Showing posts with label giy: organic garden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label giy: organic garden. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Very cool Example: Vietnamese gardeners in New Orleans offer much food for thought


On Chef Menteur clings Village de l’Est, a neighborhood of vinyl-sided or light-colored brick ranch houses in a perfectly mid-century suburban layout with sidewalks, a few main avenues, and a couple shopping centers. A low mound on the north side of town, covered in tangled weeds and shrubs, marks the levee that holds in the Pontchartrain overflow.

Six thousand Vietnamese people live in this American village. The Vietnamese moved here with the Catholic Church in 1975 following the Vietnam War. Many were fishermen, and the nearby Gulf offered a work environment similar to their homeland. They also went to work in factories, hotels, and restaurants throughout New Orleans. Everyone, especially the elderly, knew how to grow things -- that’s what they did back home. In their little square suburban backyards, they grew vegetables and fruits from seeds brought over from Vietnam. Some even crossed the levee and planted in that no-man’s-land. The wet fields, Delta soils, and thick, heavy air accommodated the same plants they grew in Vietnam.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE: http://www.grist.org/article/food-elderly-Vietnamese-gardeners-in-New-Orleans-/

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Now's the Time to Plan Your 2010 Organic Vegetable Garden

Now's the Time to Plan Your 2010 Organic Vegetable Garden
By Leah Zerbe [abridged; link to full article below]

Forget about using lumber to frame raised beds; simply mounding up the soil is better—and easier.

RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—If you've been dreaming of starting a vegetable garden this year, it's time to stop dreaming and start planning. Because if you plan things right, you can enjoy as much as 100 pounds of fresh, organic vegetables from just a 50-square-foot gardening area, spending a fraction of what you'd shell out at the grocery store for that much produce. Your goal might not be that ambitious, but the point is that you don't need a huge yard to enjoy a great gardening season. "It's amazing what you could grow in small space," says Eileen Weinsteiger, regenerative garden design specialist at the Rodale Institute, leaders in organic farming and gardening research.

Make your gardening daydreams a reality with these simple steps:

• Pick the perfect spot. Ideally, your garden spot will receive at least eight to 10 hours of full sun a day on the south side of your home...


Please read the full article:
http://www.rodale.com/plan-garden?cm_mmc=DailyNewsNL-_-2010_04_16-_-Top5-_-NA



Share this on Facebook: Share

Friday, January 23, 2009

It's Time To Start Shopping For Seeds

It’s Time to Start Shopping For Seeds
22 Jan 2009

With an unusually harsh winter still underway, it might be hard to visualize
working in the garden. But parts of the United States are already closing in on
their official frost free dates,
http://www.naturalgardening.com/shop/frostdatesa-n.php3
so it’s time to order seeds.

This weekend would be a great time to plan your early season beds.
Seeds can be started indoors anywhere from one to eight weeks ahead of planting.

Track down what you need — and here’s to warmer days ahead!

- - -

Seed Starting Chart

http://www.organicgardening.com/featureprint/1,7759,s1-5-19-212,00.html
http://www.organicgardening.com/feature/1,7518,s1-5-19-212,00.html

If you don't know how to use this table, check out our article WhenTo Plant Your
Seeds for directions.

YOUR SEED-STARTING PLAN
The Spring Frost-Free Date in My Garden is_______________
CROP WHEN TO
START INSIDE

WEEKS
FROM SOWING
SAFE TO SET OUT TIME (RELATIVE TO FROST-FREE DATE) SETTING OUT DATE
Basil 6 1 week after
Beets* 4-6 2 weeks before
Broccoli 4-6 2 weeks before
Cabbage 4-6 4 weeks before
Cauliflower 4-6 2 weeks before
Collards 4-6 4 weeks before
Corn* 2-4 0 to 2 weeks after
Cucumber 3-4 1 to 2 weeks after
Eggplant 8-10 2 to 3 weeks after
Kale 4-6 4 weeks before
Kohlrabi* 4-6 4 weeks before
Lettuce 4-5 3 to 4 weeks before
Melons 3-4 2 weeks after
Mustard* 4-6 4 weeks before
Okra* 4-6 2 to 4 weeks after
Onions 6-8 4 weeks before
Parsley 9-10 2 to 3 weeks before
Peas* 3-4 6 to 8 weeks before
Peppers 6-14 2 weeks after
Pumpkins 3-4 2 weeks after
Spinach 4-6 3 to 6 weeks before
Squash 3-4 2 weeks after
Swiss chard 4-6 2 weeks before
Tomatoes 6-8 1 to 2 weeks after
* These crops are usually direct-seeded outdoors, but they can be started
inside.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Wendell Berry

"It is better to sustain a small population indefinitely than to build up a large artificial population on an agricultural system of which the basic principle is its willingness to destroy itself."

-Wendell Berry

Friday, November 21, 2008

FOOD NOT LAWNS: A Better Way to Live - by Heather Havey M.A.

FOOD NOT LAWNS: A better Way to Live by Heather Havey, M.A.

The idea of the neatly-manicured, grass-dominated "lawn" was popularized by wealthy families in 18th century Europe. Most people could not imagine wasting so much space. While a lawn looks sparce, neat, or elegant, it is quite harmful for the environment in multiple ways:

(1) Destroys habitat for birds, animals, bees, beneficial insects, etc
(2) Contributes to global warming because people cut down most or all of the trees
(3) Wipes out such a wonderful opportunity to grow your own organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, or any food-bearing, beautiful plants.
(4) Lawn care maintenance is time-consuming and also pollutes via lawnmower fumes, leafblower fumes, and the application of deadly poisons (pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc) which kill not only weeds but also bees, insects, butterflies, birds, animals, and eventually humans.
(5) Is visually boring compared to the endless beauty of growing a diverse yard filled with food-bearing plants, shrubs, trees, flowers, and so on that COULD fill your yard.

"Food Not Lawns" is a movement that began in the northwest US by a group of dedicated, Earth-loving, caring people who realized that our popular notions of yard care simply do not support a healthy planet. Many people around the country are beginning to realize these lessons and making the change-0ver to sustainable, natural living.

What we have to realize is that our current way of living is destructive and not sustainable. We face limited and greatly diminishing natural resources on all levels of life, and if we do not change our ways, then we will lose more than half (or more) of species on this planet and we will also contribute to more human suffering, starvation, and disease through promoting and choosing destructive patterns.

Now that we know a better way, let us choose it.

Not only is it a better, healthier way, but it is also a more beautiful way.

And there is NOTHING so wonderful as watching your own plants grow from seed or from babies, taller and stronger into strong adult plants. Even more so, to walk out into your yard and pick your own organic vegetables or fruits, that you have nurtured with water and compost and sunlight and love, to eat at your table, fills your day and your whole meal with such gratitude and love.

So let us all begin to live closer to nature. If you have a lawn, you are so lucky! Because now you can convert it into a living, thriving, healthy, diverse and beautiful garden - a paradise right in your own yard.

Send your friends & loved ones earth-friendly ecards!

Share this article: Food Not Lawns: A Better Way To Live by copying and pasting this link into your email or on your site.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Simple Ways To Afford Your Green Lifestyle! - by Heather Havey, M.A.

Simple Ways to Afford Your Green Lifestyle! - by Heather Havey, M.A.

The economy may be challenged, and our own wallets may also be challenged, during these times. However, we still would like to eat right. It is more important than simply a desire to eat well; it is a non-negotiable. It is your Life we are talking about!

That said, the NUMBER ONE excuse that I hear from people is that they "can't afford to eat healthy." I have a few responses to this that I hope will really help us all!

So you understand where I am coming from: We are all in this together, and I feel your pain. I live as a monk, a very simple lifestyle with very few possessions and low income, and I understand the challenges that can be presented for our wallets in this endeavor towards healthy, holy living. But, we can do it! Here are some helpful tips...

