Showing posts with label solution: local farming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solution: local farming. Show all posts

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Why it is important to grow or buy - and eat - locally grown food!

Why it is important to grow or buy - and eat - locally grown food!

I couldn't find labels on all of my produce, but let's take a look at what I did find. Here's a list of fresh (and I use that term loosely) produce I ate for breakfast and lunch, where it originated from, and the number of miles it traveled to get to me. It should be noted that the mileage I list is direct from point A to point B. In all likelihood, my produce traveled considerably farther before gracing my table.

Bananas – Ecuador – 2,886 miles
Blueberries – Chile – 5,177 miles
Apples – Washington – 2,024 miles
Oranges – Florida – 817 miles
Avocado – Florida – 817 miles
Kale – California – 2,088 miles
Collards – California – 2,088 miles
Cucumbers – Mexico – 1,917 miles
Tomatoes – Florida – 817 miles
Peppers – Mexico – 1,917 miles
Onion – Washington – 2,024 miles

So by the time I had finished lunch, my food had traveled 22,572 miles. That's almost one full trip around the globe! Anyone else see the absurdity in this?


Saturday, November 13, 2010

Support local growers! Here's a few reasons why...


* The average meal in the US travels 1500 miles before reaching your plate.
* Frozen peas requier 150% more energy than fresh peas due to packaging and refrigeration.
* A head of lettuce traveling from CA to NC uses 36 times more fossil fuel energy in transport than it provides in food energy.
* Farmers selling produce locally can grow varieties chosen for taste instead of varieties chosen for how well they travel.
* Farmers' markets enable growers to keep 80 cents to 90 cents per dollar spent by the consumer compared to 9 cents in traditional food markets.
* Produce not sold locally is often in transit or cold storage for days or weeks, and its nutritional value declines with time.
* When you purchase locally grown produce, your money stays within your community.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

12 Reasons for Visiting a Farmers' Market


12 Reasons for Visiting a Farmers' Market
by Alice Henneman, MS, RD

http://lancaster.unl.edu/food/ft-jul-10.shtml

Whether you've never visited a farmers' market, are a frequent visitor or just enjoy the fresh taste of local foods, this month's Food Reflection's offers a little something for everyone:

1. Start by reading the following short article on "12 Reasons for Visiting a Farmers' Market."
2. Download a copy of the article. Use it for a bulletin board or handout ... add information about farmers' markets in your area.
3. Enjoy a short 1-minute video showing several pictures left out of the article.
4. Download a short, related PowerPoint, "12 Reasons for Visiting a Farmers' Market." Include some or all of these reasons for attending a farmers' market in a presentation you're giving!
5. Access a link to several recipes for fresh produce -- many also can be used as program handouts or at farmers' markets.
6. Obtain more information on shopping at farmers' markets and download a free PowerPoint, "The Garden Grocery: Food Safety & Selection at the Farmers' Market."

To begin ... here are 12 great reasons to visit a farmers' market.

1. Find foods not available in a grocery store.tomato bruschetta

2. Take home a truly tasty tomato! Make a tomato, basil, and olive oil bruschetta or other recipe!

3. Enjoy really fresh sweet corn. Fresh from the field means fantastic flavor!

4. Purchase a pretty plant you know will grow in your state because it was locally grown in your state.

5. Meet with a master gardener. Extension master gardeners are available at some of the Farmers' Markets. They'll answer your garden questions and help make your garden grow!

purple cauliflower meal6. Make memorable meals. The meal at right features toasted sunflower wheat bread with lettuce and smoked bacon cheese; kale sauteed in olive oil with green onions and garlic; purple (graffiti) cauliflower ... all from one Farmers' Market!

7. Have fun with your family and friends. Many Farmers' Markets feature special events, such as cooking demonstrations, music, festivals, and more.

8. Get really fresh food that didn't travel long distances to reach you. Freshly picked produce not only tastes better, but keeps longer, too! Look for the Buy Fresh Buy Local sign used many places to identify locally grown produce.

9. Buy a beautiful bouquet of locally grown flowers.
strange squash

10. Get to know your farmer. Ask questions about how the food was grown, how to cook it, and more.

11. Support your local economy. If every household spent $10 every week on locally-produced food, think how much could stay in your local economy each week.

