through 3 steel wires each 32 ft long and suspended 6 ft apart and 7 ft high on poles. This arrangement yielded an average increase of about 50% for several plant types. (6)

In 1898, Grandeau and Leclerq studied the effect of atmospheric electricity on plants by covering part of a field with a wire net which shielded them from natural electrical action. The uncovered plants grew 50-60% better than the shielded plants.

Wet soil improves current flow. Electro-cultured plants require about 10% more water than control plants because the charged water is perspired more rapidly than under normal conditions. Positive results are always obtained except when ozone is formed by ionization. Negative aero-ions intensify cellular oxidation reduction processes, while the positives depress them.

Direct Current

In the 1840s, W. Ross of New York reportedly obtained a severalfold increase in the yield of a field of potatoes when he buried a copper plate (5 ft x 14 ft) in the earth, and a zinc plate of the same dimensions 200 ft away. The two plates were connected by a wire above ground, thus forming a galvanic cell. In similar experiments by Holdenfleiss (1844) with battery-charged zinc and copper plates, yields increased up to 25%.(7)

From 1918 to 1921 some 500 British farmers developed a shared system to treat their grain in an electrified solution of nutrients. The grain was dried before sowing. The farmers cultivated about 2,000 acres with the seed. The results were reported in Scientific American (15 February 1919):

"In the first place, there is a notable increase in the yield of grain from electrified seed... the yield of the electrified seed exceeds that of the unelectrified by from 4 to 16 bushels... The average... is between 25 and 30 % of increase... The increase in weight has ranged from 1 pound to as much as 4 pounds per bushel... Besides the increase in the bulk of the yield and the increase in the weight per bushel, there is an increase in the straw... whereas the bulk of the unelectrified seeds had thrown up only 2 straws per seed, the electrified had thrown up 5.... The straw growing from the electrified seed is longer... The stoutness and the strength of the straw is increased... the crop is less likely to be laid by storms... Corn growing from seed thus treated is less susceptible to the attacks of fungus diseases and wireworm.

"The effect produced upon the seed is not permanent; it will retain its enhanced efficiency only for about a month after electrification, if kept in a dry place. It is therefore desirable that the seed be sown promptly after it has been electrified... The grain must be steeped in water that contains in solution some salt [sodium nitrite] that will act as a conductor... The seed is steeped in it, and a weak current of electricity is passed by means of [iron] electrodes of large surface attached to two opposite end walls of the tank. The seed is then taken out and dried.

"Seed that is to be sown on one kind of soil will yield better results with a calcium salt, and seed that is to be sown on another kind of soil will yield better results with a sodium or other salt. One kind of seed will need treatment for so many hours, and another kind for many hours more or fewer. Barley, for instance, needs twice as long treatment as wheat or oats. The strength of the solution and the strength of the current must be appropriate, and are not necessarily the same in each case. The drying is very important. The seed must be dried at the right temperature, neither too rapidly nor too slowly; and it must be dried to the right degree, neither too much or too little." (8, 9)

In 1964, the USDA performed tests in which a negative electrode was placed high in a tree, and the positive electrode was connected to a nail driven into the base of the tree. Stimulation with 60 volts DC substantially increased leaf density on electrified branches after a month. Within a year, foliage increased 300% on those branches! (10)

Electricity also can cure trees of some diseases. A method was developed in 1966 to treat avocado trees affected with canker and orange trees with scaly bark. An electrode was inserted into the living cambium and phloem layers of the tree and the current passed into the branches, roots or soil. The treatment is best administered in the spring. The length of treatment depends on the size and condition of the tree. New shoots appeared after only one cycle of treatment. After the bark was removed, the trees began to bear fruit! The period of grafting stratification also can be shortened in this way.

The passage of an electric current modifies the physico-chemical properties of soil. Its aggregation increases, and its permeability to moisture improves. The content of absorbable nitrogen, phosphorus, and other substances is increased. The pH changes. Usually, alkalinity is reduced, and evaporation increases. Both alternating and direct electric currents have a bacterial action which also affects the soil microflora. Up to 95% of cabbage mildew and other bacteria and fungi can be destroyed by electrical disinfection.

Brief exposure of seeds to electric current ends their dormancy, accelerates development throughout the period of vegetation, and ultimately increases yields. The effect is greater with seeds that have a low rate of germination. The metabolism of seedlings is stimulated; respiration and hydrolytic enzyme activity is intensified for many types of plants. Lazarenko and Gorbatovskaya reported these results:

"Reports that the characteristics acquired by the plants in electrically treated soils are transmitted by inheritance to the third generation are particularly interesting.

"Under the influence of the electrical current, the numerical proportions between hemp plants of different sexes was changed by comparison with the control to give an increased number of female plants by 20-25%, in connection with a reduction in the intensity of the oxidative processes in the plant tissues."

"At the end of vegetation the experimental cotton plant possessed twice or three times as many pods as the control plant. The mean weight of the seeds and fiber was greater in the experimental plants also. In the case of sugar beet the yield and sugar content were increased, and in places near the negative pole the increase in sugar content was particularly high. The tomato yield increased by 10-30%, and the chemical composition of the fruit was modified. The chlorophyll content of these plants was always greater than that of the control... Corn plants absorbed twice as much nitrogen as control plants during the vegetative period... The transpiration of the experimental plant was higher than that of the control, especially in the evening...

"The stimulating action of the alternating current was greatest when the current with density of 0.5 mA/sq cm... A direct current with density of 0.01 mA/sq cm had approximately the same action. When these optimal current densities were used in hotbeds, the yield of green mass could be increased by 40%." (1)

P.V. Kravtsov, et al., reported that the population of ammonifying bacteria (especially the sporogenous type) increases about 150% when soil or compost is exposed to continuous low-power DC. The symbiotic activity of nodule bacteria with bean plants was characterized by massive nodules near the base of the root. Field experiments were conducted on 40 hectares. The peas treated with electrified inoculant produced 34% more yield than a control crop. Carbon dioxide evolution in the soil increased over 35%. The authors also reported that treatment of seed with electric-spark discharge destroys microflora and activates the germination process. (11)

An electrified fence was invented by Henry T. Burkey in 1947 to keep fish out of irrigation ditches. The fence consisted of a free-swinging row of electrodes connected to a generator which slightly charged the water to shock fish without hurting them.(12)

Alternating Current

When using AC, great care must be taken to prevent electrocution of oneself and the plants. AC generally tends to retard plant growth except within certain narrow parameters of voltage and amperage. Dicotyledon plants increase in weight at 10 KV and 100 KV, but decrease in weight (as much as 45%) between 20 to 60 KV. Current must be very low, or plant growth will be retarded.

L.E. Murr used aluminum wire mesh electrodes charged up to 60 KV, and found that monocotyledons increase in dry weight in an electrostatic (ES) field, but decrease in weight in an oscillating field. The dry weight of dicots increases about 20% when grown in an oscillating field, but decreases above 50 KV. The concentration of minor elements (Fe, Zn, Al) increases several hundred percent in active leaf tips, due to an increase in oligo-enzymes. The activity of these substances is accelerated so much that cellular respiration is impeded, resulting in deterioration and death. There appears to be no benefit from continual exposure of plants to an alternating electrical field. If such a system is used, voltages should not exceed 10 KV, and the current must be very weak.(13-15)

However, the results can be worthwhile. In a similar system, the maximum energy supplied was 50 watts (50 KV/1 mA) per acre for 6 hours daily for 6 months. The total energy supplied was less than 0.2% of the energy actually absorbed by the plants from sunlight alone. Only a fraction of this additional energy was available to the plants, yet the increase averaged above 20%, up to 50%! Furthermore, it was found that an electrical discharge applied during the first month of the growing season may be as effective as continued treatment throughout the season.