(1) Pay now, or pay later! You can pay a little more now for organic produce and natural foods lifestyle, or you will pay later in feeling tired, feeling bad, and having high medical bill potentials.

(2) Buy local, from farmers...or grow your own organic vegetables/fruits. Local farmers are going to charge you significantly less for their products than you would pay in a grocery store, health food store, or coop. So seek out your local organic farmers, CSA farms (Community Supported Agriculture), and so on. Another option is to grow your own organic vegetable garden. Local foods do not have to be shipped cross country or around the world, so they can be sold to you much cheaper. It is okay to choose local produce that does not have organic certification, as long as they grew them "unsprayed" (without applying pesticides).

(3) Plant fruit and nut trees all over your property. Not only will this make the birds and squirrels happy, but trees protect smaller shrubs and crops from harsh weather conditions, and provide healthy habitat for many types of life. Also, you will get hundreds of fruits each year off of every single healthy tree. Planting trees helps not only your and your family, helps not only the animals and plants, but it also helps the world to combat greenhouse gases and global warming! Trees release more Oxygen into the atmosphere, and we are clear-cutting the entire planet right now. WE DESPERATELY NEED TREES! And they will lower your grocery bills! If you have enough trees, you could even sell your fruits and nuts locally, and MAKE money off your trees.

(4) Buy bulk! Bulk bins make items SO much more affordable, and they give us the double benefit of saving on packaging materials and plastic bags. Many, many items - ranging from cereals, beans, grains, chocolates and desserts, herbs, spices, honey, nut butters, and even household items like soaps, shampoos, and cleaning products are available at health food stores in bulk bins.

(5) Eat Natural Foods. Though organic foods may SEEM expensive, really they are a much better deal than conventional produce. The reason for this is that they are far higher in nutritional value than conventional produce, so you get far more nutrition for your penny. Also, they have no poisons within them, so they are not filling your muscle tissues with small amounts of poison that build up over time to break down your health. Also, the most expensive food choices out there tend to be the most highly processed, and least healthy, ones. So when you go shopping, simply choose the most natural, whole, raw, and organic choices that you can.
Some ideas include eating fruit salad, vegetable salads, smoothies, juices, and sandwiches or wraps that you make yourself at home. These options are endless, are all natural, support your own health and the health of the planet, and cost less overall. Meat and dairy are the most expensive choices out there that you can make.

(6) Adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet. Diet is a personal choice that everyone must make, but veg choices are the healthiest and the most afforable choices out there.

(7) Grow your own food. It is actually very easy to grow food. It does not take much time after you set things up. All you really need is a small pot or seed sprouting tray, some basic soil, a little soil nutrient (organic fertilizer or compost or manure compost), seeds, and love. You can grow quite a few things indoors. Pepper plants (bell, or jalapeno, or other types) grow very beautifully and well indoors. So do most herbs and many other plants. I am currently even growing starfruit trees all over my room because it is too cold at nights for baby trees where I live right now. Plants need sunlight, water every few days, nutrients occasionally, and love. With half an acre of land, you could grow enough food for six families or more. A little land, and a little love for it, can go a LONG way. To get started, get some organic or heirloom seeds from Seeds of Change.

(8) Prepare your food at home rather than eating out. You will save a lot of money doing this - on gas, on tips, on restaurant food costs, and so on. It is easy, it is fun, and it is a wonderful bonding experience to either cook for your family/friends or cook with your family/friends.

(9) Bring your lunch to work/school rather than eating out there. You can ensure that you eat much more healthy choices this way, and it will cost you far less than it would to eat out everyday at work or school.

(10) Live simply, and eat simply. The more simple the meals you make, the less they will cost. Also, simpler meals tend to be healthier meals. The simplest and easiest lifestyle, and one of the world's healthiest, is to be an organic raw foodist grazer. This means that you eat only raw, organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and grains, and you simply snack on items whenever you feel like it. Your body will become cleaner and healthier, you will feel more energy, and you will lose weight if you need to. You will feel great. Simplicity and quality are the keys.

(11) Love, Love, Love. This is the answer for everything: for your own body and health, for the plants and trees and wildlife, for our friends and family, for the soil, for the entire world. The more we live with love and regard for others in our hearts, the happier and healthier our worlds will be. And best news yet! Love is totally free and an unlimited resource.

Aloha, have a blessed day, Heather Havey

Please send ecards to your friends and family.


Sunday, November 16, 2008

Learning and Living Organic Lifestyle with WWOOF

source: Learning and Living Organic Lifestyle with WWOOF

(NaturalNews) Since 1971, people are living and learning sustainable lifestyles thanks in part to WWOOF - World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms. Founded by Sue Croppard, WWOOF was created with the goal of giving city dwellers a weekend opportunity to re-connect with nature and support organic agriculture.

WWOOF organizations publish listings of organic farms and gardens that host volunteers - providing food, housing, and in-field education in exchange for help from the volunteers. WWOOF has now become an international movement across six continents and more than fifty countries with programs ranging from weekends to seasonal and year-long stays.

Sue Croppard, founder of WWOOF, intends that through WWOOF people can get first hand experience of organic farming, give assistance to organic farmers, get into the countryside, strengthen the organic movement, form links between city and rural dwellers, and "facilitate inter-cultural understanding between people of different nationalities".

WWOOF is used by many to live sustainable lifestyles; living on a self-sufficient farm allows someone to live without driving and paying for food that was shipped from hundreds if not thousands of miles a way.

Wwoofing is also a method for low-cost traveling - since it is a volunteer arrangement, a person does not need a visa to work in a foreign country. Staying at hotels and hostels can be very expensive especially for long periods of time.

Also, those who wish to work in environmental advocacy may have trouble finding adequate work that pays enough for city-life. Through work-stay programs individuals do not have to concern themselves with rent, food, and may even improve their health through the hours of exercise under the sun.

What does Wwoofing look like?

There are over seven hundred farms affiliated with WWOOF in the USA alone and hundreds more in the world. The WWOOF listing contains wide diversity in location and farm type. If one wants to make sure they get the food they want, it is good to work at the farm that grows it.

There are farms that demand strict vegetarianism and grow nearly all their own food and there are also farms that focus on raising cattle or sheep for meat and purchase and trade for the rest of their diet with other local farmers.

Charan Springs Farm in Cambria, California grows lettuce, broccoli, brussel sprouts, mushrooms, watercress, tangelos, blood-oranges, chard, and five varieties of avocados. Charan Springs also offers medicinal hot springs. There are typically around a dozen people staying at Charan Springs.

Some farms in the tropical regions such as Hawaii and Costa Rica offer housing and organic food in exchange for as little as sixteen hours per week of work. Wwoofers are not paid for their time, but the cost might be profitable to some to eat a purely organic diet and live on a fifty acre ranch a stone`s throw from the Pacific Ocean.

Rebekah, a "wwoofer" at One Love Gardens, a farm on the Big Island of Hawaii said:

"The simplicity of life at `One Love` was brilliant: bathing in the fresh mountain stream and eating almost only what we grew, turns me on to a blessed and sacred way of being. To know that this way of life is still possible and is happening, in our crazy 21st century world opened the doors of my mind."

However, not all organic farms sound like vacations and expectations of the exchange are made clear before a person comes to volunteer. While wwoofers may work a four day sixteen hour work week on the Big Island... at a bio-dynamic farm near Grass Valley, California wwoofers are expected to wake before dawn to work fifty hours a week.

Another farm called Heaven and Earth Farm in Nevada County, California offers organic food, housing which consists of a trailer or tent, and a $50 a week stipend in exchange for forty hours of work per week. The specifics are made clear in the WWOOF guide.

