Revealed: Monitoring of Organic Food a Travesty
By Barry Estabrook, The Atlantic
March 26, 2010 Link to full article below
Share this on Facebook: Share
That faint "we told you so" ringing in your ears might be coming from the folks at the Cornucopia Institute, the Wisconsin-based watchdog group that has being saying for years that the United States Department of Agriculture's enforcement of federal organic laws was, to put it kindly, pathetic. According to Cornucopia, the USDA has always clearly favored industrial operators who bent (or broke) every rule they could to compete with small, conscientious farmers who hewed to the letter and spirit of organic policy.
Guess what? Cornucopia and other organic consumer advocates were right. This week the USDA's own Office of the Inspector General came out with a formal report on the UDSA's monitoring of its organic program during the Clinton and Bush years. It couldn't have been more scathing.
The inspector cited 14 areas of major concern, including the following:
• California inspectors are simply not equipped to enforce the organic laws. Bad news for all of us. With 2,000 "organic" farms exporting to all corners of the nation, that state tills the most organic acreage in the country.
• In five cases where companies were known to be selling inorganic food illegally under the USDA Organic label, the USDA completely failed to take action against one of them. The four other cases took as long as 32 months to resolve, during which time the firms continued to sell mislabeled produce.
• Since 1990, organic laws have called for periodic residue testing. None of the regulating agencies the inspector investigated had done any residue testing. The reason? Too expensive.
Please read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/146186/
Share this on Facebook: Share
Showing posts with label organic agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organic agriculture. Show all posts
Friday, April 9, 2010
Monday, July 6, 2009
High-Rise Farms: The Future of Food?
High-Rise Farms: The Future of Food?
by John Roach for National Geographic News
June 30, 2009 Link to full article below
Salads of the future may still be served in bowls, but their ingredients might be grown in skyscrapers.
That's the hope of scientists and architects who are erecting a unique strategy to feed a swelling population on a planet with finite farmland. (Find out more about sustainable agriculture.)
"In another 40 years, there'll be another three billion people. That's the problem," said Dickson Despommier, a professor of public health at Columbia University in New York. "We have to find another way to feed them."
One solution, Despommier believes, is to grow everything from salad greens to staple grains year-round in high-rise buildings at the hearts of urban centers.
To read the full article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090630-farm-towers-locally-grown.html
******************************************************
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.
by John Roach for National Geographic News
June 30, 2009 Link to full article below
Salads of the future may still be served in bowls, but their ingredients might be grown in skyscrapers.
That's the hope of scientists and architects who are erecting a unique strategy to feed a swelling population on a planet with finite farmland. (Find out more about sustainable agriculture.)
"In another 40 years, there'll be another three billion people. That's the problem," said Dickson Despommier, a professor of public health at Columbia University in New York. "We have to find another way to feed them."
One solution, Despommier believes, is to grow everything from salad greens to staple grains year-round in high-rise buildings at the hearts of urban centers.
To read the full article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090630-farm-towers-locally-grown.html
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.
Friday, June 5, 2009
IMPORTANT article: Big Food Under Fire
Big Food Under Fire
Industrial agriculture shouldn't worry about the government. Mother Nature is a far more potent foe.
By Tom Laskawy
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
http://www.slate.com/id/2219686/
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2219686
The corporate behemoths collectively known as "Big Food"—companies like General Mills, Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Archer Daniels Midland—are feeling squeamish. They've watched with dismay as President Obama and his agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, have adopted "sustainability" as a top priority for the USDA and inched the department toward greater support of organic agriculture. With Kathleen Merrigan—noted sustainable agriculture advocate and former director of the USDA organic program—as the department's new second in command; more money now available for organic farmers; and a grand USDA-funded study of organic agriculture and its role in American farming in the works, Big Food feels the ground shifting beneath it. So much so that it's acting as if it could lose its grip on the American food system. But Big Food persists in battling the wrong target. While it is indeed locked in an existential struggle with an implacable foe, the
government is not the enemy. The enemy is Mother Nature.
The simple fact is that the interests of Big Ag remain well-served by a broad range of government policies from agriculture, to trade, to the environment, to nutrition, and even to commodities market regulation. To suggest, as Nebraska's Sen. Mike Johanns (a former Bush-era agriculture secretary) recently did, that the administration has "let [its] fervor for organic production cloud [its] judgment" vastly overplays the administration's ambition. And when Obama did make a substantive attempt at reform, with his proposal to cut agricultural subsidies paid to the largest farmers, Big Food's congressional allies moved quickly to kill it. Rep. Collin Peterson, the powerful chairman of the House agriculture committee and close friend of Big Ag, wasn't kidding when he declared the proposal "more than dead on arrival." No trace of the cuts made it into Congress' final budget.
And that new funding for organic farmers? At $50 million, it's no chump change. But it pales in comparison with the $11 billion conventional agriculture is estimated to receive in government payments this year—most of which, according to the Environmental Working Group, will go to the largest 10 percent of industrial farms. It's clearly not the scale of the administration's commitment to organic that's at issue, however. Small gestures may also offend—which could explain why the pesticide industry has begun a letter-writing campaign protesting Michelle Obama's much-ballyhooed organic "kitchen garden" at the White House.
Also overstated is the threat that food-borne illnesses could pose to Big Food's bottom line. With E. coli contaminating not just hamburger meat but vegetables and with salmonella-tainted peanut butter causing the recall of thousands of products, Big Food is painfully aware that it must protect its centralized yet globalized supply chain. But, while large companies might complain about the potential costs of new regulation, their deep pockets will cushion any blow Congress might land in the form of restrictive new food safety laws.
In fact, it's the small food processors and farmers who should be (and are) honestly panicking at the prospect of costly new regulations.
To read the full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2219686/
Industrial agriculture shouldn't worry about the government. Mother Nature is a far more potent foe.
By Tom Laskawy
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
http://www.slate.com/id/2219686/
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2219686
The corporate behemoths collectively known as "Big Food"—companies like General Mills, Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Archer Daniels Midland—are feeling squeamish. They've watched with dismay as President Obama and his agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, have adopted "sustainability" as a top priority for the USDA and inched the department toward greater support of organic agriculture. With Kathleen Merrigan—noted sustainable agriculture advocate and former director of the USDA organic program—as the department's new second in command; more money now available for organic farmers; and a grand USDA-funded study of organic agriculture and its role in American farming in the works, Big Food feels the ground shifting beneath it. So much so that it's acting as if it could lose its grip on the American food system. But Big Food persists in battling the wrong target. While it is indeed locked in an existential struggle with an implacable foe, the
government is not the enemy. The enemy is Mother Nature.
The simple fact is that the interests of Big Ag remain well-served by a broad range of government policies from agriculture, to trade, to the environment, to nutrition, and even to commodities market regulation. To suggest, as Nebraska's Sen. Mike Johanns (a former Bush-era agriculture secretary) recently did, that the administration has "let [its] fervor for organic production cloud [its] judgment" vastly overplays the administration's ambition. And when Obama did make a substantive attempt at reform, with his proposal to cut agricultural subsidies paid to the largest farmers, Big Food's congressional allies moved quickly to kill it. Rep. Collin Peterson, the powerful chairman of the House agriculture committee and close friend of Big Ag, wasn't kidding when he declared the proposal "more than dead on arrival." No trace of the cuts made it into Congress' final budget.
And that new funding for organic farmers? At $50 million, it's no chump change. But it pales in comparison with the $11 billion conventional agriculture is estimated to receive in government payments this year—most of which, according to the Environmental Working Group, will go to the largest 10 percent of industrial farms. It's clearly not the scale of the administration's commitment to organic that's at issue, however. Small gestures may also offend—which could explain why the pesticide industry has begun a letter-writing campaign protesting Michelle Obama's much-ballyhooed organic "kitchen garden" at the White House.
Also overstated is the threat that food-borne illnesses could pose to Big Food's bottom line. With E. coli contaminating not just hamburger meat but vegetables and with salmonella-tainted peanut butter causing the recall of thousands of products, Big Food is painfully aware that it must protect its centralized yet globalized supply chain. But, while large companies might complain about the potential costs of new regulation, their deep pockets will cushion any blow Congress might land in the form of restrictive new food safety laws.
In fact, it's the small food processors and farmers who should be (and are) honestly panicking at the prospect of costly new regulations.
To read the full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2219686/
Friday, February 6, 2009
Organic and Sustainable Farmers Can Feed The World
Organic and Sustainable Farmers Can Feed the World
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16207.cfm
QUOTE: "The poor and hungry need low-cost, readily available technologies and practices to increase food production." - editorial in New Scientist
EXTRACT: In developing countries, ecological agriculture practices can greatly increase productivity, particularly if the existing system is low-input, which is largely the case for Africa.
--- ---
1. Is ecological agriculture productive?
TWN, 19 December 2008 http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri064.htm
A key question that is often asked about ecological agriculture, including organic agriculture, is whether it can be productive enough to meet the world's food needs. While many agree that ecological agriculture is desirable from an environmental and social point of view, there remain fears that ecological and organic agriculture produce low yields.