12. Farmers' Markets are full of surprises -- you never know what you might see!


Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Excellent Article - "Death of a Songbird"




If you love birds, you will love this website! Please visit their site and enjoy the many articles about birds.

http://newmexicobirds.blogspot.com/2008/08/death-of-songbird.html

Western Meadowlark. Photo by David Powell

I caused the death of a songbird. Certainly more than one bird, and possibly a hundred or more, died because of me. I didn’t mean to do it. In fact, I was oblivious to their silent suffering and desperate demise. It was the winter fruits and vegetables that did it, those seemingly healthy foods that the doctor recommends. They make up a large part of my diet throughout the year. I have a particular fondness for grapes, bananas, asparagus, peppers, and that standard American staple, coffee.

One of the indicators of the changing season is the annual return of bird song. Many of us look forward to the return of our feathered friends from their wintering grounds. We take for granted that their song will fill the spring air with cheerful sounds. But, each year, as we continue to demand out-of-season fruits and vegetables, fewer and fewer songbirds return. Just as the Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and Osprey were the proverbial canaries in the coal mine that warned us of the dangers of DDT, and changed pesticide use in the United States, today’s songbird populations are an important environmental indicator.

Land management plans in North America now include provisions designed to protect migratory songbirds, including virtually all federal, and most state plans. Many land managers have changed the way they manage to allow for the needs of songbirds and other wildlife, and support research to develop methods to maintain healthy populations. Ambitious projects are underway to permanently protect large swaths of acreage for birds, particularly grassland and boreal forest species. Because of their role as environmental indicator species, avian conservation measures have become part of global efforts to protect biodiversity, not just for birds, but for all life.

Many of our summer residents winter in Central and South America, where highly toxic pesticide use has caused steep declines in bird populations. Pesticide use has increased 500% since the 1980s in Central America as these countries have increased their production of crops to fuel our demand for fresh produce during the winter. The chemicals include monocrotophos, methamidophos, and carbofuran, all of which are rated Class I toxins by the World Health Organization, are highly toxic to birds, and are either restricted or banned in the United States.

In some cases, the poisonings are indirect such as the 1995 deaths of 20,000 Swainson’s Hawks on the pampas of Argentina. Farmers had sprayed monocrotophos, an organophospate on their fields to control grasshoppers, the primary food item of wintering Swainson’s Hawks. Thanks to the efforts of the American Bird Conservancy and other organizations, Novartis (formerly Ciba-Geigy), a major manufacturer of this pesticide, has agreed to phase out production and sale of monocrotophos. Additionally, a major effort has taken place to educate farmers about the benefits of these insect eating hawks and other birds that help keep insect populations under control.

In other instances, birds like the Bobolink, meadowlarks, and other grain eating birds are viewed as pests as they feed on the crops intended for humans. They are directly poisoned to minimize crop damage. The Bobolink, in particular, has suffered a 50% decline in the last 40 years, according to the Breeding Bird Survey.

Americans, however, shouldn’t feel too smug about our environmental record when it comes to pesticides. On a global scale, over 5 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually for agriculture, forest and rangeland management, disease control, and on private properties. In the United States alone, we use 1.2 billion pounds each year. Many of the most toxic chemicals, including DDT, have been banned in our country. However, the U.S. continues to export DDT as well as other pesticides known to be hazardous to the environment and to human health. Conservative estimates place the of the number of birds killed in the U.S. each year due to pesticide ingestion at 67 million. This represents 10% of the 672 million birds annually exposed to pesticides in our country alone.

South of our border, human pesticide exposures continue despite workers’ improved awareness of the dangers. Most Central American countries have few regulations for effective controls for pesticide use, and in 1998, (most current figure available) almost 6,000 human poisonings were reported in Central America. Ironically, while we have increased our reliance on winter produce, Mexico, a major importer of that produce, has increased its dependence on pesticides. It is currently the second largest pesticide importer in Latin America.