What can people learn with WWOOF?

Educational opportunities vary from farm to farm and depend on season and length of stay. If one comes to a farm during harvest time the work might be limited to picking fruit or preparing vegetables to take to market. However there are many different activities that go on at any given farm.

Food preserving, planting, marketing, community living, green construction, alternative energy, animal husbandry, and permaculture are just some of the skills wwoofers can learn.

Heated in Aprovecho

"A great experience, but it can get dirty," said Elizabeth M. of Dayton Ohio, having wwoofed throughout California and Oregon. "It can be like any other co-housing situation with conflicts and house meetings, sometimes things got pretty heated in Aprovecho". Aprovecho, in Cottage Grove, Oregon, practices sustainable forestry and researches furnace design.

For some, wwoofing creates space for meditation and work on personal growth; much of the farm-work such as weeding by hand can be done by a single individual, so the farmer may instruct the wwoofer where to work and leave to work somewhere else at the same time.

"These are the survival skills of pioneers"

Says Verona Bass of her UK wwoofing experience: "Some of the most satisfying moments are when I can do lateral thinking to solve practical problems, to use 'logistics'. Sometimes the right tool is lacking, or a wheelbarrow can't go over the terrain but some sort of dragging device will work better. I think these are the survival skills of pioneers, and we may yet need to become more inventive to re-use what we have available but in altered ways."

Bass continues, "Wwoofing slows me down. I engage with the moment in a way not easily achieved anywhere else. When I've been working with my head down, and I straighten up for a while, looking over a long quiet view of hills, fields, a loch, or an estuary, I breathe in and feel privileged."

For more information visit WWOOF.ORG.



About the author

David Hestrin forages for anywhere from all to half of his diet. He loves learning about how people lived thousands of years ago and how to live today and into infinity. He also enjoys speaking in third person and realizing that our bodies are all secondary characters in others life stories so we can let go of self importance and realize greater glories.

Monday, November 3, 2008

10 Reasons Why Organic Can Feed The World

10 reasons why organic can feed the world
Ed Hamer & Mark Anslow 01/03/2008

source: http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1184

Can organic farming feed the world? Ed Hamer and Mark Anslow say yes, but we must farm and eat differently

1. Yield

Switching to organic farming would have different effects according to where in the world you live and how you currently farm.

Studies show that the less-industrialised world stands to benefit the most. In southern Brazil, maize and wheat yields doubled on farms that changed to green manures and nitrogenfixing leguminous vegetables instead of chemical fertilisers.1 In Mexico, coffee-growers who chose to move to fully organic production methods saw increases of 50 per cent in the weight of beans they harvested. In fact, in an analysis of more than 286 organic conversions in 57 countries, the average yield increase was found to be an impressive 64 per cent.2

The situation is more complex in the industrialised world, where farms are large, intensive facilities, and opinions are divided on how organic yields would compare.

Research by the University of Essex in 1999 found that, although yields on US farms that converted to organic initially dropped by between 10 and 15 per cent, they soon recovered, and the farms became more productive than their all-chemical counterparts.3 In the UK, however, a study by the Elm Farm Research Centre predicted that a national transition to all-organic farming would see cereal, rapeseed and sugar beet yields fall by between 30 and 60 per cent.4 Even the Soil Association admits that, on average in the UK, organic yields are 30 per cent lower than non-organic.

So can we hope to feed ourselves organically in the British Isles and Northern Europe? An analysis by former Ecologist editor Simon Fairlie in The Land journal suggests that we can, but only if we are prepared to rethink our diet and farming practices.5 In Fairlie’s scenario, each of the UK’s 60 million citizens could have organic cereals, potatoes, sugar, vegetables and fruit, fish, pork, chicken and beef, as well as wool and flax for clothes and biomass crops for heating. To achieve this we’d each have to cut down to around 230g of beef (½lb), compared to an average of 630g (1½lb) today, 252g of pork/bacon, 210g of chicken and just under 4kg (9lb) of dairy produce each week – considerably more than the country enjoyed in 1945. We would probably need to supplement our diet with homegrown vegetables, save our food scraps as livestock feed and reform the sewage system to use our waste as an organic fertiliser.

2. Energy

Currently, we use around 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food energy. In a fuel-scarce future, which experts think could arrive as early as 2012, such numbers simply won’t stack up. Studies by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs over the past three years have shown that, on average, organically grown crops use 25 per cent less energy than their chemical cousins. Certain crops achieve even better reductions,including organic leeks (58 per cent less energy) and broccoli (49 per cent less energy). When these savings are combined with stringent energy conservation and local distribution and consumption (such as organic box schemes), energy-use dwindles to a fraction of that needed for an intensive, centralised food system. A study by the University of Surrey shows that food from Tolhurst Organic Produce, a smallholding in Berkshire, which supplies 400 households with vegetable boxes, uses 90 per cent less energy than if non-organic produce had been delivered and bought in a supermarket.

Far from being simply ‘energy-lite’, however, organic farms have the potential to become self-sufficient in energy – or even to become energy exporters. The ‘Dream Farm’ model, first proposed by Mauritius-born agroscientist George Chan, sees farms feeding manure and waste from livestock and crops into biodigesters, which convert it into a methane-rich gas to be used for creating heat and electricity. The residue from these biodigesters is a crumbly, nutrient-rich fertiliser, which can be spread on soil to increase crop yields or further digested by algae and used as a fish or animal feed.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

Despite organic farming’s low-energy methods, it is not in reducing demand for power that the techniques stand to make the biggest savings in greenhouse gas emissions.

The production of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, which is indispensable to conventional farming, produces vast quantities of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential some 320 times greater than that of CO2. In fact, the production of one tonne of ammonium nitrate creates 6.7 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO²e), and was responsible for around 10 per cent of all industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Europe in 2003.6

The techniques used in organic agriculture to enhance soil fertility in turn encourage crops to develop deeper roots, which increase the amount of organic matter in the soil, locking up carbon underground and keeping it out of the atmosphere. The opposite happens in conventional farming: high quantities of artificially supplied nutrients encourage quick growth and shallow roots. A study published in 1995 in the journal Ecological Applications found that levels of carbon in the soils of organic farms in California were as much as 28 per cent higher as a result.7 And research by the Rodale Institute shows that if the US were to convert all its corn and soybean fields to organic methods, the amount of carbon that could be stored in the soil would equal 73 per cent of the country’s (would-be) Kyoto targets for CO² reduction.8

Organic farming might also go some way towards salvaging the reputation of the cow, demonised in 2007 as a major source of methane at both ends of its digestive tract. There’s no doubt that this is a problem: estimates put global methane emissions from ruminant livestock at around 80 million tonnes a year,9 equivalent to around two billion tonnes of CO²,10 or close to the annual CO² output of Russia and the UK combined.11 But by changing the pasturage on which animals graze to legumes such as clover or birdsfoot trefoil (often grown anyway by organic farmers to improve soil nitrogen content), scientists at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research believe that methane emissions could be cut dramatically. Because the leguminous foliage is more digestible, bacteria in the cow’s gut are less able to turn the fodder into methane. Cows also seem naturally to prefer eating birdsfoot trefoil to ordinary grass.

4. Water use

Agriculture is officially the most thirsty industry on the planet, consuming a staggering 72 per cent of all global freshwater at a time when the UN says 80 per cent of our water supplies are being overexploited.12,13

This hasn’t always been the case. Traditionally, agricultural crops were restricted to those areas best suited to their physiology, with drought-tolerant species grown in the tropics and water-demanding crops in temperate regions.14 Global trade throughout the second half of the last century led to a worldwide production of grains dominated by a handful of high-yielding cereal crops, notably wheat, maize and rice. These thirsty cereals – the ‘big three’ – now account for more than half of the world’s plant-based calories and 85 per cent of total grain production.15

Organic agriculture is different. Due to its emphasis on healthy soil structure, organic farming avoids many of the problems associated with compaction, erosion, salinisation and soil degradation, which are prevalent in intensive systems.16 Organic manures and green mulches are applied even before the crop is sown, leading to a process known as ‘mineralisation’ – literally the fixing of minerals in the soil. Mineralised organic matter, conspicuously absent from synthetic fertilisers, is one of the essential ingredients required physically and chemically to hold water on the land.