Please find below a paper that summarizes some of the available evidence to demystify the productivity debate and demonstrate that ecological agriculture is indeed productive, especially so in developing countries.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister 10400
Penang Malaysia
Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Websites: www.twnside.org.sg, www.biosafety-info.net
Is Ecological Agriculture Productive?
By Lim Li Ching, Researcher, Third World Network (November 2008)
Introduction
A key question that is often asked about ecological agriculture, including organic agriculture, is whether it can be productive enough to meet the world's food needs. While many agree that ecological agriculture is desirable from an environmental and social point of view, there remain fears that ecological and organic agriculture produce low yields.
This short paper will summarise some of the available evidence to demystify the productivity debate and demonstrate that ecological agriculture is indeed productive.
In general, yields from ecological agriculture can be broadly comparable to conventional yields in developed countries. In developing countries, ecological agriculture practices can greatly increase productivity, particularly if the existing system is low-input, which is largely the case for Africa. This paper will focus mainly on evidence from developing countries.
Evidence from global modelling
A recent study examined a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic : non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and developing world (Badgley et al., 2007). For most of the food categories examined, they found that the average yield ratio was slightly less than 1.0 for studies in the developed world, but more than 1.0 for studies in developing countries.
On average, in developed countries, organic systems produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms.
With the average yield ratios, the researchers then modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. They found that organic methods could hypothetically produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without putting more farmland into production.
Moreover, contrary to fears that there are insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilizers, the data suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use.
This model suggests that organic agriculture could potentially provide enough food globally, but without the negative environmental impacts of conventional agriculture.
Evidence from reviews of ecological agriculture projects
In a review of 286 projects in 57 countries, farmers were found to have increased agricultural productivity by an average of 79%, by adopting "resource-conserving" or ecological agriculture (Pretty et al., 2006).
A variety of resource conserving technologies and practices were used, including integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, conservation tillage, agroforestry, water harvesting in dryland areas, and livestock and aquaculture integration into farming systems. These practices not only increased yields, but also reduced adverse effects on the environment and contributed to important environmental goods and services (e.g., climate change mitigation), as evidenced by increased water use efficiency and carbon sequestration, and reduced pesticide use.
The work built on earlier research, which assessed 208 sustainable agriculture projects. The earlier research found that for 89 projects for which there was reliable yield data, farmers had, by adopting sustainable agriculture practices, achieved substantial increases in per hectare food production - the yield increases were 50-100% for rain-fed crops, though considerably greater in a number of cases, and 5-10% for irrigated crops (Pretty and Hine, 2001).
Disaggregated data show:
* Average food production per household rose by 1.7 tonnes per year (up by 73%) for 4.42 million small farmers growing cereals and roots on 3.6 million hectares. * Increase in food production was 17 tonnes per year (up 150%) for 146,000 farmers on 542,000 hectares cultivating roots (potato, sweet potato, cassava). * Total production rose by 150 tonnes per household (up by 46%) for the larger farms in Latin America (average size 90 hectares).
The database on agricultural sustainability (comprising the 286 projects) was reanalyzed to produce a summary of the impacts of organic and near-organic projects on agricultural productivity in Africa (Hine and Pretty, 2008). The average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects than the global average (79%): 116% increase for all African projects and 128% increase for the projects in East Africa.
For Kenyan projects, the increase in yield was 179%, for Tanzanian projects 67% and for Ugandan projects 54%. Moreover, all case studies that focused on food production in this research where data have been reported, showed increases in per hectare productivity of food crops, which challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity.
Evidence from specific ecological agriculture interventions
Data from the Tigray Project in the Tigray Region in Ethiopia, where a project on ecological agriculture has been carried out since 1996, concretely demonstrate the benefits of compost on productivity. Preliminary data collected in 1998 had already shown that using compost gave similar yield increases as chemical fertilizers. Data collected in 2002, 2003 and 2004 showed that, on average, composted fields gave higher yields, sometimes double, than those treated with chemical fertilizers (Araya and Edwards, 2006).
In a new paper written for the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), statistical analysis on a larger data set over the years 2000 to 2006 inclusive confirms that compost use in Tigray has increased yields in all the crops analysed (Edwards et al., 2008). In total, data was collected from 974 fields from 19 communities. Grain and straw yield data were obtained for barley, durum wheat, finger millet, hanfets (a mixture of barley and durum wheat), maize, sorghum, teff, faba bean and field pea.
Except for field pea, the compost generally doubled the grain yield when compared to each respective check (crops grown without any inputs). (For field pea, the increase in yield was approximately 28%.) The difference was significant (95% confidence limit). The application of compost also increased straw yield compared to the check, but not to the same extent as it increased grain yield.
The use of compost also gave higher yields than the use of chemical fertilizer, though differences in the yields from compost and from chemical fertilizer were not as great as the differences between the use of compost and the check. For sorghum and faba bean the yields from the use of compost and chemical fertilizer were similar. But the yield difference for all the other crops was greater with that from the compost treatment being always higher than that from the use of chemical fertilizer. The results also showed that compost not only increases the overall biomass yield, but also increases the proportion of the grain to straw in the yield.
Since 1998, the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development of Tigray Region has adopted the making of compost as part of its extension package and by 2007 at least 25% of the farmers are making and using compost. A reflection of the success of this approach is that between 2003 and 2006, grain yield for the Region almost doubled from 714 to 1,354 thousand tonnes. Since 1998, there has also been a steady decrease in the use of chemical fertilizer from 13.7 to 8.2 thousand tonnes.
There are many other specific examples of increased yields following the application of ecological agriculture practices, some of which are summarized below (Hine and Pretty, 2008; Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Pretty and Hine, 2001; Scialabba and Hattam, 2002).
In Africa:
* Soil and water conservation in the drylands of Burkina Faso and Niger have transformed formerly degraded lands. The average family has shifted from being in cereal deficit of 644 kg per year (equivalent to 6.5 months of food shortage) to producing an annual surplus of 153 kg.
* In Ethiopia, some 12,500 households have adopted sustainable agriculture, resulting in a 60% increase in crop yields.
* In Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from composted plots were 3-5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals.
* Projects in Senegal promoted stall-fed livestock, composting systems, green manures, water harvesting systems and rock phosphate. Yields of millet and peanuts increased dramatically by 75-195% and 75-165% respectively.
* In Kenya, 500 farmers on some 1000 hectares have seen maize yields improve from about 2 to 4 t/ha following the application of soil conservation, soil fertility and organic agriculture methods.
* A range of biological pest management methods together with legumes, cover crops and green manures for soil fertility improvement resulted in a doubling of beans and groundnut yields from 300 to 600 kg/ha in western Kenya.
* In eastern and central Kenya, smallholder farmers have been trained in natural soil fertility management; integrated environmentally friendly weed, pest and disease protection; on-farm soil and water conservation techniques; and farm level seed conservation, with a resulting 50% increase in productivity and 40% increase in income.
* More than 1000 farmers in low soil fertility areas in the North Rift and western regions of Kenya increased maize yields to 3,414 kg/ha (71% increase in productivity) and bean yields to 258 kg/ha (158% increase in productivity) as compared to traditional agriculture, by incorporating soil fertility management, crop diversification and improved crop management.
* Integration of pond fish culture into low-input farm systems with some 2000 farmers in Malawi increased vegetable yields from 2700 to 4000 kg/ha, with the fish ponds producing the equivalent of 1500 kg/ha of fish, a new source of food for households.
In Latin America:
* 45,000 families in Honduras and Guatemala have increased crop yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2000-2500 kg/ha using green manures, cover crops, contour grass strips, in-row tillage, rock bunds and animal manures.
* The states of Santa Caterina, Paraná and Rio Grande do Sol in southern Brazil have focused on soil and water conservation using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing and green manures. Maize yields have risen from 3 to 5 tonnes/ha and soybeans from 2.8 to 4.7 tonnes/ha.
* The high mountain regions of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador are some of the most difficult areas in the world for growing crops. Despite this, farmers have increased potato yields by three fold, particularly by using green manures to enrich the soil. Using these methods, some 2000 farmers in Bolivia have improved potato production from about 4000 kg/ha to 10-15000 kg/ha.
* In Brazil, use of green manures and cover crops increased maize yields by between 20-250%.
* In Peru, restoration of traditional Incan terracing led to increases of 150% for upland crops.
* In Honduras, soil conservation practices and organic fertilisers have tripled or quadrupled yields.
* In Cuba, there are more than 7000 organic urban gardens and productivity has grown from 1.5 kg/m2 to nearly 20 kg/m2.
In Asia:
* Participatory irrigation management in Philippines has increased rice yields by about 20%.
* Yield increases of 175% were reported from farms in Nepal adopting agro-ecological practices.
* In Pakistan, yields of mango and citrus fruits increased by 150-200% after adopting organic agriculture techniques such as mulching, no till production, composting and planting the fruit trees in double dug beds.
Conclusion
It is clear that ecological agriculture is productive and has the potential to meet food security needs, particularly in the African context. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development concurs that an increase and strengthening of agricultural knowledge, science and technology toward agroecological sciences will contribute to addressing environmental issues while maintaining and increasing productivity (IAASTD, 2008). Moreover, ecological agricultural approaches allow farmers to improve local food production with low-cost, readily available technologies and inputs, without causing environmental damage.