We have effectively created a circle of poison in which pesticides outlawed in the U.S. because of documented toxicity are exported to Third World Countries that use them to grow the crops that are, in turn, sold to the American consumer. Testing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shows that produce imported from Latin American countries is three times as likely to violate Environmental Protection Agendy standards for pesticide residues., Some, but not all pesticide residues can be removed by washing or peeling produce, but tests by the Center for Disease Control show that most Americans carry traces of pesticides in our blood. We, however, show few if any signs of that oxicity. It just may be that our beloved songbirds might be the first indicator of threats to our health.

As American consumers, our most effective tool is our wallet. Next time you shop, buy locally grown foods wherever possible. Not only will you reduce your pesticide exposure, you will be purchasing food with a smaller carbon footprint.

Purchase organic, shade-grown coffer. Most mass produced coffee is heavily treated with fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. Shade grown coffee is grown beneath a canopy of tropical trees, which provide shade, essential nitrogen, and leaf litter for fertilizer.

Organic bananas should on your list. Although our pesticide exposure from bananas is minimal because we peel the fruit, bananas are grown with one of the highest pesticide loads of any tropical crop.

Purchase produce such as melons, green beans, tomatoes, bell peppers, and strawberries only if they are not grown in Central America.

The birds, and your great grandchildren will thank you for it.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Seasonal Produce - Eat According To Earth's Local Harvests

Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn/Fall

Beetroot Purple Sprouting Broccoli Asparagus Wild mushrooms
Cabbage Carrots Courgettes (Zucchini) Sweetcorn
Leeks Spring onions (Scallions) Mange Tout Beetroot
Onions New potatoes Globe Artichokes Sweetcorn
Brussels Sprouts Spring greens Garden Peas Cauliflowers
Shallots Lettuces Green beans Carrots
Parsnips Asparagus Cucumber Marrows
Swede Broad beans Lettuces Broccoli
Spinach Spinach Radishes Butternut squash
Curly Kale Rhubarb Watercress Turnips
Artichokes
Peppers Cabbages
Pumpkin
Tomatoes Parsnips
Apples
Sweetcorn Celery
Pears
Summer berries Leeks
Nuts
Cherries Apples


Currants Pears


Plums Almonds


Melons Chestnuts


Apricots Elderberries



Grapes



Figs

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Taking urban farming to the next level

Taking urban farming to the next level
Urban farmer Novella Carpenter experiments with raising farm animals such as pigs, turkeys, geese and rabbits within the Oakland city limits.
By Twilight Greenaway, Culinate
Oct 19, 2009 Link to full article below

Most urban farmers confine their agricultural efforts to vegetables, fruit, and the occasional egg-laying chicken. But on her small plot in Oakland, California, Novella Carpenter has raised bees, goats, rabbits, geese, and turkey, among other fauna.

A graduate of the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, where she studied with Michael Pollan, Carpenter now writes about urban farming and sustainable-food production for various publications, including her blog, Ghost Town Farm. Her memoir, Farm City, came out this summer from Penguin Press.

Twilight Greenaway: Why did you want to start a farm in the city, rather than moving to a rural area?

To read the full article: http://www.eartheasy.com/blog/2009/10/taking-urban-farming-to-the-next-level/

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Celebrating National Farmers' Market Week: Make sure you visit your own local farmers' market this week

Celebrating National Farmers' Market Week
Make sure you visit your own local farmers' market this week
by Kelly Rossiter
Toronto, Canada
Wed Aug 05, 2009 Link to full article below

This week marks National Farmers' Market Week in the United States. According to The Huffington Post this recognition began in 2000. In almost ten years, the local food movement has gained a huge foothold and the number of farmers' markets has increased at an astonishing rate across North America.

To read the full article:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/celebrating-farmers-market-week.html?campaign=th_weekly_nl

******************************************************
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.


Thursday, July 2, 2009

There's No Such Thing as Local vs. Organic Food

There's No Such Thing as Local vs. Organic Food
by Timothy J. LaSalle
Rodale Institue, Kutztown, PA
06.24.09
link to full article below

Let’s clear up one issue: There is no such thing as local vs. organic. When it comes to consumer choice, we should be buying local and organic, though for mostly different reasons.