Organic management also uses crop rotations, undersowing and mixed cropping to provide the soil with near-continuous cover. By contrast, conventional farm soils may be left uncovered for extended periods prior to sowing, and again following the harvest, leaving essential organic matter fully exposed to erosion by rain, wind and sunlight. In the US, a 25-year Rodale Institute experiment on climatic extremes found that, due to improved soil structure, organic systems consistently achieve higher yields during periods both of drought and flooding.17

5. Localisation

The globalisation of our food supply, which gives us Peruvian apples in June and Spanish lettuces in February, has seen our food reduced to a commodity in an increasingly volatile global marketplace. Although year-round availability makes for good marketing in the eyes of the biggest retailers, the costs to the environment are immense.

Friends of the Earth estimates that the average meal in the UK travels 1,000 miles from plot to plate.18 In 2005, Defra released a comprehensive report on food miles in the UK, which valued the direct environmental, social and economic costs of food transport in Britain at £9 billion each year. In addition, food transport accounted for more than 30 billion vehicle kilometres, 25 per cent of all HGV journeys and 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2002 alone.19

The organic movement was born out of a commitment to provide local food for local people, and so it is logical that organic marketing encourages localisation through veg boxes, farm shops and stalls. Between 2005 and 2006, organic sales made through direct marketing outlets such as these increased by 53 per cent, from £95 to £146 million, more than double the sales growth experienced by the major supermarkets.20 As we enter an age of unprecedented food insecurity, it is essential that our consumption reflects not only what is desirable, but also what is ultimately sustainable. While the ‘organic’ label itself may inevitably be hijacked, ‘organic and local’ represents a solution with which the global players can simply never compete.

6. Pesticides

It is a shocking testimony to the power of the agrochemical industry that in the 45 years since Rachel Carson published her pesticide warning Silent Spring, the number of commercially available synthetic pesticides has risen from 22 to more than 450.21

According to the World Health Organization there are an estimated 20,000 accidental deaths worldwide each year from pesticide exposure and poisoning.22 More than 31 million kilograms of pesticide were applied to UK crops alone in 2005, 0.5 kilograms for every person in the country.23 A spiralling dependence on pesticides throughout recent decades has resulted in a catalogue of repercussions, including pest resistance, disease susceptibility, loss of natural biological controls and reduced nutrient-cycling.24

Organic farmers, on the other hand, believe that a healthy plant grown in a healthy soil will ultimately be more resistant to pest damage. Organic systems encourage a variety of natural methods to enhance soil and plant health, in turn reducing incidences of pests, weeds and disease.

First and foremost, because organic plants grow comparatively slower than conventional varieties they have thicker cell walls, which provide a tougher natural barrier to pests. Rotations or ‘break-crops’, which are central to organic production, also provide a physical obstacle to pest and disease lifecycles by removing crops from a given plot for extended periods.25 Organic systems also rely heavily on a rich agro-ecosystem in which many agricultural pests can be controlled by their natural predators.

Inevitably, however, there are times when pestilence attacks are especially prolonged or virulent, and here permitted pesticides may be used. The use of organic pesticides is heavily regulated and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) requires specific criteria to be met before pesticide applications can be justified.26

There are in fact only four active ingredients permitted for use on organic crops: copper fungicides, restricted largely to potatoes and occasionally orchards; sulphur, used to control additional elements of fungal diseases; Retenone, a naturally occurring plant extract, and soft soap, derived from potassium soap and used to control aphids. Herbicides are entirely prohibited.

7. Ecosystem impact

Farmland accounts for 70 per cent of UK land mass, making it the single most influential enterprise affecting our wildlife.27 Incentives offered for intensification under the Common Agricultural Policy are largely responsible for negative ecosystem impacts over recent years. Since 1962, farmland bird numbers have declined by an average of 30 per cent. During the same period more than 192,000 kilometres of hedgerows have been removed, while 45 per cent of our ancient woodland has been converted to cropland.28

By contrast, organic farms actively encourage biodiversity in order to maintain soil fertility and aid natural pest control. Mixed farming systems ensure that a diversity of food and nesting sites are available throughout the year, compared with conventional farms where autumn sow crops leave little winter vegetation available.29

Organic production systems are designed to respect the balance observed in our natural ecosystems. It is widely accepted that controlling or suppressing one element of wildlife, even if it is a pest, will have unpredictable impacts on the rest of the food chain. Instead, organic producers regard a healthy ecosystem as essential to a healthy farm, rather than a barrier to production.

In 2005, a report by English Nature and the RSPB on the impacts of organic farming on biodiversity reviewed more than 70 independent studies of flora, invertebrates, birds and mammals within organic and conventional farming systems. It concluded that biodiversity is enhanced at every level of the food chain under organic management practices, from soil micro-biota right through to farmland birds and the largest mammals.30

8. Nutritional benefits

While an all-organic farming system might mean we’d have to make do with slightly less food than we’re used to, research shows that we can rest assured it would be better for us.

In 2001, a study in the Journal of Complementary Medicine found that organic crops contained higher levels of 21 essential nutrients than their conventionally grown counterparts, including iron, magnesium, phosphorus and vitamin C. The organic crops also contained lower levels of nitrates, which can be toxic to the body.31

Other studies have found significantly higher levels of vitamins – as well as polyphenols and antioxidants – in organic fruit and veg, all of which are thought to play a role in cancer-prevention within the body.32

Scientists have also been able to work out why organic farming produces more nutritious food. Avoiding chemical fertiliser reduces nitrates levels in the food; better quality soil increases the availability of trace minerals, and reduced levels of pesticides mean that the plants’ own immune systems grow stronger, producing higher levels ofantioxidants. Slower rates of growth also mean that organic food frequently contains higher levels of dry mass, meaning that fruit and vegetables are less pumped up with water and so contain more nutrients by weight than intensively grown crops do.33

Milk from organically fed cows has been found to contain higher levels of nutrients in six separate studies, including omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, and beta-carotene, all of which can help prevent cancer. One experiment discovered that levels of omega-3 in organic milk were on average 68 per cent higher than in non-organic alternatives.34

But as well as giving us more of what we do need, organic food can help to give us less of what we don’t. In 2000, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that organically produced food had ‘lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues’ than non-organic did.35 Although organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics when absolutely necessary to treat disease, the routine use of the drugs in animal feed – common on intensive livestock farms – is forbidden. This means a shift to organic livestock farming could help tackle problems such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

9. Seed-saving

Seeds are not simply a source of food; they are living testimony to more than 10,000 years of agricultural domestication. Tragically, however, they are a resource that has suffered unprecedented neglect. The UN FAO estimates that 75 per cent of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost over the past 100 years.36

Traditionally, farming communities have saved seeds year-on-year, both in order to save costs and to trade with their neighbours. As a result, seed varieties evolved in response to local climatic and seasonal conditions, leading to a wide variety of fruiting times, seed size, appearance and flavour. More importantly, this meant a constant updating process for the seed’s genetic resistance to changing climatic conditions, new pests and diseases.