In November 1927 and January 1928, Popular Science Monthly announced H. L. Roe's invention of an electrified plow which sent 103 KV between the plow shares to kill pests in the soil. In 1939, Fred Opp invented a garden cultivator that used high-tension electric current to increase the nitrogen content of the soil. The system was described in Popular Science Monthly (October 1939):

"A generator with an output of 110 volts AC, a storage battery for exciting the armature field, and a transformer that steps up the current to 15 KV... [is] mounted on a walking-type garden tractor equipped with a small gasoline motor that drives both the tractor and the generator. Current is conducted through a pair of electrodes to furrows in the soil made by a cultivator. As the electrodes are dragged along, soil falls on top of them, making the contact"

The same method was incorporated into the "Electrovator" built by Gilbert M. Baker, as reported in Popular Science (September 1946):

"It is a trailer containing a... 12.5 KVA generator and a special transformer. Two rakes with copper electrodes for teeth apply the high-voltage, low-amperage current to weeds as the machine is drawn at 1 mph... The weeds burn, from the tops to root-tips, leaving the land ready for new crops. The treatment can be repeated for successive growth."

In 1911, Emilio Olsson patented an irrigation system using electrified rain. The water was contained in an insulated iron tank, positively charge with 110 V/0.5 A. The negative pole was insulated copper wire, stripped bare at the tip. The sprinklers were mounted 5 meters high. Olsson successfully cultivated a 600-acre plantation with this method. The city of Buenos Aires adopted the system for use in its parks.(16)

The treatment of seeds in an electric field before sowing gives a consistent increase in yield, usually about 15-20%. L.A. Azin and F.Y. Izakov reported these results of their research:

"The electric field of the corona discharge differs from the electrostatic field by possessing considerable homogeneity and by the precession of space charges of the same sign in its working zone. Because of this any particle, including a seed, receives a charge of the same sign in such a field. The [ES] field is homogenous and does not possess space charges, although charging may take place here because a seed, if placed on the metal electrode, acquired a charge by contact, corresponding in its sign to the polarity of the electrode."

N.F. Kozhevnikova and S.A. Stanko experimented with AC effects. They found:

"After treatment in optimal conditions, the yield of green mass is increased by 10-30%, and the yield of grain by 10-20%. Besides the increased yield, treatment of seeds with an alternating current may improve other economically valuable properties of cultivated crops: the leaf cover of the plants may be increased, the vegetative period may be shortened, the absolute weight of the grain may be increased, and so on..."

The seeds were treated with 2-4 KV/cm, with 8 KV on the electrodes of the working chamber. Exposure was for 30 seconds, or for 1 hour. It was found that if treated seeds were kept for 10-17 days before sowing, the mature plants would contain up to 86% more chlorophyll and 50% more carotenoids than the controls! (17)

B.R. Lazarencko and J.B. Gorbatovska reported similar results achieved under various conditions of corona discharge treatments of seeds:

"After electric treatment of this type, an increase in their germination rate and, in particular, in the energy of germination was observed. The improvement was especially marked in the properties of seeds located on the negative electrode during treatment. In this case an increase in yield of 2-6 centners/hectare was obtained with nearly all the conditions of treatment used. The increase in yield was smaller for plants whose seeds were treated on the positive electrode. Corn seeds, treated in a constant electric field, gave good yields which developed rapidly. Green tomatoes ripen faster if they are placed in an electric field close to the positive electrode or between the poles of a magnet, especially close to the south pole.

The viability and the fertilizing power of the pollen at first increased and then decreased as the duration of its treatment in a constant electric field was lengthened. In optimal conditions this fertilizing power was increased from twice to four times. The use of high voltage electric fields for the treatment of pollen has led to the modification of its bioelectrical properties and has made it possible to influence the fertilization process: the setting rate of fruit has been increased during hybridization of varieties of more distant forms, and the failure to cross distant species of fruiting plants has been overcome. (18)

Seed-borne bacteria, fungi and insects can be destroyed without injuring the seeds, by application of high-frequency ES fields between capacitor plates. Pests are destroyed when a lethal degree of heat is developed within a few seconds. A longer exposure is required to cause decreased germination of seeds than is necessary to kill pests. (19, 20)

By this same method, it is possible to increase the power of germination of old seeds or seeds which are naturally difficult to germinate. Starch is increased, invert sugar is increased, and albumin is changed by such treatment. A greater percentage of treated seeds sprout sooner than untreated seeds. High-frequency ES fields also can be used either to inactivate or enhance enzymatic metabolism of fruits and vegetables, thus prolonging their stability, or hastening their ripening. In an ES field of 36 KV/m, the negative pole positioned above the seeds enhances their germination. The positive pole above the seeds inhibits germination. In the 1930s, V. Lebedev used very low power ultrashort waves to irradiate seeds, resulting in 20-45% accelerated plant growth. Similar results were obtained with potato tubers, and gladiolus bulbs were grown without cold pre-treatment.

The effects are thought to be caused by conduction currents or dipole antenna resonance. The lethal effect begins at about 10.4 meters wavelength (29 MHz) when the condensor plates are 2-3 cm apart. Other researchers have reported similar effects with the following parameters: Plates, 12 cm diam.; Current, 5.5 amps; Wavelength, 5.6 meters (50 MHz); Temperature, 30-40o C. The lethal effects depend on the wavelength and the voltage gradient of the field strength (the distance between the condensor plates). Increasing either the frequency or the field strength while other factors remain constant increases the speed of the effect on pests. An increase of either factor requires more current, yet at certain frequencies (around 3 MHz), much less current is required for effective results (about 4 KV per linear inch). The higher the frequency, the shorter the lethal time. The thickness of the seeds and their moisture content also changes a lethal dose. The temperature of the seeds and pests may rise up to 60o C. A similar method was developed to destroy termites in wood, using a 20 MHz signal for the purpose.

Experiments conducted by H. Kronig showed that after a week of development, seeds exposed to extremely low frequency (0.5-20 Hz) fields, wheat seeds grew an average of 23% greater length than non-electrified controls.

Other experimenters have found that the high-frequency currents generated by a Tesla coil will protect plants from temperatures as low as 10o F, which destroyed unprotected plants. (28)

In 1920, Thomas Curtis used a large, oil-immersed Tesla coil (10 KV/500 W) to supply high-tension current over a 200 sq ft plot planted with radishes and lettuce. The electrified crops were at least 50% larger than the normal crops.

Magnetism

Plant breeder Alberto Pirovano published some 50 papers on inherited changes in plants which he induced by treatment with low frequency or constant magnetic fields.

Albert R. Davis received U.S. Patent #3,030,590 for his system of gardening with magnetism. Davis said:

"We found... that treating above ground seeds with the South Pole of a magnet [1,500-2,500 gauss] increases the germination and growth, and the leaves of these vegetables are larger.

"If you treat seeds [of]... beets, potatoes, carrots or turnips, you will produce a better result by using the North Pole of the magnet."

The magnetic influence also softens the surface tension of water, which then is more readily absorbed by the seeds and plants.

U.J. Pittmaan conducted extensive field experiments with these results:

"Earth's magnetism can effect the direction of root growth of some plants, and also the growth rate of some seedlings... The roots of some plants [winter and spring wheat, and wild oats] normally align themselves in a N-S plane approximately parallel to the horizontal face of Earth's magnetic field... Winter wheat seeded in rows running at right angles to the magnetic N often out-yield wheat seeded in other direction by 3-4 bushels/acre because the roots grow in a N-S direction and utilize nutrients in the inter-row areas more extensively.

"Seeds of some varieties of wheat, barley, flax, and rye were found to germinate faster and grow more during their seedling stages when their long axes and embryo ends are pointed toward the N magnetic pole than when they are pointed in any other direction.

"Many seeds germinate and grow about two times faster if they are exposed to the N pole of an artificial field before they are planted than they are not so treated ~ wheat seed in particular grows about 5 times as much in the first 48 hours as unexposed seed.