References
Araya, H. and Edwards, S. 2006. The Tigray experience: A success story in sustainable agriculture. Third World Network Environment and Development Series 4. TWN: Penang.
Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M.J., Avilés-Vázquez, K., Samulon, A. & Perfecto, I. 2007. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22: 86-108.
Edwards, S., Asmelash A., Araya, H. and Egziabher, T.B.G. 2008. The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia, 2000-2006 inclusive.
Hine, R. and Pretty, J. 2008. Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Geneva and New York.
IAASTD. 2008. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. www.agassessment.org
Parrott, N. and Marsden, T. 2002. The real Green Revolution: Organic and agroecological farming in the South. Greenpeace Environment Trust: London.
Pretty, J. & Hine, R. 2001. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: a summary of new evidence. UK: University of Essex Centre for Environment and Society.
Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T. & Morison, J.I.L. 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology (Policy Analysis) 40(4): 1114-1119.
Scialabba, N.E-H. and Hattam, C. (eds). 2002. Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security. Rome: FAO.
--- ---
2. Small farms as a planetary ecological asset http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri045.htm
The paper below, by Miguel Altieri, President of the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA) and Professor of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that small farms are ecological assets.
Small farming systems are still prevalent in Latin America, Asia and Africa, and high levels of agrobiodiversity are salient features of such systems. Altieri highlights five important reasons (among others) why small farms should be supported, particularly given current economic conditions and climate variability:
1. Small farmers are key for the world's food security
2. Small farms are more productive and resource conserving than large scale monocultures
3. Small traditional and biodiverse farms represent models of sustainability
4. Small farms represent a sanctuary of GMO free agrobiodiversity
5. Small farms cool the climate
The paper can also be found at http://www.landaction.org/spip/spip.php?article315
With best wishes,
Lim Li Ching Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Websites: www.twnside.org.sg, www.biosafety-info.net
-----------------------------
Small farms as a planetary ecological asset: Five key reasons why we should support the revitalization of small farms in the global South
Miguel A. Altieri President, Sociedad Cientifica LatinoAmericana de Agroecologia (SOCLA)
The Via Campesina has long argued that farmers need land to produce food for their own communities and for their country and for this reason has advocated for genuine agrarian reforms to access and control land, water, agrobiodiversity, etc., which are of central importance for communities to be able to meet growing food demands. The Via Campesina believes that in order to protect livelihoods, jobs, people's food security and health as well as the environment, food production has to remain in the hands of small scale sustainable farmers and cannot be left under the control of large agribusiness companies or supermarket chains. Only by changing the export-led, free-trade based, industrial agriculture model of large farms can the downward spiral of poverty, low wages, rural-urban migration, hunger and environmental degradation be halted. Social rural movements embrace the concept of food sovereignty as an alternative to the neo-liberal approach that puts
its faith in an inequi table international trade to solve the world's food problem. Instead, it focuses on local autonomy, local markets, local production-consumption cycles, energy and technological sovereignty and farmer to farmer networks.
Being a global movement, the Via Campesina has recently brought their message to the North, partly to gain the support of foundations and consumers, as political pressure from a wealthier public which increasingly depends on unique food products from the South marketed via organic, fair trade, or slow food channels could marshal the sufficient political will to curb the expansion of biofuels, transgenic crops and agroexports and put an end to subsidies to industrial farming and dumping practices that hurt small farmers in the South. But can these arguments really captivate the attention and support of northern consumers and philantropists? Or is there a need to come up with a different argument, one that emphasizes that the very quality of life and food security of the populations in the North depend not only on the food products, but in the ecological services provided by small farms of the South. In fact it is herein argued that the functions performed
by small farming syst ems still prevalent in Africa, Asia and Latin America, in the post peak oil era that humanity is entering, comprise an ecological asset for humankind and planetary survival. In fact, in an era of escalating fuel and food costs, climate change, environmental degradation, GMO pollution and corporate dominated food systems, small, biodiverse, agroecologically managed farms in the Global South are the only viable form of agriculture that will feed the world under the new ecological end economic scenario.
There are at last five reasons why Northern consumers should support the cause and struggle of small farmers in the South:
1. Small farmers are key for the world's food security
While 91% of the planet's 1,5 billion hectares of agricultural land are increasingly being devoted to agroexport crops, biofuels and transgenic soybean to feed cars and cattle, millions of small farmers in the developing world produce the majority of staple crops needed to feed the planet's rural and urban populations. In Latin America, about 17 million peasant production units occupying close to 60.5 million hectares, or 34.5% of the total cultivated land with average farm sizes of about 1.8 hectares, produce 51% of the maize, 77% of the beans, and 61% of the potatoes for domestic consumption. Africa has approximately 33 million small farms, representing 80 percent of all farms in the region. Despite the fact that Africa now imports huge amounts of cereals, the majority of African farmers (many of them women) who are smallholders with farms below 2 hectares, produce a significant amount of basic food crops with virtually no or little use of fertilizers
and improved seed. In Asia, the majority of more than 200 million rice farmers, few farm more than 2 ha of rice make up the bulk of the rice produced by Asian small farmers. Small increases in yields on these small farms that produce most of the world´s staple crops will have far more impact on food availability at the local and regional levels, than the doubtful increases predicted for distant and corporate controlled large monocultures managed with such high tech solutions as genetically modified seeds.
2. Small farms are more productive and resource conserving than large scale monocultures
Although the conventional wisdom is that small family farms are backward and unproductive, research shows that small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop. Integrated farming systems in which the small-scale farmer produces grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products out-produce yield per unit of single crops such as corn (monocultures) on large-scale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a small farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also includes beans, squash, potato and fodder. In polycultures developed by smallholders, productivity in terms of harvestable products per unit area is higher than under sole cropping with the same level of management. Yield advantages can range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures reduce of losses due to weeds, insects and diseases and make a more efficient use of the
available resources of wate r, light and nutrients. In overall output, the diversified farm produces much more food, even if measured in dollars. In the USA data shows that the smallest two-hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per acre. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare. Not only do small-medium sized farms exhibit higher yields than conventional farmers, but they do so with much lower negative impact on the environment. Small farms are 'multi-functional' more productive, more efficient, and contribute more to economic development than do large farms. Communities surrounded by populous small farms have healthier economies than do communities surrounded by depopulated large mechanized farms. Small farmers also take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil erosion and conserving biodiversity.
The inverse relationship between farm size and output can be attributed to the more efficient use of land, water, biodiversity and other agricultural resources by small farmers. So in terms of converting inputs into outputs, society would be better off with small-scale farmers. Building strong rural economies in the Global South based on productive small scale farming will allow the people of the South to remain with their families and will help to stem the tide of out migration. And as population continues to grow and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet, especially when large scale agriculture devotes itself to feeding car tanks.
3. Small traditional and biodiverse farms represent models of sustainability
Despite the onslaught of industrial farming, the persistence of thousands of hectares under traditional agricultural management documents a successful indigenous agricultural strategy of adaptability and resiliency. These microcosms of traditional agriculture that have stood the test of time, and that can still be found almost untouched since 4 thousand years in the Andes, MesoAmerica, south east Asia and parts of Africa, offer promising models of sustainability as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields even under marginal environmental conditions. The local knowledge accumulated during millennia and the forms of agriculture and agrobiodiversity that this wisdom has nurtured, comprise a Neolithic legacy embedded with ecological and cultural resources of fundamental value for the future of humankind.
Recent research suggests that many small farmers cope and even prepare for climate change, minimizing crop failure through increase used of drought tolerant local varieties, water harvesting, mixed cropping, opportunistic weeding, agroforestry and a series of other traditional techniques. Surveys conducted in hillsides after Hurricane Mitch in Central America showed that farmers using sustainable practices such as "mucuna" cover crops, intercropping and agroforestry suffered less "damage" than their conventional neighbors. The study spanning 360 communities and 24 departments in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala showed that diversified plots had 20% to 40% more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less erosion and experienced lower economic losses than their conventional neighbors.
This points to the fact that a re-evaluation of indigenous technology can serve as a key source of information on adaptive capacity and resilient capabilities exhibited by small farms, features of strategic importance for world farmers to cope with climatic change. In addition, indigenous technologies often reflect a worldview and an understanding of our relationship to the natural world that is more realistic and more sustainable that those of our Western European heritage.
4. Small farms represent a sanctuary of GMO free agrobiodiversity
In general, traditional small scale farmers grow a wide variety of cultivars . Many of these plants are landraces grown from seed passed down from generation to generation, more genetically heterogeneous than modern cultivars and thus offering greater defenses against vulnerability and enhancing harvest security in the midst of diseases, pests, droughts and other stresses. In a worldwide survey of crop varietal diversity on farm involving 27 crops, scientists found that considerable crop genetic diversity continues to be maintained on farm in the from of traditional crop varieties, especially of major staple crops. In most cases, farmers maintain diversity as in insurance to meet future environmental change or social and economic needs. Many researchers have concluded that variety richness enhances productivity and reduces yield variability. For example, studies by plant pathologists provide evidence that mixing of crop species and or varieties can
delay the onset of diseas es by reducing the spread of disease carrying spores, and by modifying environmental conditions so that they are less favorable to the spread of certain pathogens. Recent research in China, where four different mixtures of rice varieties grown by farmers from fifteen different townships over 3000 hectares, suffered 44% less blast incidence and exhibited 89% greater yield than homogeneous fields without the need to use pesticides.