By contrast, modern intensive agriculture depends on relatively few crops – only about 150 species are cultivated on any significant scale worldwide. This is the inheritance of the Green Revolution, which in the late 1950s perfected varieties Filial 1, or F1 seed technology, which produced hybrid seeds with specifically desirable genetic qualities.37 These new high-yield seeds were widely adopted, but because the genetic makeup of hybrid F1 seeds becomes diluted following the first harvest, the manufacturers ensured that farmers return for more seed year on year.

With its emphasis on diversity, organic farming is somewhat cushioned from exploitation on this scale, but even Syngenta, the world’s third-largest biotech company, now offers organic seed lines. Although seedsaving is not a prerequisite for organic production, the holistic nature of organics lends itself well to conserving seed.

In support of this, the Heritage Seed Library, in Warwickshire, is a collection of more than 800 open-pollinated organic varieties, which have been carefully preserved by gardeners across the country. Although their seeds are not yet commercially available, the Library is at the forefront of addressing the alarming erosion of our agricultural diversity.

Seed-saving and the development of local varieties must become a key component of organic farming, giving crops the potential to evolve in response to what could be rapidly changing climatic conditions. This will help agriculture keeps pace with climate change in the field, rather than in the laboratory.

10. Job creation

There is no doubt British farming is currently in crisis. With an average of 37 farmers leaving the land every day, there are now more prisoners behind bars in the UK than there are farmers in the fields.38

Although it has been slow, the decline in the rural labour force is a predictable consequence of the industrialisation of agriculture. A mere one per cent of the UK workforce is now employed in land-related enterprises, compared with 35 per cent at the turn of the last century.39

The implications of this decline are serious. A skilled agricultural workforce will be essential in order to maintain food security in the coming transition towards a new model of post-fossil fuel farming. Many of these skills have already been eroded through mechanisation and a move towards more specialised and intensive production systems.

Organic farming is an exception to these trends. By its nature, organic production relies on labour-intensive management practices. Smaller, more diverse farming systems require a level of husbandry that is simply uneconomical at any other scale. Organic crops and livestock also demand specialist knowledge and regular monitoring in the absence of agrochemical controls.

According to a 2006 report by the University of Essex, organic farming in the UK provides 32 per cent more jobs per farm than comparable non-organic farms. Interestingly, the report also concluded that the higher employment observed could not be replicated in non-organic farming through initiatives such as local marketing. Instead, the majority (81 per cent) of total employment on organic farms was created by the organic production system itself. The report estimates that 93,000 new jobs would be created if all farming in the UK were to convert to organic.

Organic farming also accounts for more younger employees than any other sector in the industry. The average age of conventional UK farmers is now 56, yet organic farms increasingly attract a younger more enthusiastic workforce, people who view organics as the future of food production. It is for this next generation of farmers that Organic Futures, a campaign group set up by the Soil Association in 2007, is striving to provide a platform.

Ed Hamer is a freelance journalist

Mark Anslow is the Ecologist’s senior reporter

References

1 Andre Leu, ‘Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World’ in Organic Farming, Winter 2007, citing Jules Pretty, 2001

2 Pretty, 2006. http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440

3 Pretty, 1999, ‘The Living Land’.

4 Cited in Woodward, 2003. http://www.efrc.com/?i=articles.php&art_id=42&highlight=organic

5 Fairlie, 2007, ‘Can Britain Feed Itself?’, The Land, Winter 2007-8.

6 EEA data for EU-15, 2003, for nitric acid production cited by Soil Association

7 Drinkwater LE et al. ‘Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California’, Ecological Applications 1995, 5(4), 1098-1112.

8 http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml

9 US EPA, 1998, ‘Ruminant Livestock and the Global Environment’

10 Using a multiplier factor of 24.5

11 Russia annual CO2 emissions: 1,524,993,000 tonnes; UK annual CO2 emissions: 587,261,000 tonnes.

12 Weis, T. (2007) The global food economy: the battle for the future of farming, Zed Books, London.

13 UNESCO (2006) United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, World Water Development Report 2006: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/index.shtml

14 Alteiri, M. (1987) Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Westview Press, Boulder.

15 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

16 Lampkin, N. (1990) Organic Farming, Farming Press Books, Ipswich.

17 Lim Li Ching (2005) Organic Outperforms Conventional in Climate Extremes, web accesses: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicOutperforms.php

18 FOE (2006) http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_new_year_resolutions_08122006

19 Defra (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final report, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

20 Soil Association (2006) Organic Market Report 2006, Executive Summary, Soil Association, Bristol.

21 Whitehead, R. (1999) UK Pesticide Guide, British Crop Protection Council, CABI Publishing, Cambridge.

22 World Health Organisation (1990) The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture, WHO, Geneva

23 Pesticide Action Network UK (2007) Pesticides on a Plate, A consumer guide to pesticide issues in the food chain, PAN UK, London

24 Sustain (2003) Myth and Reality, Organic vs. non-organic: the facts, Sustain, London.

25 Francis, C. A. & Clegg, M. D. (1990) Crop Rotations in Sustainable Production Systems, Sustainable Agriculture Systems 107-122

26 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (1998) Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing, IFOAM, Germany

27 Soil Association (2006) How does organic farming benefit wildlife? Soil Association 2006.

28 Spencer, J. & Kirby, K. (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales, Biological Conservation 62, 77-93.

29 IFOAM (2003) Organic Agriculture and Biodiversity information sheet, International Federation of Organic Agriculture and Management.

30 Hole, A. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V., Evans, A. D. (2005) Does Organic Farming Benefit Biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 113-130.

31 Worthington V. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. Journal of Complimentary Medicine 2001; 7 No. 2: 161–173

32 Soil Association, 2008: http://tinyurl.com/3aye3g

33 Gundual Azeez, Policy Manager, Soil Association, Personal Communication 01/2008.

34 Soil Association, 2007: http://tinyurl.com/3e3fby

35 Food and Agriculture Organisation, Food Safety & Quality as Affected by Organic Farming, Report of the 22nd regional conference for Europe, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000.

36 FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

37 Shiva, V. & Gitanjali, B. (2002) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, The Impact of globalisation, Sage Publications, London.

38 Soil Association (2006) Organic Works Report: An investigation into employment on organic farms conducted by University of Essex 2005.

39 ISEC (2002) Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness, Zed Books, London.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Advantages of Organic Farming

  • If organic farming methods were practiced on all the planet’s food-growing land, it would be like taking more than 1.5 billion cars off the road.
  • You can increase your antioxidant intake by 30 percent by choosing organic.
  • The average child in America is exposed to five pesticides daily in their food and drinking water.
  • The U.S. water system is regularly contaminated above safe limits immediately following chemical fertilizer applications to farm fields.
  • Farms in developing countries that use organic techniques produce an average of 79% more than farms that don’t.

I got this in an email from the Organic Consumers Association.

Organic farming combats global warming -- big time

source: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ob_3

Data from the Rodale Institute’s long-running comparison of organic and conventional cropping systems confirms that organic methods are far more effective at removing the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere and fixing it as beneficial organic matter in the soil.

By Laura Sayre

Organic Farming
-vs-
CO2

Fast Facts


If only
10,000 medium sized farms in the U.S. converted to organic production, they would store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road, or reducing car miles driven by 14.62 billion miles.

Converting the U.S.’s 160 million corn and soybean acres to organic production would sequester enough carbon to satisfy 73 percent of the Kyoto targets for CO2 reduction in the U.S.

U.S. agriculture as currently practiced emits a total of 1.5 trillion pounds of CO2 annually into the atmosphere. Converting all U.S. cropland to organic would not only wipe out agriculture's massive emission problem. By eliminating energy-costly chemical fertilizers, it would actually give us a net increase in soil carbon of 734 billion pounds.

About this series:

As some of you may know, the Rodale Institute, which publishes The New Farm, is home to the longest running field trials in the country comparing organic and conventional systems of farming called the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST). The data from that 23 years of research is a real treasure trove of insight into the economic, ecological and agronomic benefits of organic farming.