Why We Should Buy Local
Local is really important as a deep investment into your local economy and developing a relationship with the person who produces your food. Not only do local businesses generate more local income, jobs, and tax receipts, but they also tend to utilize advertizing, banks, and services in the local community. In fact, a dollar spent at a local business turns over seven times in that community; while the same dollar spent at a box store or chain only turns over 2.5 times. Buying locally builds a healthy community on many levels. (For case studies on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of buying local visit the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies). Not only can you support the economic health of your community and offer security to your hardworking neighbors, but you can eliminate the uncertainties of agribusiness by talking to your farmer and seeing first-hand how your food is produced. It is also helpful in being able to purchase food
that is often fresher. What’s more is buying local can create local food security, which may become more and more important in the near future. We at Rodale Institute couldn’t be more enthusiastic about local.

Considering the Carbon Footprint of Food
In this conversation, food carbon footprint often arises. However, the most carbon intensive portion of food production and consumption, outside of driving to the store and putting the food in your refrigerator, is the farming methods. The amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere varies widely with regard to the manner in which the food is grown. Because the manufacture of chemical fertilizers and other conventional farming inputs are reliant upon vast amounts of fossil fuel, the food you eat (local or not) can account for huge levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) releases. According to a recent New York Times article about Tropicana orange juice, fertilizers alone contribute to nearly 60% of the CO2 emitted in production. Conventional chemical-based agriculture is a net emitter of CO2 and by some estimates contributes between 9 – 20% of our total greenhouse gases in the U.S.

On the other hand, non-chemical organic farming will pull carbon dioxide right out of the atmosphere and hold it in the soil for decades. As a matter of fact, research at Rodale Institute that has now been replicated at several land grant universities, shows that over 3.5 tons of CO2 can be sequestered on well-managed organic soils using compost and no chemical inputs. Synthetic fertilizers and many pesticides used in conventional farming inhibit the biological factors that build soil carbon, which adds to the long-term destruction of soils.

Why We Should Buy Organic
If we converted all tillable acres globally to organic practices, we could sequester up to 40% of all the world’s carbon emissions. This is the single largest strategy for mitigating carbon dioxide.

To read the full article: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/there-is-no-such-thing-as-local-vs-organic-food.php?dcitc=weekly_nl

Thursday, May 14, 2009

When ‘Local’ Makes It Big

When ‘Local’ Makes It Big
By KIM SEVERSON
May 13, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/dining/13local.html?pagewanted=print

WHEN Jessica Prentice, a food writer in the San Francisco Bay area, invented the term “locavore,” she didn’t have Lay’s potato chips in mind.

But never mind. On Tuesday, five potato farmers rang the bell of the New York Stock Exchange, kicking off a marketing campaign that is trying to position the nation’s best-selling brand of potato chips as local food.

Five different ads will highlight farmers who grow some of the two billion pounds of starchy chipping potatoes the Frito-Lay company uses each year. One is Steve Singleton, who tends 800 acres in Hastings, Fla.

“We grow potatoes in Florida, and Lays makes potato chips in Florida,” he says in the ad. “It’s a pretty good fit.”

Mr. Singleton’s ad and the other four will be shown only in the farmer’s home state. A national spot featuring all five potato farmers begins next week.

Frito-Lay is one of several big companies that, along with some large-scale farming concerns, are embracing a broad interpretation of what eating locally means. This mission creep has the original locavores choking on their yerba mate. But food executives who measure marketing budgets in the millions say they are mining the concept because consumers care more than ever about where their food comes from.

“Local for us has two appeals,” said Aurora Gonzalez, director of public relations for Frito-Lay North America, which is owned by PepsiCo. “We are interested in quality and quickness because we want consumers to get the freshest product possible, but we have a fairly significant sustainability program, and local is part of that. We want to do business more efficiently, but do it in a more environmentally conscious way.”

To read the full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/dining/13local.html?pagewanted=print

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Community-supported food suppliers on the rise

Community-supported food suppliers on the rise
March 31, 2009

Million-dollar homes are a stone’s throw away from Meyer’s Farm in Woodbury, Long Island. More produce growers used to cultivate nearby lands in what has become a tony suburb, but the Meyer family kept a swath of acreage and plies the community with corn, pumpkins, house plants and other earthly products year-round.