At issue is the possibility that traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities which may not be important to farmers (Jordan, 2001). Under this scenario risk could increase and farmers would lose their ability to adapt to changing biophysical environments and produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs while supporting their communities' food security.
Although there is a high probability that the introduction of transgenic crops will enter centers of genetic diversity, it is crucial to protect areas of peasant agriculture free of contamination from GMO crops, as traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, food or fodder quality, maturity, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, taste or cooking properties, compatibility with household labor conditions, etc.) could be traded for transgenic qualities (i.e. herbicide resistance) which are of no importance to farmers that don't use agrochemicals. Under this scenario risk will increase and farmers will lose their ability to produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs under changing biophysical environments. The social impacts of local crop shortfalls, resulting from changes in the genetic integrity of local varieties due to genetic pollution, can be considerable in the margins of the
developing world.
Maintaining pools of genetic diversity, geographically isolated from any possibility of cross fertilization or genetic pollution from uniform transgenic crops will create "islands" of intact germplasm which will act as extant safeguards against the potential ecological failure derived from the second green revolution increasingly being imposed with programs such as the Gates-Rockefeller AGRA in Africa. These genetic sanctuary islands will serve as the only source of GMO free seeds that will be needed to repopulate the organic farms in the North inevitably contaminated by the advance of transgenic agriculture. The small farmers and indigenous communities of the Global South, with the solidarious help of scientists and NGOs, can continue being the creators and guardians of a biological and genetic diversity that has enriched the food culture of the whole planet.
5. Small farms cool the climate
While industrial agriculture contributes directly to climate change through no less than one third of total emissions of the major greenhouse gases - Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), small biodiverse organic farms have the opposite effect by increasing the sequestration of carbon in soils. Small farmers usually treat their soils with organic compost materials which absorb and sequester carbon better than soils that are farmed with conventional fertilizers. Researchers have suggested that the conversion of 10,000 small to medium sized farms to organic production, would allow to store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road.
Further climate amelioration contributions by small farms accrue from the fact that most use significantly less fossil fuel in comparison to conventional agriculture mainly due to a reduction of chemical fertilizer and pesticide use relying instead on organic manures, legume-based rotations and diversity schemes to enhance beneficial insects. Farmers that live in rural communities near cities and towns and linked to local markets, avoid the energy wasted and the gas emissions associated with transporting food hundreds and even thousands of miles.
Conclusions
A salient feature of small farming systems is their high levels of agrobiodiversity arranged in the form of variety mixtures, polycultures, crop-livestock combinations and/or agroforestry patterns. Modelling new agroecosystems using such diversified designs are extremely valuable to farmers whose systems are collapsing due to debt, pesticide or transgenic treadmills or climate change, as diverse systems buffer against natural or human-induced variations in production conditions. There is much to learn from indigenous modes of production, as these systems have a strong ecological basis, maintain valuable genetic diversity and lead to regeneration and preservation of biodiversity and natural resources. Traditional methods are particularly instructive because they provide long-term perspective on successful agricultural management under conditions of climatic variability.
Organized social rural movements in the South oppose industrial agriculture in all its manifestations and increasingly their territories constitute isolated areas rich in unique agrobiodiversity, including genetic diverse material, therefore acting as extant safeguards against the potential ecological failure derived from inappropriate agricultural modernization schemes. It is precisely the ability to generate and maintain diverse crop genetic resources that offer "unique" niche possibilities to small farmers that cannot be replicated by farmers in the North condemned to uniform cultivars and to co-exist with GMOs. The " cibo pulito, justo e buono" that Slow Food promotes, the Fair Trade coffee, bananas, and the organic products so much in demand by northern consumers can only be produced in the agroecological islands of the South. This "difference" inherent to traditional systems, can be strategically utilized to revitalize small farming communities by
exploiting unlimited opportunities that exist for linking traditional agrobiodiversity with local/national/international markets, as long as these activities are justly compensated by the North and all the segments of the market remain under grassroots control.
Consumers of the North can play a major role by supporting these more solidarious and equitable markets which do not perpetuate the colonial model of "agriculture of the poor for the rich", but rather a model that catapults small biodiverse farms as the basis for strong rural economies in the South. Such economies will not only provide sustainable production of healthy, agroecologically produced, accessible food for all, but will allow indigenous peoples and small farmers to continue their millennial work of building and conserving the agricultural and natural biodiversity on which we all depend now and more so in the future.
Thanks to Peter Rosset, Researcher at the Center for the Study of Rural Change in Mexico (CECCAM) and Phil Dahl-Bredine, Maryknoll- CEDICAM, Oaxaca, Mexico for helpful comments on the manuscript.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16207.cfm
QUOTE: "The poor and hungry need low-cost, readily available technologies and practices to increase food production." - editorial in New Scientist
EXTRACT: In developing countries, ecological agriculture practices can greatly increase productivity, particularly if the existing system is low-input, which is largely the case for Africa.
--- ---
1. Is ecological agriculture productive?
TWN, 19 December 2008 http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri064.htm
A key question that is often asked about ecological agriculture, including organic agriculture, is whether it can be productive enough to meet the world's food needs. While many agree that ecological agriculture is desirable from an environmental and social point of view, there remain fears that ecological and organic agriculture produce low yields.
Please find below a paper that summarizes some of the available evidence to demystify the productivity debate and demonstrate that ecological agriculture is indeed productive, especially so in developing countries.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister 10400
Penang Malaysia
Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Websites: www.twnside.org.sg, www.biosafety-info.net
Is Ecological Agriculture Productive?
By Lim Li Ching, Researcher, Third World Network (November 2008)
Introduction
A key question that is often asked about ecological agriculture, including organic agriculture, is whether it can be productive enough to meet the world's food needs. While many agree that ecological agriculture is desirable from an environmental and social point of view, there remain fears that ecological and organic agriculture produce low yields.
This short paper will summarise some of the available evidence to demystify the productivity debate and demonstrate that ecological agriculture is indeed productive.
In general, yields from ecological agriculture can be broadly comparable to conventional yields in developed countries. In developing countries, ecological agriculture practices can greatly increase productivity, particularly if the existing system is low-input, which is largely the case for Africa. This paper will focus mainly on evidence from developing countries.
Evidence from global modelling
A recent study examined a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic : non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and developing world (Badgley et al., 2007). For most of the food categories examined, they found that the average yield ratio was slightly less than 1.0 for studies in the developed world, but more than 1.0 for studies in developing countries.
On average, in developed countries, organic systems produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms.
With the average yield ratios, the researchers then modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. They found that organic methods could hypothetically produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without putting more farmland into production.
Moreover, contrary to fears that there are insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilizers, the data suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use.
This model suggests that organic agriculture could potentially provide enough food globally, but without the negative environmental impacts of conventional agriculture.
Evidence from reviews of ecological agriculture projects
In a review of 286 projects in 57 countries, farmers were found to have increased agricultural productivity by an average of 79%, by adopting "resource-conserving" or ecological agriculture (Pretty et al., 2006).
A variety of resource conserving technologies and practices were used, including integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, conservation tillage, agroforestry, water harvesting in dryland areas, and livestock and aquaculture integration into farming systems. These practices not only increased yields, but also reduced adverse effects on the environment and contributed to important environmental goods and services (e.g., climate change mitigation), as evidenced by increased water use efficiency and carbon sequestration, and reduced pesticide use.
The work built on earlier research, which assessed 208 sustainable agriculture projects. The earlier research found that for 89 projects for which there was reliable yield data, farmers had, by adopting sustainable agriculture practices, achieved substantial increases in per hectare food production - the yield increases were 50-100% for rain-fed crops, though considerably greater in a number of cases, and 5-10% for irrigated crops (Pretty and Hine, 2001).
Disaggregated data show:
* Average food production per household rose by 1.7 tonnes per year (up by 73%) for 4.42 million small farmers growing cereals and roots on 3.6 million hectares. * Increase in food production was 17 tonnes per year (up 150%) for 146,000 farmers on 542,000 hectares cultivating roots (potato, sweet potato, cassava). * Total production rose by 150 tonnes per household (up by 46%) for the larger farms in Latin America (average size 90 hectares).
The database on agricultural sustainability (comprising the 286 projects) was reanalyzed to produce a summary of the impacts of organic and near-organic projects on agricultural productivity in Africa (Hine and Pretty, 2008). The average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects than the global average (79%): 116% increase for all African projects and 128% increase for the projects in East Africa.
For Kenyan projects, the increase in yield was 179%, for Tanzanian projects 67% and for Ugandan projects 54%. Moreover, all case studies that focused on food production in this research where data have been reported, showed increases in per hectare productivity of food crops, which challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity.