In addition to the long-running FST, we have a variety of other research in progress at The Institute. David Douds has been studying soil fungi here at The Institute’s research farm for 15 years. (Go to Cultivating diversity underground for better yields above for more on David's research.) We’re engaged in no-till research, weed research, compost tea research, composting research, water quality research, and much more.

Until now, much of the light we’re generating here on our research farm has been hidden under the proverbial barrel, but we’re taking off the barrel and busting it up for firewood. We’re going let the light of the amazing research being done here shine on farmers, consumers and environmental activities.

Over the next year we’ll be running a series of stories, about one a month, on the significance of our research ... and its practical applications. That includes a few stories on equipment construction—a front-mounted roller for no-till, and a compost turner converted from a junked 18-wheeler.

So sit tight, and be prepared to be amazed.

Enjoy,

Chris Hill
Executive Editor

The Rodale Institute announces a partnership with Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Agriculture to explore ways these findings can benefit farmers and the environment. One possibility: carbon credits could be in your agricultural future.

SLIDESHOW: From Greenhouse to Green Fields
Organic ag takes a swing at the greenhouse effect and wins

OCTOBER 10, 2003: Kutztown, PA Discussions of global warming in the popular press seldom fail to note its potentially disastrous consequences for agriculture as we know it: more extreme and unpredictable weather, coastal flooding, even the loss of pollen viability for some crop species at higher temperatures all threaten to push the usual unpredictability of farming into the realm of the completely unworkable. But while these threats are indeed grave--and many farmers believe they are witnessing such effects already--researchers at the Rodale Institute have been looking at the problem from the other direction: what impact do agricultural practices have on global warming?

On October 10, the Rodale Institute (TRI), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP), and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) signed a memorandum of understanding designed to help answer that question. Twenty-three years of ongoing research at The Rodale Institute Experimental Farm already provides strong evidence that organic farming helps combat global warming by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide and incorporating it into the soil, whereas conventional farming exacerbates the greenhouse effect by producing a net release of carbon into the atmosphere.

The key lies in the handling of organic matter (OM): because soil organic matter is primarily carbon, increases in soil OM levels will be directly correlated with carbon sequestration. While conventional farming typically depletes soil OM, organic farming builds it through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops. Now, in a unique new partnership, PDEP, PDA and The Rodale Institute are interested in working together to see how organic farming practices can be used to help Pennsylvania--and the world--curb greenhouse gases.

In recent months, TRI Research Manager Paul Hepperly and President John Haberern have drafted a White Paper summarizing TRI's research findings and their relevance to global climate change. The formal agreement, signed last Friday, will provide a platform for further research into the environmental and economic benefits of organic and sustainable farming. By coordinating with PDEP and PDA, Haberern explains, "we can undertake a systematic review of all the existing data on this issue, and examine how the process could be accelerated."

What they learn could be used in reclaiming strip-mined areas of Pennsylvania or in processing waste materials, as well as in improving the state's farming practices. As a regional leader in the agricultural management community and a global leader in sustainable agriculture, TRI also hopes to play an active role within the Northeast Greenhouse Gas Region recently designated by the US Department of Energy.

What we know already:

Over 23 years, there’s been a 15 to 28% increase in soil carbon in organic systems, with virtually no increase in non-organic systems.

The data demonstrating that organic farming practices can reduce atmospheric carbon levels come from TRI's longest-running field study, the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST). Launched in 1981, the FST is a 12-acre, side-by-side experiment comparing three agricultural management systems: one conventional, one legume-based organic, and one manure-based organic. In 23 years of continuous recordkeeping, the FST's two organic systems have shown an increase in soil carbon of 15-28%, while the conventional system has shown no statistically significant increase. For the organic systems that translates into more than 1000 lbs of captured C (or about 3670 lbs of CO2) per acre-foot per year—and that’s not even counting the reductions in CO2 emissions represented by the organic systems' lower energetic requirements. A comparative analysis of FST energy inputs, conducted by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University, found that organic farming systems use just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy required to synthesize nitrogen fertilizer.

"Results like these are a bright spot within the otherwise dreary picture of global climate change research," notes Daniel Desmond, Director of the Office of Pollution Control at PDEP. Organic farmers "are the only group or philosophy that looks at carbon as a resource rather than carbon as a waste product."

So just how much carbon dioxide can
organic farming take out of the air each year?

Think of it in terms of the equivalent # of cars that would be taken off the road each year by farmers converting to organic production. Organic farms sequester as much as 3,670 pounds of carbon per acre-foot each year. A typical passenger car, according to the EPA, emits 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year (traveling an average of 12,500 miles per year). Here's how many cars farms can take off the road by transitioning to organic:

AND, if all 160 million acres of conventinal corn and soybeans in the U.S. were converted to organic production, that could translate to:

  • 58.7 million cars off the road! (25% of the national total)
  • That's 733,750,000,000 car miles not driven...or 116,666,666 round trips from New York City to Los Angeles not taken!

FINALLY, if all 431 million acres of U.S. cropland were converted to organic:

  • 158,177,000 cars would be taken off the road (over half of the national total)
  • 1.98 trillion car miles not driven.

Global climate change and the carbon cycle

While a handful of political conservatives continue to dispute the seriousness of global warming and the necessity for a concerted international effort to mitigate its effects, the vast majority of scientists have concluded that global climate change is a reality:

  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels--the major factor in the greenhouse effect--are now twice as high as they were during the last Ice Age, have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm in the last two centuries alone, and are now increasing at a rate of 1.3 ppm per year.
  • Consumption of remaining fossil fuel reserves would boost CO2 by a factor of four to eight.
  • Other greenhouses gases, including methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have also proliferated and would take decades to stabilize even if emissions were magically cut tomorrow.
  • Global mean surface temperatures have climbed 0.6ĀŗC since the 1850s and are expected to rise 1.5 - 5.0ĀŗC by 2100. Paleoclimatic evidence indicates that the 1990s were the warmest decade since the year 1000.

In their efforts to understand and to address the effects of global warming, scientists are developing an increasingly sophisticated picture of the global carbon cycle. Total carbon storage provided by different parts of the global system--terrestrial vegetation, the surface ocean, the deep ocean--have been quantified, as have the annual fluxes of carbon among them. CO2 emissions from human and animal activities now stand at about 8.9 billion U.S. tons per year, while net atmospheric CO2 accumulation is 3.5 billion US tons. In other words, 40% of annual human-induced carbon emissions contribute to build-up, while the remaining 60% are absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial plants.

Reforestation not enough to handle rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Farmlands are a better carbon “sink.”

Proposals to expand natural carbon sinks as a partial remedy for global warming initially focused on reforestation. Changes in land use, including the loss of forests to tillage and grazing, were known to be a major contributor to the greenhouse effect--as recently as the 1970s, total accumulated C emissions from land-use change exceeded total emissions from the burning of fossil fuels--and it was thought that escalating fossil fuel consumption could be balanced by vast forests breathing in all that CO2.

Data like those emerging from the Farming Systems Trial, however, are revising that image: It may be that the soil itself makes more of a difference than what's growing in it. On a global scale, soils hold more than twice as much carbon (an estimated 1.74 trillion U.S. tons) as does terrestrial vegetation (672 billion U.S. tons), and practices like reduced tillage, the use of cover crops, and incorporation of crop residues can dramatically alter the C storage of arable lands.

How to get from a net loss of soil carbon to a net gain in one easy step!

Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University’s specialist in analyzing energy expenditure in agricultural systems, calculates that U.S. agriculture currently emits about 925 billion pounds of carbon dioxide each year from crop and livestock production. So, what would happen if all those U.S. acres converted to organic production?