Their special bond with customers is a win-win. They keep their profession alive, and customers buy from a trusted, local source they feel good about supporting. They know their food is local and has a low carbon footprint. Other farmers a few miles away draw repeat customers and passersby to their roadside tables and vans for fresh pies, ciders and vegetables.

Meyer’s is a private enterprise, not a community-funded cooperative where people pay a fee and share set amounts of harvests. However, its relationship with the community it serves symbolizes a dynamic that repeats itself in countless pockets across the nation, and creates a vast American food network outside of supermarkets and other retailers. The appeals are food freshness, quality, value, confidence in local resources, and a unifying togetherness.

Actual cooperatives are growing at a time when people feel unsettled by economic turmoil, and want to reconnect with some grounded elements in life.

To read the full article:
http://supermarketguru-com.advantex.net/index.cfm/go/sg.viewArticle/articleId/376

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Success in Brazil: The City That Ended Hunger Did It By GOING LOCAL

Success in Brazil
The City that Ended Hunger did it by going local
by Tom Laskawy
16 Mar 2009

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2009/3/16/114116/636?show_comments=no
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/16/114116/636

What struck me in Frances Moore Lappé's piece at Yes! on Belo Horizonte, Brazil -- the city that ended hunger -- was how simple the solution was:

[The city] offered local family farmers dozens of choice spots of public space on which to sell to urban consumers, essentially redistributing retailer mark-ups on produce -- which often reached 100 percent -- to consumers and the farmers. Farmers' profits grew, since there was no wholesaler taking a cut. And poor people got access to fresh, healthy food.

In addition to the farmer-run stands, the city makes good food available by offering entrepreneurs the opportunity to bid on the right to use well-trafficked plots of city land for "ABC" markets, from the Portuguese acronym for "food at low prices." Today there are 34 such markets where the city determines a set price -- about two-thirds of the market price -- of about twenty healthy items, mostly from in-state farmers and chosen by store-owners. Everything else they can sell at the market price.

[The city started] three large, airy "People's Restaurants" (Restaurante Popular), plus a few smaller venues, that daily serve 12,000 or more people using mostly locally grown food for the equivalent of less than 50 cents a meal.

Belo's food security initiatives also include extensive community and school gardens as well as nutrition classes. Plus, money the federal government contributes toward school lunches, once spent on processed, corporate food, now buys whole food mostly from local growers.

If those policies sound familiar, it's because they echo common recommendations among US food policy progressives, as well as those in Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's report on localizing the NYC foodshed. But it's always nice when someone tries them out first -- and they work. And work they did:

In just a decade Belo Horizonte cut its infant death rate -- widely used as evidence of hunger -- by more than half, and today these initiatives benefit almost 40 percent of the city's 2.5 million population. One six-month period in 1999 saw infant malnutrition in a sample group reduced by 50 percent. And between 1993 and 2002 Belo Horizonte was the only locality in which consumption of fruits and vegetables went up.

And the cost? $10 million for a city of 2.5 million. Granted, that figure isn't adjusted for US purchasing power -- but it represented a mere 2 percent of the city budget (and Belo probably has a much smaller/simpler budget than NYC). Also, note the focus on school lunches (sound familiar?) and the way the city directly subsidized purchases of fruit and vegetables.

Granted, Belo's efforts focus on malnutrition, while we in the developed world must attack the two-headed monster of hunger AND obesity. On the other hand, Belo's policies would likely conquer both. Still, this Brazilian city provides hard evidence that you can address underlying social ills when you localize urban food systems and promote healthy eating. That is very good news indeed.

Monday, February 23, 2009

"Grow It Yourself: Save Money, Help Earth, and Improve Your Quality of Life" by Heather Havey, M.A.

Grow It Yourself: Save Money, Help Earth, and Improve Your Quality of Life by Heather Havey, M.A.