"In some species the enhanced growth rate persists through to maturity. Green snap beans thus mature more uniformly and yield more than those from untreated seed planted randomly.

"The effects of magnetic treatment before germination appear to remain active within some seeds for at least 18 months after application. The magnetic intensity required to give maximum response appears to be between 0.5 and 100 Oersted when applied for 240 hours. For some unknown reason a greater growth response occurs if the seeds are subjected to magnetism for 48, 144, 240, or 336 hours than if exposed for intermediate periods. An exposure for 240 hours produces maximum responses in most seeds..." (21)

Pittman discovered that the sexual determination of monoecious plants such as corn and cucumbers also is affected by the geomagnetic field:

"If the embryo radical of such plants is oriented toward the North, a greater number of female flowers is formed than in the case of seeds oriented toward the South. Since cucumber fruits are produced from the female flower, Northward orientation of the seed radicals will lead, of course, to greater yield per plant.

"In general, Northward orientation of the embryonic radical (particularly of corn) promotes masculinity. The response of seeds when oriented toward the geomagnetic poles depends on the left- or right-handedness of the seed and the sexual characteristics of the plant type. When oriented with the tip of the embryo radical towards the S geomagnetic pole, l-rotary seeds demonstrate higher rates of growth, respiration, and enzymatic activity, and up to 50% greater yields. D-rotary seeds respond with up to 50% enhanced growth rates and yields when their embryo tips are pointed at the N pole."

When conifer seeds are grown with their embryo radicals oriented S, they germinate 4-5 days earlier than seeds oriented toward the N pole. Lunar phases also have a profound effect on the germination of conifers. They will sprout much faster when their embryo radicals are oriented S during a full moon, than they will if germinated during the new moon.

If there is any doubt about the directivity or gender of seeds, positive results can be obtained in any case by treating seeds for 2 weeks in the magnetic null, the quiet region where the magnetic pull is balanced between N and S. This region is located by observing the patterns formed by iron powder scattered on a glass pane placed over the magnet.

Pittman also grew potatoes from excised, magnetically treated eyes. The field-grown crop yielded 17% more marketable tubers that weighed 38.5% more than those grown from untreated eyes! Pittman concluded:

"Pre-germination magnetic treatment of the eye may have effected a change in the metabolic process in the bud that eventually promoted earlier and greater tuber initiation. Tubers initiated early would have had more time to develop size than those initiated later.

"The exposure of seeds to magnetic fields also increases the percentage of germination of apricot and apple seeds, increases the yields of snap beans, accelerates the growth of legume and cereal seedlings, and the rate of tomato ripening."

P.W. Ssawsotin reported that a low intensity (60 Oe) field may affect some biological processes as much as high intensity (1,600 Oe) magnets. Some of the effective "windows" are quite narrow. Strevoka, et al., found that a field strength of 60 Oe increased the growth rate of beans, cucumbers, lupines, maize and rye, but the rye was unaffected by a 100 Oe field. The greatest results were obtained at the temperatures which are optimal for the growth of each type of plant. (22)

Other Russian researchers found that wheat and barley seeds pre-magnetized (2,000 Oe) for 30 minutes with the major axis aligned with the magnetic flux will germinate much more vigorously than control seeds. Germination actually is retarded when seeds are aligned against the flux. Corn seeds respond differently according to their left (l-) or right (d-) orientation or symmetry (s) when treated by a constant magnetic field (7 kOe) for 15 minutes. L-seeds are most responsive, showing increased potassium and water uptake and free amino acids 24 hours after treatment. The effect on l-seeds is strongest when the water-swollen embryo is oriented towards the N magnetic pole. Lazarenko and Gorbatovskaya also reported other strange effects:

"Even more curious results were yielded by experiments in which seeds were heated in a test tube left for 30 minutes in boiling water... Compared to the control seeds, the seeds heated (in the dry state described above) and exposed to the magnetic field exhibited greater sprouting activity..."

Other experiments have shown that treatment of soil with magnetized water and/or low-frequency current (0.5 or 5 A) activates soil potassium and phosphorus, thereby increasing their bioavailability. (23, 24)

A.V. Krylov also demonstrated magnetotropic phenomena in plants:

"Germination of seeds in a constant magnetic field accelerated growth of the shoots and rootlets and development of the plant, while an increase in its positive sign promoted aging, disease and death. Polarity also plays a role in plant immunity. Seedlings with their rootlets turned toward the N pole were thickly infested by parasites and molds, and the resistance of these seedlings was obviously depressed. The appearance of seedlings facing the S pole (with all other conditions the same) was completely different."

In a 1,500 Oe field, the largest number of germinating seeds was found after an exposure of 10-30 and 300 minutes. Other gains were found at 2,800 Oe. If the magnetic field is too intense, germination can be retarded. Strevoka reported a contrary finding: a non-homogenous 12,000 Oe field suppresses the germination of beans up to 40%.(25)

DeLand's Frost Guard ~ The "Frost Guard Tower" developed by John DeLand in the 1940s used magnetism to replace obnoxious smudge pots. He obtained high yields from orange trees formerly considered to be too old to be productive. The DeLand system can protect one acre of trees from frost, but it is ineffective for small plants. George van Tassel gave this description of the device:

"The DeLand Frost Guard Tower is about 32 feet high. It is composed of three 12-ft lengths of standard galvanized steel pipe. The lowest section is 2-inch pipe, set 3 ft deep in concrete. On top of this a 12-ft section of 1.5 inch pipe is screwed on by means of a reducer. Above this the top section of 12-foot pipe, 1-inch in diameter, is screwed on by means of a reducer. Resting horizontally atop each reducer and at the mast head is a 1-ft diameter disk of waterproof, 3/4-inch plywood. Near the outer diameter of each plywood disk or collar is drilled 7 holes. These holes are parallel to the center mast and are equally spaced around the diameter, 51-1/2 degrees apart.

"Beginning at the top of the mast, with an extension of 6 or 7 inches parallel to the ground, #10 gauge bare copper wires are run down through the concrete foundation's outer edge. From there they branch out, in 18-inch deep trenches, to a distance of not more than 144 ft from the mast's center. At this point, each wire is wrapped several times around an Alnico-V permanent magnet. The end of each wire is brought above ground and pointed back toward its corresponding other end on top of the tower. The magnet is given a coat of plastic to protect it from rust and to hold the windings in place.

"The trenches and magnets are covered with earth. The 18-inch depth is to protect the wires from cultivation, they must remain uncut if the system is to function. One wire on the tower, and hence in the earth, must point toward magnetic North. The placing of this first magnet must be done very accurately, and the others should be accurately placed.

"The magnet sets are inclined toward the mast at 34 degrees to the surface of the ground. Pointing the buried bar magnets toward the North magnetic pole, but also setting them so they point or tilt toward the central mast gives a skew to the flux or flow of energy.

"This system has protected groves when temperatures have fallen to as low as 20o F. The system does not alter the air temperature in the grove. Rather, it seems to effect a condition in the plants themselves, so that lower temperatures will not induce freezing. Fruit laying on the ground will freeze, however." (26-28)

Electrogenic Seed Treatment

In the 1970s, Andrew Zaderej and Claude Corson formed Intertec, Inc., to develop and market their "Electrogenic Seed Treatment", based on Zaderej's US Patent 4,302,670. A variety of atmospheric conditions are known to benefit plant development; the Intertec system simulates these. The seeds are conditioned and rejuvenated, resulting in more rapid germination and increased yields.

Seeds are sprayed with a solution of minerals and enzymes which is implanted into the seed coat by electrophoresis; this accelerates chromosomatic activity. A second exposure to high voltage negative ions increases the implantation. Then the seeds are exposed to infrared radiation in order to reduce the hard-seed dormancy and increase the metabolism of ATP.