"Agriculture and forestry are a very potent sink--they will make the emissions problem easier to get a handle on," explains Haberern. "Especially if you do the agriculture right. If you practice conventional agriculture, then any low to non-existent C gain you get will have to have subtracted from it the C emissions created by conventional agricultural methods. With organic farming it can be pure gain. Using bio-diesel [for tractor power], you don't need to use any fossil fuels at all."

Organic farming for carbon capture is also compatible with other environmental and social goals such as reducing erosion, minimizing impact on native ecosystems, and improving farmer livelihoods. Compared to forests, moreover, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire.

Although it is well established that sustainable and organic farming methods sequester atmospheric carbon, researchers have yet to flesh out the precise mechanisms by which this takes place. In the FST, soil carbon levels increased more in the manure-based organic system than in the legume-based organic system, presumably because of the incorporation of manures, but the study also showed that soil carbon depends on more than just total C additions to the system--cropping system diversity or carbon-to-nitrogen ratios of inputs may have an effect. "We believe that the differences in decay rates [of soil organic matter] have a lot to do with it," says Hepperly, since "soluble nitrogen fertilizer accelerates decomposition" in the conventional system.

On the other hand, the work of another Rodale research collaborator, Dr. David Douds of the Agricultural Research Service, suggests that healthy mycorrhizal fungi populations in the organic systems slow down the decomposition of organic matter. (Visit Cultivating diversity underground for better yields above for more on Douds' mycorrhizal research.) All of these factors lead Hepperly to conclude that "it's crucial to look at the biological nature of the soil carbon system," rather than just to consider it as a geochemical process.

Should organic farmers get 'carbon credits'?

A further goal of the partnership between the Rodale Institute, the PA Department of Agriculture and the PA Department of Environmental Protection is to explore policy mechanisms by which farmers and landowners could quantify the carbon sequestered on their properties and receive a payment from the state or federal government for ecosystem services provided, or even participate in emerging 'carbon-trading' markets around the world. Although the development of carbon-trading markets in the US was put on hold by the Bush administration's decision, in 2001, to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol (citing projected deleterious effects on the struggling US economy), such markets are rapidly expanding in the European Union and elsewhere. (See, for example, co2e.com, a greenhouse gas brokerage firm based in London.)

"The Kyoto Protocol [the 1997 global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases] talks about agriculture and forestry as carbon sinks, but fails to distinguish between the different effects of different types of agriculture," notes Daniel Desmond of the PA Department of Environmental Protection. In fact, the whole business of credit for carbon-sequestration activities under the Kyoto accord is problematic, because of the lack in 1997 of good carbon inventory data that could be factored into the nation-by-nation emissions-reduction targets.

Nevertheless, although sequestration in agricultural soils can vary by climate and by soil type, multiplying 3,670 pounds of captured CO2 per acre across the 160 million acres planted to corn and soybeans in the US yields a potential CO2 capture on the order of 293 million tons per year, or as much as three-quarters of the reductions required if the US were to adhere to its Kyoto targets. (Total U.S. cropland is 431 million acres.)

Organic farming -vs- the Kyoto targets

In 1997 the U.S. agreed to reduce 1990 levels of CO2 by seven percent. So here's a question: How far would converting U.S. cropland to organic take us toward satisfying those Kyoto goals? Let's do the math:

Converting 160 million acres of corn
and soyean to organic results in

293 million tons of CO2 stored in soil

Kyoto target:
400 million ton reduction in CO2

Percentage of Kyoto goal that would be
satisfied by converting to organic:

73 PERCENT!

NOTE: This doesn't even take into consideration the drastically reduced energy expenditure and CO2 emissions of organic farming compared with using chemical fertilizers.

Thinking globally, the British Royal Society has estimated potential CO2 sequestration on the world's 2.5 billion acres of agricultural soils at 6.1 to 10.1 billion U.S. tons per year for the next 50 years. Another estimate puts the total amount of CO2 that could be captured in developing countries at 1.7 billion U.S. tons over the next decade. In short, carbon sequestration via adoption of organic agriculture could have a substantial impact on global warming.

Still, carbon sequestration by organic farming, like carbon capture through reforestation, is a short-term or 'bridge' solution, a way of buying time for more fundamental changes. Ultimately, global climate change can only be fully addressed through rationalization of energy policies, reductions in fossil fuel consumption, and improvements in emissions-control technologies. Among the possible short- to medium-term solutions, however, organic farming has a lot going for it. "There are a number of 'Star Wars'-like solutions being proposed" for carbon and carbon dioxide capture, observes Hepperly, including pumping CO2 deep into the ocean or underground--in July of this year the US Department of Energy announced that drilling had begun on a 10,000-ft 'well' to funnel CO2 deep beneath West Virginia.

Compared to expensive, experimental, high-technology projects like these, global transitioning to organic farming looks cheap and easy. "It's a no-brainer," Hepperly concludes. "Organic farming is not a technological fix, not an untried experiment that could have its own unforeseen consequences." Instead, it's a step toward solving global warming that brings with it a wealth of other environmental benefits.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

A Tiny Urban Farm, a Bounty of Benefits

source: bostonglobe.com

It may not be the sprawling 50-acre countryside farm he once dreamed of running, but for Newton resident Greg Maslowe, the 2 acres of city-owned property in south Newton is just right.

Day on the farm

Newton Angino Community Farm is holding its annual fall festival Oct. 26. The event will include demonstrations, tours of the farm, pumpkin decorating, musical entertainment, and refreshments. For more information, call 617-916-9655 or visit newtoncommunityfarm.org.

"I've come to really enjoy this particular situation," said Maslowe, 38, who is completing his third season as the manager of Newton Angino Community Farm. "I like that I can pay more attention to each crop than on a bigger farm."

In addition to selling a variety of organic, locally grown fruits, vegetables, and herbs and administering a community-supported agriculture operation, Maslowe runs numerous programs to promote environmental awareness and sustainable agriculture. The farm is renovating its barn to create a space for the programs, which include composting, container gardening, and other techniques to help Newton residents and other city dwellers grow food in their own backyards.

The property, at the corner of Nahanton and Winchester streets, has been organically farmed for more than 300 years. It was purchased by the city of Newton in 2005 using Community Preservation Act funds after residents urged Newton officials not to let the city's only remaining farm be developed. The city allows Newton Community Farm Inc., a nonprofit, to operate the farm on its land rent free but does not provide any funding to the farm.

"From the city's perspective, the farm has added a dimension to Newton that didn't exist before," said Newton Alderwoman Cheryl Lappin. "It continues to teach people about local farming and growing in their own neighborhoods and it's provided locally grown produce to the community."

Maslowe, who paid for college and graduate school by driving tractors and working as a groundskeeper at an amusement park, said he examined jobs on large farms in Central and Western Massachusetts but was turned off by the isolation and lack of ethnic diversity.

"That's the trade-off - not just physical isolation but cultural isolation," said Maslowe, who lives with his wife, 8-year-old son, and 5-year-old daughter on the farm. "My kids really thrive on social interaction. Being out on a 50-acre farm, they'd be bored out of their minds."

Of course, running an urban farm has its share of difficulties, especially a lack of growing space.

A typical farmer aims to make $20,000 per acre but Maslowe must coax $60,000 per acre out of the Newton farm, he said.

"We have to try and get as many plants into and out of the ground as possible," Maslowe said.

To accomplish this, much of the weeding, planting, and harvesting is performed by hand, eliminating the extra space needed for a tractor to maneuver but significantly increasing the need for labor.

Since he cannot hire many workers, Maslowe relies heavily on volunteers, something that fits in with the educational mission of the farm, said Rebekah Smillie, the president of Newton Community Farm's board of directors.