(NaturalNews) The Telegraph reported that "26% [of residents in Britain] are growing their own fruit and vegetables" [1]. One-quarter of British populations now choose gardening at home in order to improve their quality of life during difficult times. As a result, this has helped many UK residents to considerably reduce their grocery bills. Cuba is another example. In the 1990s, desperate economic circumstances forced Cubans to adopt local, urban, organic farming practices [2]. As of 2008, at least 1/3 of the land in their country is used to organically grow produce [3, 4]. As a result, Cuba leads the world in organic agriculture. Also, most Cubans ride bicycles. We can follow these examples in our own homes. Growing food has many benefits. It can save each family a lot of money. It reduces our carbon footprint and overall energy expenditure. It helps us to combat the world food crisis. It benefits health and well-being. It can help wildlife. By increasing food sources, it can also save lives.

Growing food at home saves money.

We face ever-larger economic struggle around the world today. States and even nations are filing bankruptcy. Many families have lost their homes. Even more have lost their jobs. Gas prices shift up and down. More people will likely lose their jobs or homes. Nearly every family is affected. The world food crisis is growing. Also, increasing storm activity from global warming increases food prices even more [5]. These storms are predicted to escalate as global warming advances. All of these factors can increase our cost-of-living as well as the cost of food.

One money-saving solution is to grow food at home (and buy from local farmers). Seeds can be purchased online or in nurseries and gardening centers. Often, also, local farmers may sell seeds. A package of seeds can grow quite a few plants. The cost is a couple of dollars plus water, sun, minerals (good soil) and some tender-loving care. If you prefer, you can also buy pre-sprouted plants for several dollars.

Let us look at one example: broccoli. Fifteen broccoli plants can bear at least twenty to thirty heads of broccoli. Once the main head is harvested, new florets will grow. Simply cut off the flowers so the plant does not harden and go to seed. For a few months, these plants will provide your entire family and also even a neighbor or friend with plenty of broccoli. Broccoli leaves, also, make delicious salad greens. They can be juiced with apple, ginger, and/or other greens to make a delicious drink.

Another way to save money is to save your own seeds. When you eat fruits or vegetables, simply pull out the seeds, save them, and sprout them. Nearly everything will grow. Avocadoes, papayas, starfruits, and many others do very well when sprouted from home.

We face global food, energy, weather, biological, and peace challenges today.

Earth faces a number of growing crises today. These include population explosion, peak oil, world food shortages, rising economic instability, steadily-increasing unemployment, global warming, global dimming, and mass extinction, among others. Nearly every family has been affected by one or many of these issues. Some experts even predict a 49% chance that our whole civilization may collapse [6, 7]. In light of these predictions, growing your own food makes more and more sense.

When you grow produce or buy from local farmers, you drive less. Also, you do not support long-distance hauling of food items. The current average distance that food travels after harvest is 1500 miles [8]. In some cases it is much further. When you grow food yourself, also, you do not use new plastic bags. Each year, over 500 billion plastic bags are produced in the world [9]. These bags will not decay for over 1,000 years in many cases. Each year, at least 100,000 mammals and birds die from these plastic bags [10]. This includes even whales. Last year, an alligator was found dead with 25 plastic bags in its stomach.

Also, if you grow or buy organic produce, then you are not supporting the petroleum and pesticide industries. Most fertilizers and pesticides are made from petroleum products [11]. All of these aspects reduce your own carbon footprint. This in turn helps with global warming.

When you grow food at home, also, you increase the amount of food in the world. It may seem trivial upon first glance, but consider the numbers. If even 5% of the U.S. population grew some food, then 15.3 million more people would be adding food to the world supply [14].

Each time you feed a neighbor or friend, you are helping to decrease world hunger. Each time you buy local or grow your own food, also, you decrease world hunger and save precious resources.

Improve the beauty and quality of life within your own yard.

A yard filled with fruit and nut trees, vegetables, flowers, and other plants is far more beautiful to behold than a bare lawn. Also, leaves protect soil and prevent the sun from leaching out nutrients or water. Shrubs, trees, and plants protect small animals and beneficial insects. The plants also help to hold in moisture, preventing drought and loss of minerals. This will reduce your need to water or maintain your lawn.