The next stage uses an electrostatic charge to give cathodic protection. This reduces the mortality rate of seeds by providing a source of electrons to buffer the reaction with free-radical nutrient ions. Seeds must be moist when treated with cathodic protection. Dry seeds may be damaged by this treatment, but damaged seeds can be repaired somewhat if they are moistened. Cathodic protection increases viability and germination up to 200%.

The final stage of the Electrogenic process treats seeds with select radio frequencies which stress the memory of DNA molecules, charges the mitochondria, and intensifies other metabolic processes. This treatment increases the degree of water absorption, electrical conductivity, and oxygen uptake. The frequencies range from 800 KHz to 1.5 MHz with a field intensity of 3.2 W/sq cm.

The seeds need to be treated at or near where they are to be sown. For some unknown reason, the effects of Electrogenic treatment apparently do not travel well.

Sound

The growth of plants can be stimulated by sound alone. The effect continues up to 50 KHz. Frequencies of 4-5 KHz are particularly effective for increasing germination, enzyme activity, and respiration.

Normally, the streaming movement of protoplasm in plant cells slows down in the early morning and evening, but this streaming can be accelerated by an audio frequency generator used for 30 minutes at a distance of about 5 feet from the plants. As a result, the amount and rate of growth increases. Plants should not be treated thus for more than 3 hours daily, or the plants are likely to die within a month or two, depending on the quality of the sound and its intensity. Very loud, high frequency sound causes cellular disruption and death. Some rock'n roll music also does so.

A revolutionary process called "Sonic Bloom", invented by Dan Carlson, uses a 3 KHz tone (modulated to produce birdlike chirps and whistles) and a foliar spray (55 trace minerals, seaweed, gibberillin and amino acids) to produce "indeterminate growth in plants". His first success was with a Purple Passion house plant that normally grows only about 18 inches. Under the influence of Sonic Bloom, the plant eventually grew over 1,200 feet, and earned itself a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. (29)

Growers using Sonic Bloom report dramatic increases in yield, better tasting vegetables and fruits, and more brilliant flowers. Cultivators can expect increased production and early maturity. Alfalfa sprouts will increase in weight by 1,200% within 3 days. The sprouts will have a much longer shelf life (2-3 weeks) than usual (3-4 days). Experiments with Sonic Bloom in Africa produced plants which survived extremely hot weather and flooding. Sonic Bloom also will produce fruit on first year trees. Apple farmers have reported triple-sized yields, 8-month shelf life, and a huge increase in nutrient values: 126% more potassium, 326% more chromium, 400% more iron, and 1,750% more zinc. Losses to diseases and pests have been reduced more than 80%.

The possibilities are unlimited. For example, Carlson says:

"One of our greatest breakthroughs to make everyone understand how easy it is to feed large amounts of people, involved a sucker on a tomato. A sucker is normally a sterile branch which appears in between a side shoot and the main branch. Our tomato plants grow 2 inches a day so if we allow a sucker to grow for seven days, it's about 14 inches long. If we then cut it off, put it in the shade and spray it once a day with a 1/4 ounce per gallon solution of Sonic Bloom, in 10-14 days it becomes fully rooted and starts to grow 2 inches per day. Fifty-five days later, it is 7-9 feet tall. Now, normal production on tomatoes is 90 days. We're doing this in less than 55, plus we're producing at least twice as much fruit in almost half the time.

Water is added to the concentrated Sonic Bloom formula. The cassette (containing a 3 KHz signal and nature sounds) is played at high volume with high treble and medium bass for 10 minutes before spraying the plants. The plants are then sprayed while the cassette is playing, and the sound is continued for another 20 minutes after spraying. Both sides of the leaves should be saturated. Treatment is best performed early in the morning (before 9 am), preferably in foggy weather. On cold mornings, spraying should be delayed until late afternoon. Do not spray plants when the temperature falls below 50o F. The formula also can be administered in the regular weather supply, by drip-feeding, hydroponics, etc.. The nutrient solution should be applied once a month for the first month, then twice weekly thereafter. Seeds should be soaked in dilute nutrient solution for 8 hours or overnight while the sound tape is played continuously on a cassette deck with auto-reverse capability. Plant the seeds immediately. The tape ought to be played daily for at least 30 minutes during daylight hours.

Monochrome & Pulsed Light

Plants respond to light with a complex variety of reactions that are affected by the duration (photoperiod), intensity, and wavelength of the light. During the 19th century, Edward Babbitt and others reported that the germination of seeds increases by 50% under the influence of blue light (provided by blue glass filters). Plant vitality is increased, growth is accelerated, stem and leaf development are improved, and yields are increased.

In 1861, General A.J. Pleasanton constructed a 2,200 sq ft greenhouse in which every eighth pane was blue. Pleasanton obtained phenomenal results in terms of increased yields, improved flavor, etc, and he received US Patent # 119,242 for "Improvements in Accelerating the Growth of Plants and Animals." He recommended a ratio of white 8:1 blue light for optimal plant growth, and a ration of 1:1 for best animal development. Blue light stimulates the directional response of plants to light. Plants' pores open more widely in the presence of blue light (use it with Sonic Bloom). Evaporation and photosynthesis are intensified and chlorophyll production is accelerated. However, some cells may rupture, and mitosis may be inhibited.

The He-Ne laser (632.8 nm) can influence the phytochrome-controlled germination, growth and development of plants from a distance of more than a quarter-mile. The maximum effect is obtained by only 1 or 2 minutes of exposure to reflected laser light. More than 10 minutes of irradiation will inhibit the phytochrome response. In some cases, successive nightly irradiations of low intensity have a significantly greater effect than a single exposure of greater length or intensity. The response can be reversed by alternating exposure to laser and infrared light. (30-32)

G. Krustev, et al., investigated the effect of laser irradiation on hemp production, and determined that laser treatment improved the sowing qualities of the seeds, shortened the phases of plant development, produced more vigorous plants, and increased the yields of both stems and seeds to a considerable extent. The researchers used a He-Ne laser for 15 and 30 minutes, and a nitrogen laser with 225 and 450 impulses. (33)

Red light can be used to increase the growth of some plants (beans, etc.) up to ten times the normal rate by stimulating phytochrome activity. Red light at 660 nm stimulates growth, development, flowering, and fruiting. When red light at 700 nm is available with 650 nm red light, photosynthetic activity is considerably greater than with either single frequency. Blue light at 420 nm enhances the effect of 650 nm red light. Photosynthesis occurs at approximately 440 nm.

Photosynthesis can be increased up to 400% by means of intermittent light. The researchers used a rotating disk with a cut-out section to chop the light from a lamp. They found that 75% of the light from a given source could be blocked without decreasing the rate of photosynthesis. The improved yields produced by intermittent light depends on the frequency of the flashing. A frequency of 4 flashes/minute resulted in 100% increased yields. The amount of work done by the light can be increased by shortening both the light and dark periods. For example, yields can be increased 100% by using 133 flashes/second. Emerson and Williams improved the yield (compared to continuous light) by 400% by using only 50 flashes/second. The light flashes must be much shorter than the dark period. The minimum dark period is about 0.03 at 25o C. The light reaction begins with about 0.001 second/flash, and it depends on the concentration of carbon dioxide.

A. Shakhov, et al., developed several methods of applying Concentrated Pulsed Sunlight (CPSL) to stimulate the photoenergetic activity of seeds and plants. The flashes of CPSL last from 0.2 to 1 second and produce significant effects on physiological processes and increase plant productivity. The CPSL effect is not caused by the thermal action of concentrated light, but by endowing plants with a "photoenergy reserve" that increases yields of vegetable crops by 20-30%, and grain crops by 5-10%.