Evidence from specific ecological agriculture interventions
Data from the Tigray Project in the Tigray Region in Ethiopia, where a project on ecological agriculture has been carried out since 1996, concretely demonstrate the benefits of compost on productivity. Preliminary data collected in 1998 had already shown that using compost gave similar yield increases as chemical fertilizers. Data collected in 2002, 2003 and 2004 showed that, on average, composted fields gave higher yields, sometimes double, than those treated with chemical fertilizers (Araya and Edwards, 2006).
In a new paper written for the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), statistical analysis on a larger data set over the years 2000 to 2006 inclusive confirms that compost use in Tigray has increased yields in all the crops analysed (Edwards et al., 2008). In total, data was collected from 974 fields from 19 communities. Grain and straw yield data were obtained for barley, durum wheat, finger millet, hanfets (a mixture of barley and durum wheat), maize, sorghum, teff, faba bean and field pea.
Except for field pea, the compost generally doubled the grain yield when compared to each respective check (crops grown without any inputs). (For field pea, the increase in yield was approximately 28%.) The difference was significant (95% confidence limit). The application of compost also increased straw yield compared to the check, but not to the same extent as it increased grain yield.
The use of compost also gave higher yields than the use of chemical fertilizer, though differences in the yields from compost and from chemical fertilizer were not as great as the differences between the use of compost and the check. For sorghum and faba bean the yields from the use of compost and chemical fertilizer were similar. But the yield difference for all the other crops was greater with that from the compost treatment being always higher than that from the use of chemical fertilizer. The results also showed that compost not only increases the overall biomass yield, but also increases the proportion of the grain to straw in the yield.
Since 1998, the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development of Tigray Region has adopted the making of compost as part of its extension package and by 2007 at least 25% of the farmers are making and using compost. A reflection of the success of this approach is that between 2003 and 2006, grain yield for the Region almost doubled from 714 to 1,354 thousand tonnes. Since 1998, there has also been a steady decrease in the use of chemical fertilizer from 13.7 to 8.2 thousand tonnes.
There are many other specific examples of increased yields following the application of ecological agriculture practices, some of which are summarized below (Hine and Pretty, 2008; Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Pretty and Hine, 2001; Scialabba and Hattam, 2002).
In Africa:
* Soil and water conservation in the drylands of Burkina Faso and Niger have transformed formerly degraded lands. The average family has shifted from being in cereal deficit of 644 kg per year (equivalent to 6.5 months of food shortage) to producing an annual surplus of 153 kg.
* In Ethiopia, some 12,500 households have adopted sustainable agriculture, resulting in a 60% increase in crop yields.
* In Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from composted plots were 3-5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals.
* Projects in Senegal promoted stall-fed livestock, composting systems, green manures, water harvesting systems and rock phosphate. Yields of millet and peanuts increased dramatically by 75-195% and 75-165% respectively.
* In Kenya, 500 farmers on some 1000 hectares have seen maize yields improve from about 2 to 4 t/ha following the application of soil conservation, soil fertility and organic agriculture methods.
* A range of biological pest management methods together with legumes, cover crops and green manures for soil fertility improvement resulted in a doubling of beans and groundnut yields from 300 to 600 kg/ha in western Kenya.
* In eastern and central Kenya, smallholder farmers have been trained in natural soil fertility management; integrated environmentally friendly weed, pest and disease protection; on-farm soil and water conservation techniques; and farm level seed conservation, with a resulting 50% increase in productivity and 40% increase in income.
* More than 1000 farmers in low soil fertility areas in the North Rift and western regions of Kenya increased maize yields to 3,414 kg/ha (71% increase in productivity) and bean yields to 258 kg/ha (158% increase in productivity) as compared to traditional agriculture, by incorporating soil fertility management, crop diversification and improved crop management.
* Integration of pond fish culture into low-input farm systems with some 2000 farmers in Malawi increased vegetable yields from 2700 to 4000 kg/ha, with the fish ponds producing the equivalent of 1500 kg/ha of fish, a new source of food for households.
In Latin America:
* 45,000 families in Honduras and Guatemala have increased crop yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2000-2500 kg/ha using green manures, cover crops, contour grass strips, in-row tillage, rock bunds and animal manures.
* The states of Santa Caterina, Paraná and Rio Grande do Sol in southern Brazil have focused on soil and water conservation using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing and green manures. Maize yields have risen from 3 to 5 tonnes/ha and soybeans from 2.8 to 4.7 tonnes/ha.
* The high mountain regions of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador are some of the most difficult areas in the world for growing crops. Despite this, farmers have increased potato yields by three fold, particularly by using green manures to enrich the soil. Using these methods, some 2000 farmers in Bolivia have improved potato production from about 4000 kg/ha to 10-15000 kg/ha.
* In Brazil, use of green manures and cover crops increased maize yields by between 20-250%.
* In Peru, restoration of traditional Incan terracing led to increases of 150% for upland crops.
* In Honduras, soil conservation practices and organic fertilisers have tripled or quadrupled yields.
* In Cuba, there are more than 7000 organic urban gardens and productivity has grown from 1.5 kg/m2 to nearly 20 kg/m2.
In Asia:
* Participatory irrigation management in Philippines has increased rice yields by about 20%.
* Yield increases of 175% were reported from farms in Nepal adopting agro-ecological practices.
* In Pakistan, yields of mango and citrus fruits increased by 150-200% after adopting organic agriculture techniques such as mulching, no till production, composting and planting the fruit trees in double dug beds.
Conclusion
It is clear that ecological agriculture is productive and has the potential to meet food security needs, particularly in the African context. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development concurs that an increase and strengthening of agricultural knowledge, science and technology toward agroecological sciences will contribute to addressing environmental issues while maintaining and increasing productivity (IAASTD, 2008). Moreover, ecological agricultural approaches allow farmers to improve local food production with low-cost, readily available technologies and inputs, without causing environmental damage.
References
Araya, H. and Edwards, S. 2006. The Tigray experience: A success story in sustainable agriculture. Third World Network Environment and Development Series 4. TWN: Penang.
Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M.J., Avilés-Vázquez, K., Samulon, A. & Perfecto, I. 2007. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22: 86-108.
Edwards, S., Asmelash A., Araya, H. and Egziabher, T.B.G. 2008. The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia, 2000-2006 inclusive.
Hine, R. and Pretty, J. 2008. Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Geneva and New York.
IAASTD. 2008. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. www.agassessment.org
Parrott, N. and Marsden, T. 2002. The real Green Revolution: Organic and agroecological farming in the South. Greenpeace Environment Trust: London.
Pretty, J. & Hine, R. 2001. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: a summary of new evidence. UK: University of Essex Centre for Environment and Society.
Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T. & Morison, J.I.L. 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology (Policy Analysis) 40(4): 1114-1119.
Scialabba, N.E-H. and Hattam, C. (eds). 2002. Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security. Rome: FAO.
--- ---
2. Small farms as a planetary ecological asset http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri045.htm
The paper below, by Miguel Altieri, President of the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA) and Professor of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that small farms are ecological assets.
Small farming systems are still prevalent in Latin America, Asia and Africa, and high levels of agrobiodiversity are salient features of such systems. Altieri highlights five important reasons (among others) why small farms should be supported, particularly given current economic conditions and climate variability:
1. Small farmers are key for the world's food security
2. Small farms are more productive and resource conserving than large scale monocultures
3. Small traditional and biodiverse farms represent models of sustainability
4. Small farms represent a sanctuary of GMO free agrobiodiversity
5. Small farms cool the climate
The paper can also be found at http://www.landaction.org/spip/spip.php?article315
With best wishes,
Lim Li Ching Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Websites: www.twnside.org.sg, www.biosafety-info.net
-----------------------------
Small farms as a planetary ecological asset: Five key reasons why we should support the revitalization of small farms in the global South
Miguel A. Altieri President, Sociedad Cientifica LatinoAmericana de Agroecologia (SOCLA)
The Via Campesina has long argued that farmers need land to produce food for their own communities and for their country and for this reason has advocated for genuine agrarian reforms to access and control land, water, agrobiodiversity, etc., which are of central importance for communities to be able to meet growing food demands. The Via Campesina believes that in order to protect livelihoods, jobs, people's food security and health as well as the environment, food production has to remain in the hands of small scale sustainable farmers and cannot be left under the control of large agribusiness companies or supermarket chains. Only by changing the export-led, free-trade based, industrial agriculture model of large farms can the downward spiral of poverty, low wages, rural-urban migration, hunger and environmental degradation be halted. Social rural movements embrace the concept of food sovereignty as an alternative to the neo-liberal approach that puts
its faith in an inequi table international trade to solve the world's food problem. Instead, it focuses on local autonomy, local markets, local production-consumption cycles, energy and technological sovereignty and farmer to farmer networks.