"It's really wonderful to have people coming out to the farm and working through the season," Smillie said. "They are really learning how the farm works day to day."

Over the summer, the farm hosted eight high school and college students who came five days a week for up to eight hours each day. Besides working in the fields, the group learned about sustainable agricultural and environmental practices from Maslowe, who said he hopes the experience will inspire the youth to consider a career in sustainable agriculture or at least grow their own gardens.

"It can happen in the largest Newton backyard or the smallest postage stamp of a yard," Smillie said. "There's so much emphasis on eating local and there's nothing more local than growing food in your backyard."

The farm will have a dedicated educational space once the $500,000 renovation of the barn is complete. The refurbished structure, which was built in the 1850s, will include a community lecture room, demonstration kitchen, public restrooms, and a library stocked with literature on organic and sustainable farming, said Peter Barrer, a member of the board of directors and chairman of the farm's building committee.

"It's very exciting to have preserved this beautiful space," Barrer said. "One of the things we like about the whole farm is we have this preserved for not only produce but the view. You don't have to eat the vegetables to enjoy the farm."

Phase one of the renovations includes timber-frame reconstruction, insulating the barn, and removing vinyl siding and replacing it with red cedar shingles, something the barn originally had. The second phase will involve interior work such as plumbing, wiring, and creating handicapped accessible bathrooms.

"The most gratifying thing is just to see it transformed," Barrer said. "It still looks a lot like the barn it was, but it's solid and will be there for many years now."

Phase one is expected to be completed by the end of the year, but phase two is dependent upon the farm's ability to raise money, Barrer said.

Despite the challenges of operating an urban farm, preserving the property for its scenic, historical, and environmental benefits is invaluable for the community, Maslowe said.

A lot of people from other countries [visit the farm and] say 'This is what it looked like in my country,' " he said. "But, for so many of us who have lived in America, this is not where we came from."

Video: Organic Gardening

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/environment/going-green-environment/green-home-makeover/organic-vegetables-gg.html?source=email_gg_20081015&email=gg

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Trees for Organic Gardens

By Guy Sternberg
source: http://www.organicgardening.com/feature/0,7518,s1-4-76-983,00.html


Planting a tree can be a deeply satisfying act, a commitment to the future of the place where it will grow. Choose a tree that's native to the region, and your rewards multiply.

Natives are likely to thrive in your conditions with minimal attention after the first two or three years. They provide the food and shelter local wildlife depends on. And you needn't worry about introducing an invasive species like the Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia).

Many natives are trees you're already familiar with. The following six genera, or groups, of North American native trees include a variety of species for different conditions; have interesting foliage, flowers, and bark; and become more beautiful with every passing year.

When thinking about a tree to plant, consider that hundreds of the finest shade and ornamental species evolved right here in North America. They have survived thousands of years of climate extremes, they have reached equilibrium with their environment, and most of them learned long ago how to cope with native pests or they would not still be here. This is truly organic!

MAPLES (Acer)
Features: The brilliant autumn color of our native sugar maple is the gold standard by which all other fall foliage is measured. Luckily, this snow-loving species shares its best attributes with maples in warmer, drier climates. In fact, native maples have adapted to nearly every soil type and watering requirement in North America. For example, the canyon maple in the southwest tolerates dry soil and, along with the more cold-hardy black maple, high pH.

Choices: Maples are naturally found in the Deep South (Florida maple), the southeastern mountains (chalk maple), and exposed midwestern sites (black maple). When you add in our other maple species, these trees comprise one of the most diverse and colorful of all tree genera, with more than 100 species thriving throughout most of the northern hemisphere. Every yard should have at least one native maple.

BIRCHES (Betula)
Features: For many people, the appeal of a birch tree lies in its glowing white bark. Our native birch species have bark that ranges in color from white to rosy brown to a shiny steel gray and exfoliates from the trunk in strips and swirls. Native birches are much better adapted to North America's more stressful climates than imports. A birch under stress, especially from heat or drought, invites a beetle that bores into the wood and eventually kills the tree. And this is particularly a problem for the nonnative birches, which haven't evolved to cope with this insect.

Uses: All birches tolerate wet soils, and most prefer them. The paper birch is among the most winter-hardy of all deciduous trees. Although not especially long-lived as trees go, with adequate moisture and sunlight, and freedom from weed competition, birches can grow very rapidly into highly ornamental shade trees that live for 30 to 40 years.

SUMACS (Rhus)
Features: Sumacs suffer from a bad reputation. Most sumac species clump from their roots, forming thickets that many people perceive as being weedy. This tendency is an adaptation to their natural environment, where they must compete for a space in the sun following fires or other calamities. (This is an advantage, however, if you want a dramatic grouping of a single species.) Worse, many people cannot say sumac without the preface poison (referring to the sap reaction, phytodermatitis, that many people have), yet we have only one toxic species, albeit a very colorful one, and you are unlikely ever to see it unless you wade into its swampy natural habitat. Sumacs are small, often shrubby, and therefore capable of embellishing the tiniest backyards with the most brilliant fall color imaginable.

Uses: Their winter form is artistic, and their flowers and fruits can be striking and long-lasting. Sumacs bring nothing but pleasure in the home garden and are among the easiest of all small trees to grow.

OAKS (Quercus)
Features: The noble oak is generally acclaimed as the national tree of the United States. Tall, stately, and sheltering, oaks can live for centuries. As they are an indispensable source of food and cover for many insects, animals, and birds, planting them invites a diversity of wildlife to your yard. Oak wood is strong and stands up to stormy weather. Thick, leathery leaves filter summer sunlight, making oaks effective shade trees, as well. An old adage says that you plant an oak for your children, but that doesn't mean you will have to wait years to enjoy an oak. The chinkapin oak, for example, can grow as much as 20 feet in 10 years.

Choices: The United States and Canada claim nearly 100 native oak species, a diverse group that ranges from low shrubs to forest giants. There's one for nearly any condition. The willow oak thrives in wet soils, while the black oak likes it very dry. The silverleaf oak takes unbelievable desert heat; the bur oak readily shakes off the cold from Saskatchewan to Quebec. The live oak is evergreen; the swamp chestnut oak has great fall color.

HAWTHORNS (Crataegus)
Features: The hawthorns are some of the toughest little trees in the tree business. Native hawthorns have white or pale yellow flowers in spring, some (Washington hawthorn, in particular) have vivid red color in fall, and almost all get to be only about 30 feet in height. The sweeping branches of the cockspur hawthorn are revealed once winter arrives, and the bright fruits of the green hawthorn make a splendid display until they finally drop or are taken by birds.

Uses: Most species have thorns, so take care to place them where you won't run into them. The thorns, on the other hand, make them desirable habitat for the nesting birds that add so much pleasure to gardening. Hawthorns are in the rose family, along with crabapples, a closely related species to which they bear a resemblance. Hawthorn fruits are edible and taste much like crabapples. Some, such as mayhaw fruits, are made into jelly or wine.

PINES (Pinus)
Features: The scent of pine stands for purity and freshness, or so you'd think from looking at the labels of cleansers and air fresheners. But there's more to appreciate about pine trees than that lab-created imitation aroma. They'll grow in the poorest possible soil, which means you're sure to find one that will take to your land, be it dense clay or porous sand. Most pines are unimpeded by drought; loblolly pine, among others, tolerates wet soil as well. Frequent partners to oaks in the wild, pines have adapted to the coldest and hottest of climates.

Choices: You'll have no trouble finding a pine that suits your garden's size, either. Ponderosa pine and eastern white pine, for instance, reach regal heights, growing up to 100 feet tall, where their aromatic needles sing in the wind. Don't have space for a skyscraping tree? Shore pine and piƱon pine top out at a more manageable 20 to 30 feet.
Related Posts with Thumbnails