Arrays of aluminum and glass dishes are used to concentrate sunlight up to 100 times. The apparatus is shaken lightly by various means to pulse the irradiation as it is directed on seeds or plants. In one such device, a large semi-conical aluminum reflector is rotated by a motor at 100-130 rpm. The seeds arrange themselves in a single layer on the wall of the pan and receive intermittent irradiation as they pass through a fixed focal spot on the inside wall. Artificial lighting (70,000 lux) pulsed 120 flashes/min. was found to produce effects even though the light energy was much lower than that of CPSL. With duckweed, maximum growth was obtained with a pulse period of 0.004 second.

Another system uses tinted mirrors to produce single colors. S.A. Stanko irradiated soy plants with pulsed red light for 30 min/day for a week, resulting in a 8% increase in the protein content of the beans.

Thomas G. Hieronymous discovered that a plant can be grown in complete darkness indoors if it is connected by an insulated wire to a large metal surface that is exposed to sunlight. The plant must be at least 6 feet above ground and insulated to generate a voltage potential or antenna effect. The optimal size of the metal sheet must be determined by experiment so as to avoid sunburn (too large) or yellowing (too small). Plants cultivated in this manner will develop normally, while control plants will be stunted.

Dr. Wilhelm Reich (of Orgone fame) also found that plants could be grown without light if they were grown with magnetite that had been exposed to sunlight. The magnetite absorbs and reradiates solar energies that are utilized by plants.

References

1.Lazarenko, B. & Gorbatovskaya, J.: Applied Electrical Phenomena #6 (March-April 1966)
2.Gradenwitz, Alfred: Popular Science Monthly (June 1925)
3. Lakhovsky, G.: The Secret of Life; 1939, W. Heinemann, London
4. Briggs, Lyman, et al.: USDA Departmental Bulletin #1379 (January 1926)
5. Scientific American (10 June 1905)
6. Blackmann, V.H.: J. Agric. Sci. 14: 120-186 (1924)
7. Ross, W.: U.S. Commissioner of Patents Report 27: 370 (1844)
8. Sci. Amer. (15 Feb. 1920), pp. 142-143
9. Practical Electrics (Nov. 1921)
10. Moore, A.D.: Electrostatics & Its Applications; 1972, Wiley & Sons
11. Kravstov, P., et al.: Appl. Electr. Phenom. 2 (20): 147-154 (Mar.-Apr. 1968)
12. Popular Science (Oct. 1947), p. 94
13. Murr, L.E.: Advancing Frontiers of Plant Sciences 15: 97-120
14. Murr, L.E.: N.Y. Acad. Sci. Trans. 27 (7): 761-771 (1965)
15. Murr, L.E.: Nature 201: 1305 (1964); ibid., 203: 467-469 (1965); ibid., 208: 1305 (1964)
16. Sci. Amer. (19 Aug. 1911)
17. Kozhevnikova, N.F., & Stank, S.A.: Appl. Electr. Phenom. #2 (Mar.-Apr. 1966)
18. Headlee, T.: N.Y. Entomol. Soc. 37 (1): 59-64 (1929)
19. Headlee, T.: N.J. Experimental Station Bulletin #568 (April 1929)
20. Pittman, U.J.: Canadian J. Plant Sci. 43: 513-518 (1963); ibid., 52: 727-733 (Sept. 1972); ibid., 44: 283-287 (May 1964); ibid., 47: 389-393 (July 1967); ibid., 50: 350 (May 1970); ibid., 51: 64-65 (January 1971)
21. Strevoka, et al.: Planta 12: 327
22. Khevdelidze, M.A., et al.: Appl. Electr. Phenom. 1 (19): 52-59 (Jan.-Feb., 1968)
23. Chemical Abstracts 96: 49235b; ibid., 96: 67828b
24. Appl. Electr. Phenom. 6: 454-458 (Nov.-Dec. 1967)
25. Van Tassel, Geo.: Proc. College of Universal Wisdom; 1974, Big Rock, CA
26. Burridge, Gaston: Round Robin (Sept.-Oct. 1971), p. 17
27. Paleg, L.G.: Nature 228: 970-973 (1970)
28. Paleg, L.G., & Aspinall, D.: J. Gen. Physiol. 15: 391-420 (1932)
29. Dan Carlson Enterprises, Inc.: 708 - 119th Lane N.E., Blaine MN 55434 USA; Tel. 1-612-757-8274; Agro-Sonic Res. Farm: Tel. 1-715-425-1407; Fax 1-715-425-1727
30. Dycus, A.M., & Schultz, Alice: Plant Physiology Supplement #39
31. Shakhov, A.A., et al.: Biofizika 10, No. 4 (1965)
32 Shakhov, A.A.: Applied Electrical Phenomena 2: 134-145 (1965)
33. Biol. Abstr. 84: 83306
Your Support Maintains this Service -- and Your Survival ...

The Civilization Kit

... It's Your Best Bet & Investment in Sustainable Humanity on Earth ...
Everything @ rexresearch.com, plus the Bonus Files CD !

ORDER PAGE

<< $13, Postpaid Anywhere >>

Rex Research, POB 19250, Jean, NV 89019 USA

2010-08-03T10:13:00.001-07:00

MONSANTO HATES YOU

2010-01-04T08:06:00.000-08:00

MONSANTO HATES YOU
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/the-monsanto-connection/

The Monsanto Connection

by Robert Singer / May 2nd, 2009

I recently published an article “Grandmother Scores Huge Victory over Monsanto.” The article was a magnet for controversy because I claimed the best way to fight Monsanto and HR 875 was by growing your own food and saving seeds.

Linn Cohen-Cole, the libertarian grandmother at the forefront of the anti-HR 875 campaign called me “dangerous” for fostering complacency by encouraging readers to grow their own food instead of send e-mails and faxes…that no one reads.

The Cornucopia Institute and the Organic Consumers Association has already assured organic advocates that HR 875, the Food Safety and Modernization Act, is only “trying to improve the safety of food products derived from large industrial processing facilities and does not intend to trample organic farmers, backyard gardeners or consumers of fresh local foods.”

Following the April 3 Cornucopia press release, “Family Farmers Fear Being Run over by Food Safety Juggernaut,” organic food activists received a mass e-mail exposing the role of Linn Cole in spreading disinformation about HR 875:

Subject: RETRACTION: URGENT! Monsanto Bill to Ban Organic Food:

“Monsanto, or one of their proxy groups, is actually feeding libertarian groups disinformation on this bill.

The bill doesn’t ban organic. When you make that misinformed, but well-intentioned call to your Congressman, you are doing exactly what Monsanto wants—coming across as an ill-informed and hysterical extremist. Monsanto is making a last-ditch effort in this PR war, but they have already really lost it.”

Monsanto lost it because 43 million Americans, including First Lady Michelle Obama, have risked going to jail for growing their own food!

This will help you understand what really happened:

1. Monsanto is one of the most powerful multi-national corporations in the world. The Global One-World Government New World Order conspiracy, of which Monsanto is a part, is aimed at controlling millions via the food they eat. “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people,” said Henry Kissinger in 1970.

2. Monsanto uses overt and covert strategies to accomplish their goals. Monsanto is behind both sides of the battle over HR 875. They don’t leave important matters like these to chance.

3. Monsanto’s tentacles reach into every aspect of our society: government, private industry, the military, law enforcement and, of course, agriculture. Large, small, organic and non-organic farmers—and don’t forget libertarian grass roots activists—are all influenced directly and indirectly by Monsanto. The company that rose to power in the 20th century as a leading chemical giant now focuses on agriculture. In Monsanto’s world, there is no room for the family farmer. The company’s well-known corporate bullying tactics have made this clear. Just ask Percy Schmeiser, the brave Canola farmer who dared to take on Monsanto.

4. HR 875’s vague wording was intentional.

5. Family Farmers (organic and non-organic) are under attack, but not by Congresswoman DeLauro, the author of HR 875 whose husband was a political consultant to Monsanto 10 years ago.

6. The timing of HR 875 coincides with the slow food, Locavore, and urban gardening movements in the United States and, for that matter, any slow food movement anywhere in the world.