Being a global movement, the Via Campesina has recently brought their message to the North, partly to gain the support of foundations and consumers, as political pressure from a wealthier public which increasingly depends on unique food products from the South marketed via organic, fair trade, or slow food channels could marshal the sufficient political will to curb the expansion of biofuels, transgenic crops and agroexports and put an end to subsidies to industrial farming and dumping practices that hurt small farmers in the South. But can these arguments really captivate the attention and support of northern consumers and philantropists? Or is there a need to come up with a different argument, one that emphasizes that the very quality of life and food security of the populations in the North depend not only on the food products, but in the ecological services provided by small farms of the South. In fact it is herein argued that the functions performed
by small farming syst ems still prevalent in Africa, Asia and Latin America, in the post peak oil era that humanity is entering, comprise an ecological asset for humankind and planetary survival. In fact, in an era of escalating fuel and food costs, climate change, environmental degradation, GMO pollution and corporate dominated food systems, small, biodiverse, agroecologically managed farms in the Global South are the only viable form of agriculture that will feed the world under the new ecological end economic scenario.
There are at last five reasons why Northern consumers should support the cause and struggle of small farmers in the South:
1. Small farmers are key for the world's food security
While 91% of the planet's 1,5 billion hectares of agricultural land are increasingly being devoted to agroexport crops, biofuels and transgenic soybean to feed cars and cattle, millions of small farmers in the developing world produce the majority of staple crops needed to feed the planet's rural and urban populations. In Latin America, about 17 million peasant production units occupying close to 60.5 million hectares, or 34.5% of the total cultivated land with average farm sizes of about 1.8 hectares, produce 51% of the maize, 77% of the beans, and 61% of the potatoes for domestic consumption. Africa has approximately 33 million small farms, representing 80 percent of all farms in the region. Despite the fact that Africa now imports huge amounts of cereals, the majority of African farmers (many of them women) who are smallholders with farms below 2 hectares, produce a significant amount of basic food crops with virtually no or little use of fertilizers
and improved seed. In Asia, the majority of more than 200 million rice farmers, few farm more than 2 ha of rice make up the bulk of the rice produced by Asian small farmers. Small increases in yields on these small farms that produce most of the world´s staple crops will have far more impact on food availability at the local and regional levels, than the doubtful increases predicted for distant and corporate controlled large monocultures managed with such high tech solutions as genetically modified seeds.
2. Small farms are more productive and resource conserving than large scale monocultures
Although the conventional wisdom is that small family farms are backward and unproductive, research shows that small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop. Integrated farming systems in which the small-scale farmer produces grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products out-produce yield per unit of single crops such as corn (monocultures) on large-scale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a small farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also includes beans, squash, potato and fodder. In polycultures developed by smallholders, productivity in terms of harvestable products per unit area is higher than under sole cropping with the same level of management. Yield advantages can range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures reduce of losses due to weeds, insects and diseases and make a more efficient use of the
available resources of wate r, light and nutrients. In overall output, the diversified farm produces much more food, even if measured in dollars. In the USA data shows that the smallest two-hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per acre. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare. Not only do small-medium sized farms exhibit higher yields than conventional farmers, but they do so with much lower negative impact on the environment. Small farms are 'multi-functional' more productive, more efficient, and contribute more to economic development than do large farms. Communities surrounded by populous small farms have healthier economies than do communities surrounded by depopulated large mechanized farms. Small farmers also take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil erosion and conserving biodiversity.
The inverse relationship between farm size and output can be attributed to the more efficient use of land, water, biodiversity and other agricultural resources by small farmers. So in terms of converting inputs into outputs, society would be better off with small-scale farmers. Building strong rural economies in the Global South based on productive small scale farming will allow the people of the South to remain with their families and will help to stem the tide of out migration. And as population continues to grow and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet, especially when large scale agriculture devotes itself to feeding car tanks.
3. Small traditional and biodiverse farms represent models of sustainability
Despite the onslaught of industrial farming, the persistence of thousands of hectares under traditional agricultural management documents a successful indigenous agricultural strategy of adaptability and resiliency. These microcosms of traditional agriculture that have stood the test of time, and that can still be found almost untouched since 4 thousand years in the Andes, MesoAmerica, south east Asia and parts of Africa, offer promising models of sustainability as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields even under marginal environmental conditions. The local knowledge accumulated during millennia and the forms of agriculture and agrobiodiversity that this wisdom has nurtured, comprise a Neolithic legacy embedded with ecological and cultural resources of fundamental value for the future of humankind.
Recent research suggests that many small farmers cope and even prepare for climate change, minimizing crop failure through increase used of drought tolerant local varieties, water harvesting, mixed cropping, opportunistic weeding, agroforestry and a series of other traditional techniques. Surveys conducted in hillsides after Hurricane Mitch in Central America showed that farmers using sustainable practices such as "mucuna" cover crops, intercropping and agroforestry suffered less "damage" than their conventional neighbors. The study spanning 360 communities and 24 departments in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala showed that diversified plots had 20% to 40% more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less erosion and experienced lower economic losses than their conventional neighbors.
This points to the fact that a re-evaluation of indigenous technology can serve as a key source of information on adaptive capacity and resilient capabilities exhibited by small farms, features of strategic importance for world farmers to cope with climatic change. In addition, indigenous technologies often reflect a worldview and an understanding of our relationship to the natural world that is more realistic and more sustainable that those of our Western European heritage.
4. Small farms represent a sanctuary of GMO free agrobiodiversity
In general, traditional small scale farmers grow a wide variety of cultivars . Many of these plants are landraces grown from seed passed down from generation to generation, more genetically heterogeneous than modern cultivars and thus offering greater defenses against vulnerability and enhancing harvest security in the midst of diseases, pests, droughts and other stresses. In a worldwide survey of crop varietal diversity on farm involving 27 crops, scientists found that considerable crop genetic diversity continues to be maintained on farm in the from of traditional crop varieties, especially of major staple crops. In most cases, farmers maintain diversity as in insurance to meet future environmental change or social and economic needs. Many researchers have concluded that variety richness enhances productivity and reduces yield variability. For example, studies by plant pathologists provide evidence that mixing of crop species and or varieties can
delay the onset of diseas es by reducing the spread of disease carrying spores, and by modifying environmental conditions so that they are less favorable to the spread of certain pathogens. Recent research in China, where four different mixtures of rice varieties grown by farmers from fifteen different townships over 3000 hectares, suffered 44% less blast incidence and exhibited 89% greater yield than homogeneous fields without the need to use pesticides.
At issue is the possibility that traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities which may not be important to farmers (Jordan, 2001). Under this scenario risk could increase and farmers would lose their ability to adapt to changing biophysical environments and produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs while supporting their communities' food security.
Although there is a high probability that the introduction of transgenic crops will enter centers of genetic diversity, it is crucial to protect areas of peasant agriculture free of contamination from GMO crops, as traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, food or fodder quality, maturity, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, taste or cooking properties, compatibility with household labor conditions, etc.) could be traded for transgenic qualities (i.e. herbicide resistance) which are of no importance to farmers that don't use agrochemicals. Under this scenario risk will increase and farmers will lose their ability to produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs under changing biophysical environments. The social impacts of local crop shortfalls, resulting from changes in the genetic integrity of local varieties due to genetic pollution, can be considerable in the margins of the
developing world.
Maintaining pools of genetic diversity, geographically isolated from any possibility of cross fertilization or genetic pollution from uniform transgenic crops will create "islands" of intact germplasm which will act as extant safeguards against the potential ecological failure derived from the second green revolution increasingly being imposed with programs such as the Gates-Rockefeller AGRA in Africa. These genetic sanctuary islands will serve as the only source of GMO free seeds that will be needed to repopulate the organic farms in the North inevitably contaminated by the advance of transgenic agriculture. The small farmers and indigenous communities of the Global South, with the solidarious help of scientists and NGOs, can continue being the creators and guardians of a biological and genetic diversity that has enriched the food culture of the whole planet.
5. Small farms cool the climate
While industrial agriculture contributes directly to climate change through no less than one third of total emissions of the major greenhouse gases - Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), small biodiverse organic farms have the opposite effect by increasing the sequestration of carbon in soils. Small farmers usually treat their soils with organic compost materials which absorb and sequester carbon better than soils that are farmed with conventional fertilizers. Researchers have suggested that the conversion of 10,000 small to medium sized farms to organic production, would allow to store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road.
Further climate amelioration contributions by small farms accrue from the fact that most use significantly less fossil fuel in comparison to conventional agriculture mainly due to a reduction of chemical fertilizer and pesticide use relying instead on organic manures, legume-based rotations and diversity schemes to enhance beneficial insects. Farmers that live in rural communities near cities and towns and linked to local markets, avoid the energy wasted and the gas emissions associated with transporting food hundreds and even thousands of miles.
Conclusions
A salient feature of small farming systems is their high levels of agrobiodiversity arranged in the form of variety mixtures, polycultures, crop-livestock combinations and/or agroforestry patterns. Modelling new agroecosystems using such diversified designs are extremely valuable to farmers whose systems are collapsing due to debt, pesticide or transgenic treadmills or climate change, as diverse systems buffer against natural or human-induced variations in production conditions. There is much to learn from indigenous modes of production, as these systems have a strong ecological basis, maintain valuable genetic diversity and lead to regeneration and preservation of biodiversity and natural resources. Traditional methods are particularly instructive because they provide long-term perspective on successful agricultural management under conditions of climatic variability.