7. The E-coli and salmonella outbreaks related to spinach, tomatoes and peanuts are the work of Monsanto’s agents: Things don’t happen; they’re made to happen.

8. Healthy Family Farm owner Sharon Palmer was arrested for selling raw goat milk, and the Ohio food co-op raided Gestapo-style was obviously instigated by Monsanto agents in a move designed to intimidate urban gardeners.

It doesn’t matter if libertarian grandmother Linn Cohen-Cole, or Paul, a farmer from Wisconsin, were accidental dupes or knowing agents of Monsanto’s disinformation campaign. It only matters that the disinformation campaign was discovered before it wounded the health freedom movement.

Spreading misinformation, misleading or outright false information is not the way to defeat “food safety” legislation, because when you make that misinformed but well-intentioned call to your Congressman, you are doing exactly what Monsanto wants—coming across as an ill-informed and hysterical extremist.

The very clear and present danger is that our “unelected representatives” will be forced to sit down and actually read HR 875. But when they do, they won’t find a ban on heirloom seeds, farmers markets or backyard gardening, because it isn’t there. Does anyone think Monsanto would actually put in writing that we are going to arrest Michelle Obama for planting a garden?

If they did, our representatives wouldn’t need a flood of frantic messages hollering that HR 875 is the bill that will “kill all farms and eat your babies.” No, believe it or not, our representatives eat and go to farmers markets just like we do.

So who is behind this disinformation campaign?

The Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF) originated the Linn Cole articles.

The Organic Consumers Association and other legitimate heath advocates have been questioning the NSF for several years, and the criticism is universally the same: Why does the NSF keep turning out factually inaccurate, hysterically grim articles such as Linn Cole’s?

The answers start with the NSF founders, husband-wife team Albert Stubblebine and Rima Laibow. Now, when I accuse these people of being disinformation professionals, let me explain. I’m not saying they’re doing sloppy research, and I’m not saying they’re being overzealous. What I am saying is that they are working, for pay, to spread false information and to make their organization look like a legitimate activist group.

My conclusion is Stubblebine and Laibow are using the Natural Solutions Foundation—and Linn Cole—to undermine the health freedom community by spreading disinformation about HR 875.

Stubblebine is a retired U.S. Army major general who designed AEGIS, “a major Homeland Security private initiative.” Given this background and his ties to the U.S. intelligence community, eyebrows were raised in the health freedom community in early 2005 when, along with Laibow, Stubblebine launched the NSF website and began to promote his wife as an expert on Codex Alimentarius, the commission working to adopt strict new guidelines for vitamin and mineral supplements.

Dr. Rath, founder of the 4.dr-rath-foundation, a legitimate health advocacy group, and the author of A Modern Major General Exposed? writes: “It quickly became apparent to experienced health freedom observers that Stubblebine either hadn’t done his homework properly, or that he and Laibow were intentionally spreading inaccurate and misleading material about Codex and other related dietary supplement issues via their website and press releases.

Moreover, despite repeated concerns being expressed by more experienced health freedom observers, Stubblebine and Laibow continued to disseminate this material, and pointedly ignored requests to remove it from their website.”

In my “Scared to CodeX Death” article, I refer to Dr. Rima Laibow when I write: “And although the effects of Codex are devastating and will result in humans dying from starvation and preventable diseases from under-nutrition, any claims that WHO or FAO have released epidemiological projections are untrue.”

Dr. Rima Laibow, to the consternation of those fighting Codex, is the source of the untrue claims about the “epidemiological projections” in her YouTube video “Codex Alimentarious & Nutricide.”

The NSF pair want to discredit HR 875, because when the cleverly worded HR 875 finally goes to committee, Monsanto will unleash a massive PR campaign aimed at, guess who? Linn Cohen-Cole and the other lefties who, according to Monsanto, are spreading false and misleading information about an innocent food safety bill.

Later, the headlines such as “HR 875 doesn’t criminalize small agriculture” will warn the population about health freedom activists who, by spreading misinformation, are threatening our food safety and free speech. Then, HR 875 and the real threat, HR 859, are passed without fanfare.

End of story.

And when the son of HR 875 is born, the one that really makes it illegal to grow your own food and have a garden, activists will gear up for another war, but it will be too late.

The battle cry from Monsanto will be heard loud and clear:

“Remember HR 875! Don’t listen to these reactionaries. They will do anything to cast Monsanto as the Agent Orange-eyed monster. Vote here.”

And the epitaph will be written: “The Grandmother Who Cried Wolf”

So if you want to fight Monsanto, take up your hoes and join the 43 million urban gardeners.

You see, what Monsanto is really afraid of is that we are starting to cooperate with each other and grow our own food. It’s called the Power of Community.

Robert Singer is a retired information technology professional and an environmental activist living in southern California. He can be reached at: rds2301@gmail.com. Read other articles by Robert, or visit Robert's website.

DEVELOPMENT REPORT NO 21: Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned

2009-12-19T10:06:00.000-08:00

DEVELOPMENT REPORT NO 21: Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned

Posted December 16th, 2009 by admin

City Slickers student gardeners by Meyers

Executive Summary

As the food and financial crises bring fresh urgency to concerns over hunger, food access, public health, labor and economic development – citizens and governments are beginning to connect these issues back to the food system as a whole. Councils are springing up across North America to “connect the dots”1 between the growing number of neighborhood food initiatives and communities forging policies for just, healthy food systems. Food Policy Councils act as both forums for food issues and platforms for coordinated action. The first Food Policy Council started in 1982 in Knoxville, Tennessee. Since then Food Policy Councils have been established at state, local and regional levels across the county. Some have remarkable success stories. Others have failed, disbanded, or spun-off into other service and non-profit organizations.

What lessons can be taken from North America’s three-decade experiment in formulating local food policy? Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned is an assessment based on an extensive literature review and testimony from 48 individual interviews with the people most involved in Food Policy Councils.

Local and State Food Policies

Local and state governments are the testing ground for innovative policy ideas that often become part of the national norm. They are also the places where we as citizens and well-informed organizations can have the most influence. Food Policy consists of the actions and in-actions by government that influence the supply, quality, price, production, distribution, and consumption of food. What government doesn’t do, whether by design or neglect, is as much a policyas a specific action like a city regulation that prescribes the location of farmers markets or a state statute that protects farmland.

Instead of one single place where one might address the wide range of “seed to table” items that make up our food system, food work is spread across numerous governmental departments and functions. City and state transportation departments, for instance, can promote or deter sprawl, which affects farmland, and make it less difficult for people who depend on
public transportation to reach a supermarket. Local school districts can purchase food from local farmers, restrict access by students to vending machines that dispense unhealthy food, and increase food education to promote healthy eating behaviors. Economic development officials can provide incentives to developers to locate supermarkets in underserved areas, assist with the establishment of food processing facilities and other infrastructure, or more generally account for the contribution that food and farming make to their local or state economies. Health departments can promote healthier eating through menu labeling or community-wide education programs, and social service agencies can distribute nutrition
benefits such as food stamps to needy households. But these and other governmental institutions are not typically linked to each other around a common food system vision or set of goals any more than they are linked to the private sector. While this kind of “silo-ing” can lead to numerous dysfunctions, it also offers enormous opportunities to pursue coordinated and comprehensive food policies once an effort is made to connect the “silos.”

Why Food Policy Councils?

For decades, the failings of our food system have been seen as isolated problems, to be dealt with by a fragmented array of government and non-governmental agencies at the state and local level. Until Food Policy Councils, these failings were largely being treated separately. Food Policy Councils began as a way to address the food system as a whole, often bringing the weight of local, county or state government behind grassroots initiatives. Food Policy Councils work across sectors, engaging with government policy and programs, grassroots/non-profit projects, local businesses and food workers. Instead of many advocates working on the isolated symptoms of a failing food system, Food Policy Councils attempt to establish platforms for coordinated action at the local level. In fact, most of the councils we spoke with were created at the behest of community organizations that identified policy barriers to their work, and pushed for a Food Policy Council to create a context to better facilitate their activities.

What is a Food Policy Council?

A Food Policy Council (FPC) consists of a group of representatives and stakeholders from many sectors of the food system. Ideally, the councils include participants representing all five sectors of the food system (production, consumption, processing, distribution and waste recycling). They often include anti-hunger and food justice advocates, educators, nonprofit organizations, concerned citizens, government officials, farmers, grocers, chefs, workers, food processors and food distributors. Food Policy Councils create an opportunity for discussion and strategy development among these various interests, and create an arena for studying the food system as a whole. Because they are often initiated by government actors,
through executive orders, public acts or joint resolutions, Food Policy Councils tend to enjoy a formal relationship with local, city or state officials.

The central aim of most Food Policy Councils is to identify and propose innovative solutions to improve local or state food systems, spurring local economic development and making food systems more environmentally sustainable and socially just. To this end, FPCs often engage in food system research and make policy recommendations, and can even be charged with writing food policy. Because no U.S. cities or states have agencies devoted explicitly to food (and since there is no federal “Department of Food”), FPCs can improve coordination between government agencies whose policies influence the food system. FPCs can also give voice to the concerns of various stakeholders and serve as public forums for the discussion of key food system issues. In this capacity, they help to ensure that food policy is democratic and reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of the food system’s various constituents.2 They can also help to build relationships between government, non-profit and private sector organizations. Additionally, Food Policy Councils often play an active role in educating policy makers and the public about the food system.

Function and Structure of Food Policy Councils

Councils generally have four functions:
• To serve as forums for discussing food issues,
• To foster coordination between sectors in the food system,
• To evaluate and influence policy, and
• To launch or support programs and services that address local needs.

Not all Food Policy Councils take on all four functions. However, these four functions are often integrated – for example in programs connecting local farmers and co-ops directly to food banks and school lunch programs.

Forum for Food Issues - Food Policy Councils can be described as umbrella organizations in which diverse members of the food movement participate. They create space for dialog. Additionally, Food Policy Councils attempt to work from a food systems perspective, integrating and balancing the various issues and interests that shape the food system.3

Foster Coordination Between Sectors - In taking a food systems approach, FPCs commit themselves to working across the full range of food sectors – from production to consumption and recycling. How well each of these sectors is represented and whether FPCs improve communication between the five sectors (production, consumption, processing, distribution and waste) varies widely among Food Policy Councils.

Policy- Within government, Food Policy Councils’ roles include those of research, oversight, advising and advocating for specific policies. They can also help identify areas that government has not been able to address, and either propose a change in government policy or identify the need for an non-governmental organization (NGO) to initiate a new program. In this role FPCs have the opportunity to bridge the divisions in public policy making - representing food issues to sectors of government that might be unaware of the effect of their mandates, policies and actions on health, nutrition and the environment. 4

Programs - Food Policy Councils, despite their name, have often focused on implementing programs – working to tackle the issues themselves, rather than sticking exclusively to policy advising. Direct experience in the food system can inform policy making, and many newer FPCs (of which there are many) feel that they need greater experience as a basis for proposing policy recommendations. Many programs that councils launch can be one-time successes, such as getting food stamps accepted at farmers markets, creating school breakfast programs, building affordable housing for farm workers or securing land for community gardens. Other programs actually spin-off into new organizations that continue to work on a specific issue area.

Structure

There is no one right way for a council to be structured, but there are trade-offs for each variation. Understanding these trade-offs will help councils strike the right balance to meet their own needs and goals. Organizational structure varies from councils that are housed as part of government agencies to councils that are formed as entirely independent grassroots networks; from groups that depend entirely on volunteer time to groups dependent on foundation funding; and from those that strive for consensus-based decision making to those that abide by majority rules.

Some of the trends in organizational structure are as follows:

Staffing - Our data suggests that the vast majority of FPCs have either no staff at all or only one part-time staff person, relying instead on volunteers or on restricted amounts of staff time from city, county or state employees assigned to the council in addition to their usual government duties. The lack of staff is a key challenge for many councils, and can cause councils to dissolve.

Connection to government – Half of state level FPCs are government agencies, and some of those that are not actually part of government were created by government action. On the other hand, most county and local level FPCs are entirely independent of government.

Representation of food system sectors – Most councils have representation from at least the consumption, distribution and production
sectors of the food system. Representation from the waste management and food processing sectors is less common.

Selection of members – At the state level, two-thirds of Food Policy Councils have their members appointed, with the remaining FPCs allowing members to self select. At the county level, about 14% of FPCs have their members appointed, with all other FPCs evenly split between self-selection, election/nomination and application. At the local level, more than half of FPCs have their members self-select, 36% appoint their members and 10% have prospective members apply for seats.

Leadership and decision making – Food Policy Councils range from informal groups without steering committees; to more formal groups with a chair and executive committee. These more formal groups sometimes include several subcommittees that specialize in researching and making recommendations in a certain area.

Funding - One of the most significant aspects to note about the funding sources for FPCs is that a large number of FPCs have no funding at all, and survive as all-volunteer organizations. Eight percent of state level FPCs, 14% of county level FPCs and 28% of local level FPCs have no funding. The largest funding source for state level FPCs is government. For county level FPCs, the largest funding source is individual donations (i.e. funding from interested individuals), and for local level FPCs, the top funding source is grants from private foundations.

The number of FPCs at all levels – state, county and local – has been steadily growing over the last decade, with over 40 active councils nation-wide.

Common First Steps

Kenneth Dahlberg in his studies of Food Policy Councils says councils often spend the first three to four years getting to know their local food system.5 While this is clearly important, across the spectrum of interviewees, having a first success has helped new councils to build momentum, community buy-in and political legitimacy.” Or as Wayne Roberts puts it, “as you build credibility and support, you can move on to the high-falutin areas of policy.”6

A common first step of new councils has been to conduct a food systems assessment. Often Food Policy Councils themselves are born out of this process. Similarly, pushing for a city, state or community food charter has both birthed councils and been a founding activity. Other councils worked towards getting electronic benefits transfer machines (food stamps) into farmers markets, expanding the number of city or local farmers markets, changing the regulations for school food purchasing and piloting farm to school programs.

Building New Councils

There is no one secret to success for Food Policy Councils. There are however some common needs. In order to change food policy, FPCs need to be taken seriously by the governmental bodies and other institutions they hope to influence. FPCs need government staff or officials to buy into their existence and mandate. This can take several forms – a city council could pass a resolution recognizing and supporting the FPC; officials or influential people could be seated on the council; or government could provide funding, meeting places or other support. Attempting to influence government policy without these relationships is likely to be quite difficult.
FPCs embedded in government may have an easier time getting access to (at least part-time) paid staff, and other resources like meeting space.7

However, food policy councils that exist independent of government may have more leeway to be critical of existing policy, while FPCs that are embedded in government may need to be more cautious in their approaches to criticizing existing policy.8 When a council is just getting started, it can be helpful to pursue some sort of “quick win” project. Rebecca Schiff points out in Food Policy Councils: An Examination of Organizational Structure, Process and Contribution to Alternative Food Movements that “meaningful tasks that can be (and are) accomplished within a relatively short time frame help to build credibility for an organization along with member motivation and pride.”9

It can be useful to strike a balance between initiating programs and specific policies that build momentum and credibility, and addressing the structural issues at play in a given food system. Too great a focus on structural issues threatens to mire councils in unproductive national and even international debates, while too narrow a focus on specific program outcomes may limit the council’s larger policy impact.