Organized social rural movements in the South oppose industrial agriculture in all its manifestations and increasingly their territories constitute isolated areas rich in unique agrobiodiversity, including genetic diverse material, therefore acting as extant safeguards against the potential ecological failure derived from inappropriate agricultural modernization schemes. It is precisely the ability to generate and maintain diverse crop genetic resources that offer "unique" niche possibilities to small farmers that cannot be replicated by farmers in the North condemned to uniform cultivars and to co-exist with GMOs. The " cibo pulito, justo e buono" that Slow Food promotes, the Fair Trade coffee, bananas, and the organic products so much in demand by northern consumers can only be produced in the agroecological islands of the South. This "difference" inherent to traditional systems, can be strategically utilized to revitalize small farming communities by
exploiting unlimited opportunities that exist for linking traditional agrobiodiversity with local/national/international markets, as long as these activities are justly compensated by the North and all the segments of the market remain under grassroots control.
Consumers of the North can play a major role by supporting these more solidarious and equitable markets which do not perpetuate the colonial model of "agriculture of the poor for the rich", but rather a model that catapults small biodiverse farms as the basis for strong rural economies in the South. Such economies will not only provide sustainable production of healthy, agroecologically produced, accessible food for all, but will allow indigenous peoples and small farmers to continue their millennial work of building and conserving the agricultural and natural biodiversity on which we all depend now and more so in the future.
Thanks to Peter Rosset, Researcher at the Center for the Study of Rural Change in Mexico (CECCAM) and Phil Dahl-Bredine, Maryknoll- CEDICAM, Oaxaca, Mexico for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
What To Do With Your Leftover Food - by Heather Havey, M.A.
What To Do With Your Leftover Food by Heather Havey, M.A.
When you eat, firstly and most importantly, EAT ORGANIC FOOD. This is EXTREMELY important, because any other choice is filled with some degree of poison. In some cases, up to 30 or more poisons are used on a single crop!!! In my opinion, eating a conventional vegetarian or vegan diet (one that is not organic), is JUST as dangerous for your health, if not more so, than eating meat and dairy and lots of processed foods.
Secondly, what should you do with your leftover ORGANIC food? =)
The answer is Simple, and Wonderful!
YOUR LEFTOVER FOOD CAN FEED EITHER THE SOIL OR THE ANIMALS.
Birds love to eat seeds, breads, anything made with flour, chunks of fruit or nuts, pasta, and so on.
Squirrels also love nuts, seeds, and vegetables.
If you dump food, do it away from your house, because rats and mice and other animals ALSO love food remains, so you don't want those lingering around and digging holes under your house...simply because it can cause challenges for you in a garden or even with plumbing or electrical if they get into walls or dig under the house.
Throw food remains into nearby woods, if that is an option.
Also, if you compost, simply throw the food remains into your compost bin. Then the micro-organisms and insects will help you to build healthy, new soil for use in your garden.
It's really quite wonderful to consider how you can feed and support local wildlife and health of your own soil, simply by giving all your food remains back to nature.
Aloha; have a blessed day, Heather Havey
Send your friends uplifting and beautiful ecards.
When you eat, firstly and most importantly, EAT ORGANIC FOOD. This is EXTREMELY important, because any other choice is filled with some degree of poison. In some cases, up to 30 or more poisons are used on a single crop!!! In my opinion, eating a conventional vegetarian or vegan diet (one that is not organic), is JUST as dangerous for your health, if not more so, than eating meat and dairy and lots of processed foods.
Secondly, what should you do with your leftover ORGANIC food? =)
The answer is Simple, and Wonderful!
YOUR LEFTOVER FOOD CAN FEED EITHER THE SOIL OR THE ANIMALS.
Birds love to eat seeds, breads, anything made with flour, chunks of fruit or nuts, pasta, and so on.
Squirrels also love nuts, seeds, and vegetables.
If you dump food, do it away from your house, because rats and mice and other animals ALSO love food remains, so you don't want those lingering around and digging holes under your house...simply because it can cause challenges for you in a garden or even with plumbing or electrical if they get into walls or dig under the house.
Throw food remains into nearby woods, if that is an option.
Also, if you compost, simply throw the food remains into your compost bin. Then the micro-organisms and insects will help you to build healthy, new soil for use in your garden.
It's really quite wonderful to consider how you can feed and support local wildlife and health of your own soil, simply by giving all your food remains back to nature.
Aloha; have a blessed day, Heather Havey
Send your friends uplifting and beautiful ecards.
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.
(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.Thursday, November 6, 2008
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
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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Organic Farming "Could Feed Africa"
Organic farming 'could feed Africa'
source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-farming-could-feed-africa-968641.html
Traditional practices increase yield by 128 per cent in east Africa, says UN
By Daniel Howden in Nairobi
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
New evidence suggests that organic practices - derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad - are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers
Getty
New evidence suggests that organic practices - derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad - are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers
* Photos enlarge
* Print Print
* Email Email
Search Search Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share
* Digg It
* del.icio.us
* Facebook
* Reddit
What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A
Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition it has been locked in for decades, according to a major study from the United Nations to be presented today.
New evidence suggests that organic practices – derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad – are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers who remain among the poorest people on earth. The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, said the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world maybe far higher than many had supposed".
The "green revolution" in agriculture in the 1960s – when the production of food caught and surpassed the needs of the global population for the first time – largely bypassed Africa. Whereas each person today has 25 per cent more food on average than they did in 1960, in Africa they have 10 per cent less.
A combination of increasing population, decreasing rainfall and soil fertility and a surge in food prices has left Africa uniquely vulnerable to famine. Climate change is expected to make a bad situation worse by increasing the frequency of droughts and floods.
It has been conventional wisdom among African governments that modern, mechanised agriculture was needed to close the gap but efforts in this direction have had little impact on food poverty and done nothing to create a sustainable approach. Now, the global food crisis has led to renewed calls for a massive modernisation of agriculture on the hungriest continent on the planet, with calls to push ahead with genetically modified crops and large industrial farms to avoid potentially disastrous starvation.
Last month the UK's former chief scientist Sir David King said anti-scientific attitudes among Western NGOs and the UN were responsible for holding back a much-needed green revolution in Africa. "The problem is that the Western world's move toward organic farming – a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food – and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across the whole of Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences," he said.
The research conducted by the UN Environment Programme suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings with it.
An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in east Africa.
"Organic farming can often lead to polarised views," said Mr Steiner, a former economist. "With some viewing it as a saviour and others as a niche product or something of a luxury... this report suggests it could make a serious contribution to tackling poverty and food insecurity."
The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming. It also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. And the research highlighted the role that learning organic practices could have in improving local education. Backers of GM foods insist that a technological fix is needed to feed the world. But this form of agriculture requires cash to buy the patented seeds and herbicides – both at record high prices currently – needed to grow GM crops.
Regional farming experts have long called for "good farming", rather than exclusively GM or organic. Better seeds, crop rotation, irrigation and access to markets all help farmers. Organic certification in countries such as the UK and Australia still presents an insurmountable barrier to most African exporters, the report points out. It calls for greater access to markets so farmers can get the best prices for their products.
Kenyan farmer: 'I wanted to see how UK did it'
Henry Murage had to travel a long way to solve problems trying to farm a smallholding on the western slopes of Mount Kenya. He spent five months in the UK, studying with the experts at Garden Organic a charity in the Midlands. "I wanted to see how it was being done in the UK and was convinced we could do some of the same things here," he says.
On his return 10 years ago, he set up the Mt Kenya Organic Farm, aimed at aiding other small farmers fighting the semi-arid conditions. He believes organic soil management can help retain moisture and protect against crop failure. The true test came during the devastating drought of2000-02, when Mr Murage's vegetable gardens fared better than his neighbours'. At least 300 farmers have visited his gardens and taken up at least one of the practices he espouses. "Organic can feed the people in rural areas," he says. "It's sustainable and what we produce now we can go on producing."
Saving money on fertilisers and pesticides helps farmers afford better seeds, and composting and crop rotation are improving the soil. Traditional maize, beans and livestock farming in the area have been supplemented with new crops from borage seeds to cayenne peppers and honey, with buyers from the US to Europe. Now he is growing camomile for herbal tea, with buyers from the UK and Germany both interested.
Interesting
source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-farming-could-feed-africa-968641.html
Traditional practices increase yield by 128 per cent in east Africa, says UN
By Daniel Howden in Nairobi
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
New evidence suggests that organic practices - derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad - are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers
Getty
New evidence suggests that organic practices - derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad - are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers
* Photos enlarge
* Print Print
* Email Email
Search Search Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share
* Digg It
* del.icio.us
What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A
Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition it has been locked in for decades, according to a major study from the United Nations to be presented today.
New evidence suggests that organic practices – derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad – are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers who remain among the poorest people on earth. The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, said the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world maybe far higher than many had supposed".
The "green revolution" in agriculture in the 1960s – when the production of food caught and surpassed the needs of the global population for the first time – largely bypassed Africa. Whereas each person today has 25 per cent more food on average than they did in 1960, in Africa they have 10 per cent less.