Challenges

There are a few key areas where many Food Policy Councils have encountered challenges, limitations and points of tension. Many of these challenges offer new councils lessons for strategic development. Others have no clear resolution, but are important to keep in mind as councils plan their activities. Broadly, we see these challenges as:
• Achieving and working with diverse membership and constituencies
• Working in complex political climates
• Designing an effective organizational structure
• Obtaining adequate funding
• Balancing focus between policy and program work and between structural and specific foci
• Adequately evaluating a council’s impact

Evaluating the impact of a council’s activities is of particular importance. In this study we were unable to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of Food Policy Councils on food access, food policy, public health, or economic development due to a lack of data or evaluation procedures within individual councils, despite numerous success stories. As the momentum behind Food Policy Councils grows, there is a clear need to evaluate the effectiveness of councils in meeting their stated goals, and their broader effect on the food system as a whole.

Since the first Food Policy Council was established in Knoxville, TN in 1982, some FPCs have been established, only to cease operating several years later. While circumstances were different for every council, there are a few “red flags” to watch out for:
• Dependence on one strong personality, organization, or political figure
• Lack of funding
• “Single-issue” focus
• Over-commitment to specific programs

Potentials of the FPC Model

The full potential of Food Policy Councils is difficult to assess. There is no way to know how many Food Policy Councils have dissolved or disbanded, nor is there adequate information to assess the impacts councils have had on specific food systems. What we do have is a collection of case studies and experience that still points to a powerful overall trend. Citizens and neighborhoods have begun to directly influence the policies of their local food systems, creating a context in which equitable and sustainable alternatives for ensuring access to good, healthy food are allowed to flourish. Food Policy Councils, at least anecdotally, are changing the rules to encourage these alternatives to scale up into government, scale out geographically and “scale in” to local neighborhoods.

This model is in many ways still in its infancy, but the model itself, based on our literature review and interview data, shows five key potentials:
• Potential to address public health through improving food access, addressing hunger and food insecurity, and improving the quality of available food
• Potential to affect national and state level policy debates
• Potential to connect multiple sectors that wouldn't otherwise work together
• Potential to bring local food policy into mainstream politics
• Potential to boost local economies and combat poverty

All of these key potentials lead to one central idea – that Food Policy Councils have the potential to democratize the food system. The failings of our current food system are largely suffered in neighborhoods and constituencies with little political or economic voice. Food Policy Councils can amplify the voices of underserved communities that have traditionally had limited access to power. The Detroit Food Policy Council for example, made addressing the underlying racial and economic disparities in food access, retail ownership, food sector jobs and control over food- producing resources a cornerstone of their policy platform – explicitly attacking structural racism inherent in the food system and creating space for greater economic democracy and food justice.

Similarly, the power of food systems to boost local economies is overlooked. In one study, Ken Meter estimated a single region in Northwest Wisconsin lost $1.13 billion a year in potential wealth through the food economy. 10 In assessing the food economy of the Chesapeake Bay region, Meter found that a 15% increase in local food purchases would bring in three times more dollars to farming communities than Federal subsidies currently bring to the region. A WorldWatch Study estimated that if the greater Seattle area were to source just 20% of its food locally, it would inject an extra billion dollars per year into the city’s economy.11 To many, those “food dollars” represent an opportunity to capture more wealth in the community.

As the power of Food Policy Councils at the local, county, and state levels builds, councils may be able to form a national coalition to take on larger national and structural issues.

Discussion and Recommendations

Perhaps the most interesting result of this study is that there is no one recipe for a successful council. Across the country, policies and activities that have been successful in, for example, New Mexico, may not have been tried in New York. Councils cannot necessarily apply a specific formula from another locality. Food Policy Councils do best when they build off the momentum of groups in their own communities, when they address issues for which the need for change has already been locally identified, and when they come up with locally-based policies and programs. The strength of food policy councils lies in their ability to be locally relevant.

This strength also presents a key challenge: while the Food Policy Council form is promising, the specific functions of the council are not necessarily clearly defined, and change from case to case. Unless a specific strategic plan, evaluation model, decision making model and a strong understanding of the local food system are in place, councils may have a promising form, and still not function well. While success stories are as diverse as the communities that create them, the challenges facing councils have been much the same over a broad geographic and time scale. Challenges with funding and staff time, over-commitment, dependence on a strong personality or political figure, and to a lesser degree, having a single issue focus, have been recurring themes
continent-wide.

There are several key recommendations that may help councils confront some of these challenges. When establishing a Food Policy Council, it has been helpful to:

• Engage members across different sectors of the food system and from different socio-economic backgrounds and draw from a diverse, but organized base
• Establish priorities and agree on some kind of a strategic plan from the outset
• Establish clear structures for decision-making, communication and evaluation from the beginning
• Examine structural trade offs between being within or independent of government, how the council is funded, and what issues the council chooses to prioritize
• Include elements of self-education (for members) and the public
• Diversify political and internal leadership support
• Evaluate and monitor the effects of the councils’ policies and/or activities

Similarly, some councils recommend:
• Being “positive energy” organizations, becoming as doers and problem
solvers, and working for the creation of positive alternatives instead of exclusively fighting against the current system
• Maintaining good relationships with local (and state) government. Whether a council is independent of government or housed within a government agency, buy-in from local officials is key.
• Starting small—Food Policy Councils are still young and building credibility. Many have identified “quick wins” and are striving to establish a good track record before taking on larger structural issues. Mark Winne notes that councils “tend to look at things that we can influence, like getting a law or regulation passed or more funding - that’s the reality that practicality tends to circumscribe the work of Food Policy Councils while bigger issues take longer and become research items”
• Balancing programs and services with larger policy changes. Creating successful programs can address immediate needs while indirectly changing the policy context of a food system. This can help build credibility needed to address larger structural issues later on.

As councils spring up around the country, establishing clear metrics for
evaluation, including the impact of councils on public health, job creation, and economic development, will be increasingly important. In the course of this study, these questions were raised, but not answered. If we assume that evaluation proves that Food Policy Councils play a valuable role, then it will become much easier for governments and foundations to underwrite the expansion of these councils into many more communities, to establish state wide coordinating bodies and, ultimately, to lobby for national coordination and funding. The Community Food Security Coalition has begun to provide resources and network councils and the Drake Agricultural Law Center has provided key institutional support. We imagine that as the number of councils around North America grows, this work will be increasingly important and can have a strong impact on the overall success of Food Policy Councils.

What people refer to as “the food movement” is actually a collection of social movements: food justice, fair food, fair trade, organic food, slow food, food security, public health, food sovereignty, family farms… and local folks just trying to make things better. The list is extensive because the problems with our food systems are extensive, systemic and acute. While these groups have much in common, it would be naïve to think they coordinate their actions. Food Policy Councils are just one expression of this “movement of movements.” Nevertheless, FPCs have a unique quality within this wide array of activists, advocates and practitioners: they create democratic spaces for convergence in diversity. The power of informed, democratic convergence—especially when linked to the specific places where people live, work and eat—has an additional, emergent quality: it can change the way we—and others—think. This is social learning, the basis for social change. Food Policy Councils hold great potential as action centers for the social learning needed to build democracy into the food system. By helping communities exercise agency over the parts of the food system that people do have the power to change, and by building political will for deeper, systemic change, Food Policy Councils are “making the road as we travel” towards better local food systems.

This study is the result of many voices, some new, some experienced, all committed to fair, healthy food systems for all. We thank all of those who participated. By sharing these voices—and in adding our own—we hope that we can contribute to both the national food debate and to the growing body of knowledge informing food system change. The experiences of Food Policy Councils are wide-ranging and growing quickly. Despite our best efforts to be inclusive of people, experiences, ideas and opinions, we are sure we missed more than we caught. We present this work, not as definitive statement on Food Policy Councils, but as an invitation for reflection and research among those concerned with food policy. Food Policy Councils have much to contribute, and we all have much to learn. We hope this report provides an opportunity to do both.