A combination of increasing population, decreasing rainfall and soil fertility and a surge in food prices has left Africa uniquely vulnerable to famine. Climate change is expected to make a bad situation worse by increasing the frequency of droughts and floods.
It has been conventional wisdom among African governments that modern, mechanised agriculture was needed to close the gap but efforts in this direction have had little impact on food poverty and done nothing to create a sustainable approach. Now, the global food crisis has led to renewed calls for a massive modernisation of agriculture on the hungriest continent on the planet, with calls to push ahead with genetically modified crops and large industrial farms to avoid potentially disastrous starvation.
Last month the UK's former chief scientist Sir David King said anti-scientific attitudes among Western NGOs and the UN were responsible for holding back a much-needed green revolution in Africa. "The problem is that the Western world's move toward organic farming – a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food – and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across the whole of Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences," he said.
The research conducted by the UN Environment Programme suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings with it.
An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in east Africa.
"Organic farming can often lead to polarised views," said Mr Steiner, a former economist. "With some viewing it as a saviour and others as a niche product or something of a luxury... this report suggests it could make a serious contribution to tackling poverty and food insecurity."
The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming. It also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. And the research highlighted the role that learning organic practices could have in improving local education. Backers of GM foods insist that a technological fix is needed to feed the world. But this form of agriculture requires cash to buy the patented seeds and herbicides – both at record high prices currently – needed to grow GM crops.
Regional farming experts have long called for "good farming", rather than exclusively GM or organic. Better seeds, crop rotation, irrigation and access to markets all help farmers. Organic certification in countries such as the UK and Australia still presents an insurmountable barrier to most African exporters, the report points out. It calls for greater access to markets so farmers can get the best prices for their products.
Kenyan farmer: 'I wanted to see how UK did it'
Henry Murage had to travel a long way to solve problems trying to farm a smallholding on the western slopes of Mount Kenya. He spent five months in the UK, studying with the experts at Garden Organic a charity in the Midlands. "I wanted to see how it was being done in the UK and was convinced we could do some of the same things here," he says.
On his return 10 years ago, he set up the Mt Kenya Organic Farm, aimed at aiding other small farmers fighting the semi-arid conditions. He believes organic soil management can help retain moisture and protect against crop failure. The true test came during the devastating drought of2000-02, when Mr Murage's vegetable gardens fared better than his neighbours'. At least 300 farmers have visited his gardens and taken up at least one of the practices he espouses. "Organic can feed the people in rural areas," he says. "It's sustainable and what we produce now we can go on producing."
Saving money on fertilisers and pesticides helps farmers afford better seeds, and composting and crop rotation are improving the soil. Traditional maize, beans and livestock farming in the area have been supplemented with new crops from borage seeds to cayenne peppers and honey, with buyers from the US to Europe. Now he is growing camomile for herbal tea, with buyers from the UK and Germany both interested.
Interesting
Monday, October 20, 2008
Organic Farming Can Combat Global Warming
Study shows that organic farming can combat global warming
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. In fact, 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. Even if we just converted the U.S.’s 160 million corn and soybean acres to organic production, it would sequester enough carbon to satisfy 73 percent of the Kyoto targets for CO2 reduction in the U.S. See the full story here: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ob_3 .Need more reasons to buy organic? According to the Organic Consumers Association:
- 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.
What can you do?
Let your grocer know you want organically grown foods and buy organic products as much as possible. Visit local farms and farmers' markets and talk to the farmers. Even if they are not certified organic, they may be growing using organic practices.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
6 Food Labels that could Deceive You
6 Food Labels That Could Deceive You
Recognize These Misleading Labels So You Know What You're Getting
By Annie Bell Muzaurieta
http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/healthy-eating/eat-safe/misleading-food-labels-44101608
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/misleading-food-labels-44101608?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=dgr&kw=ist
You want to know that when you select a food product labeled as having certain virtues that the company will stand behind what's promised.
But while some food labels are federally monitored and clearly defined (organic, for example), others aren't so strictly regulated. Consumer Reports' Greener Choices website decodes commonly used food labels at its eco-labels center.
Here are 6 potentially misleading food labels:
Free-Range or Free-Roaming: You probably most often see this term stamped on eggs, but it's also used on chicken and other meat to suggest that the animal has spent a good portion of its life outdoors. Consumer Reports says, though, that the standards for these terms are weak, and the rule for the label is only that outdoor access be made available for "an undetermined period each day." So those free range eggs could mean that the chicken who laid them lived in a coop where the door was open for five minutes a day. Roaming free? We don't think so.
Natural or All Natural: People often assume this label means organic or healthy. But no standard definition for natural exists. Consumer Reports says the term only has meaning when it's applied to meat and poultry products and means that the items contain no artificial flavoring, colors, chemical preservatives, or synthetic ingredients. But the producer or manufacturer decides whether or not to use it, without having the claims verified.
No Additives: Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher or Consumer Reports, says that a no additives label is often used to imply that a product has not been enhanced with the addition of natural or artificial ingredients. But there is no official definition for the term and it isn't verified when used.
No Animal By-Products: You might see this label on everything from condiments and meat (to indicate the animals were not fed any animal by-products), to cleaning and personal care products. This term is used to suggest that no ingredients are by-products from slaughtered animals. This might be helpful when it's not obvious; natural flavor could come from vegetables or animals, for example. But Consumers Union says the label is tricky because there isn't a standard, precise definition of "animal ingredients" and the label isn't used consistently. It also isn't verified by an outside body.
100% Vegan: Vegans generally avoid animal products for food and clothing, and often want to avoid products that were tested on animals. But this label does not have a standard or consistent definition and isn't verified. Alternatively, a Certified Vegan label is a registered trademark signifying that products are vegan--meaning they contain no animal ingredients or by-products, use no animal ingredients or by-products in the manufacturing process, and are not tested on animals by any company or independent contractor. The logo is administered by the Vegan Awareness Foundation, also known as Vegan Action.
Raised Without Antibiotics: Consumers Union says this term implies that no antibiotics were used in the production of a food product. The USDA has defined it to mean that meat and poultry products came from animals who were raised without the use of low-level or therapeutic doses of antibiotics. But a recent case of this label being used inaccurately by a major poultry producer illustrates some of the problems: there is no formal definition and while the USDA can hold a manufacturer accountable for the claim, no other organization is behind or verifies the claim.
Recognize These Misleading Labels So You Know What You're Getting
By Annie Bell Muzaurieta
http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/healthy-eating/eat-safe/misleading-food-labels-44101608
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/misleading-food-labels-44101608?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=dgr&kw=ist
You want to know that when you select a food product labeled as having certain virtues that the company will stand behind what's promised.
But while some food labels are federally monitored and clearly defined (organic, for example), others aren't so strictly regulated. Consumer Reports' Greener Choices website decodes commonly used food labels at its eco-labels center.
Here are 6 potentially misleading food labels:
Free-Range or Free-Roaming: You probably most often see this term stamped on eggs, but it's also used on chicken and other meat to suggest that the animal has spent a good portion of its life outdoors. Consumer Reports says, though, that the standards for these terms are weak, and the rule for the label is only that outdoor access be made available for "an undetermined period each day." So those free range eggs could mean that the chicken who laid them lived in a coop where the door was open for five minutes a day. Roaming free? We don't think so.
Natural or All Natural: People often assume this label means organic or healthy. But no standard definition for natural exists. Consumer Reports says the term only has meaning when it's applied to meat and poultry products and means that the items contain no artificial flavoring, colors, chemical preservatives, or synthetic ingredients. But the producer or manufacturer decides whether or not to use it, without having the claims verified.
No Additives: Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher or Consumer Reports, says that a no additives label is often used to imply that a product has not been enhanced with the addition of natural or artificial ingredients. But there is no official definition for the term and it isn't verified when used.
No Animal By-Products: You might see this label on everything from condiments and meat (to indicate the animals were not fed any animal by-products), to cleaning and personal care products. This term is used to suggest that no ingredients are by-products from slaughtered animals. This might be helpful when it's not obvious; natural flavor could come from vegetables or animals, for example. But Consumers Union says the label is tricky because there isn't a standard, precise definition of "animal ingredients" and the label isn't used consistently. It also isn't verified by an outside body.
100% Vegan: Vegans generally avoid animal products for food and clothing, and often want to avoid products that were tested on animals. But this label does not have a standard or consistent definition and isn't verified. Alternatively, a Certified Vegan label is a registered trademark signifying that products are vegan--meaning they contain no animal ingredients or by-products, use no animal ingredients or by-products in the manufacturing process, and are not tested on animals by any company or independent contractor. The logo is administered by the Vegan Awareness Foundation, also known as Vegan Action.
Raised Without Antibiotics: Consumers Union says this term implies that no antibiotics were used in the production of a food product. The USDA has defined it to mean that meat and poultry products came from animals who were raised without the use of low-level or therapeutic doses of antibiotics. But a recent case of this label being used inaccurately by a major poultry producer illustrates some of the problems: there is no formal definition and while the USDA can hold a manufacturer accountable for the claim, no other organization is behind or verifies the claim.
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 | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||
| |
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.
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:
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."
Global climate change and the carbon cycleWhile 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:
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.
"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.)
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. | |||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