If you protect birds, bees, and bats, then these animals will also aid your garden. Bees love flowers, so plant many flowers. Birds benefit from feeders filled with organic birdseeds. They will eat certain insects that desire to eat your vegetable leaves (for example: caterpillars). Also, bats eat mosquitoes and other insects. To protect bats, build a bat house and hang it 15-20 feet high on a nearby tree or in the middle of a field [12].

Nature is designed so perfectly to maintain and protect itself. The concept of the modern "lawn" needs to be abandoned out of compassion for Earth and wellness in general. The modern lawn is extremely harmful to the Earth and its inhabitants. Earth is naturally dense, diverse, beautiful and filled with many forms of life that maintain and protect each other. The lawn, on the other hand, represents the absolute loss of soil health, minerals in the soil, beneficial insects in soil and air, land mammals, plant diversity, and so on. It is essentially a deserted, poisoned wasteland that has been stripped of life.

Please choose the diverse beauty of gardens, trees, shrubs, and flowers over a lawn.

Where can I grow plants?

Plants are very easy to grow, and many can be grown in a pot by a window or with a grow light inside your home. Outdoor gardening options are also very diverse and can be fun to explore. You can grow food in any container, even a small cup. Also, you can grow plants in raised beds outside, in an old bathtub, in hanging baskets, used bottles, or in any container that will hold the plant in place.

What is best to grow?

Gardening varies widely according to weather patterns, seasons, and geographical region. There are certain crops, in general, that tend to be the easiest to grow. These include:
* salad greens (lettuces, arugula, swiss chard, collard greens, spinach)
* nightshade vegetables (squashes, peppers, tomatoes),
* root vegetables (radishes, potatoes)
* cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts)
* fruits and nuts,
* herbs (parsley, basil, thai basil, oregano, rosemary)
* berries (strawberries and blueberries)
* green beans

How do I grow food?
To grow food, simply drop one or two seeds into a dixie cup half filled with peat or seed-starting soil. While the seeds sprout, it is best to keep them indoors in warm, controllable conditions. Water them only every few days. The idea is to keep them moist but not fully wet. Baby sprouts could damp off if they are watered too much. This means basically that they could bend over and die from root-rot. If desired, keep a grow light on them. When they are a few weeks old, begin to acclimate them to the outdoors. After a week of increasing their exposure to sun and wind, then plant them in a pot or in a raised bed outdoors. From here, give them periodic water, sunshine, and natural compost to enrich their nutrients.

"What if I do not have a green thumb?"

If you have no desire to grow food or you lack a green thumb, then you can still help. Eat food from your neighbor`s garden and buy your food from local farms and community gardens.

Where can I learn more?

Nearly every state has a Master Gardener`s program [13]. These offer free information on organic gardening that is specially-suited to your region. They consist mostly of volunteers who love gardening and farming, and they are happy to help. Also, local farmers and CSA`s (Community Supported Agriculture) often can provide you with helpful tips as well as their favorite books. Evening classes, weekend workshops at farms, and college courses also help. Some recommended books to get you started include:

American Horticultural Society, and Alan R. Toogood. Plant Propagation. New York: DK Pub, 1999.
Flowerdew, Bob. The No Work Garden: Getting the Most Out of Your Garden for the Least Amount of Work. London: Kyle Cathie, 2004.
Hamilton, Geoff. Organic Gardening. RD home handbooks. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader`s Digest Association, 1992.

Happy Gardening!

"Earth laughs in flowers." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Resources

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardenin...
2. An excellent documentary film that I highly recommend is The Power Of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil http://www.powerofcommunity.org
3. http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/con...
4. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...
5. One of many examples: Emanuel, Kerry. "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones over the Past 30 years." Nature. Volume 1436, 4 August 2005, pages 686-688.
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnZg...
7. http://www.naturalnews.com/025662.html
8. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs...
9. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/200...
10. See, for example: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs...
11. This calculation is based on a U.S. estimated population of 306,000,000.
12. http://www.eparks.org/wildlife_prot...
13. For a complete list of Master Gardener programs: http://www.ahs.org/master_gardeners...

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.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Why Local, Sustainable Agriculture?

Why local, sustainable agriculture?

  • Did you know that 17 % of petroleum demand in the US is for the food production industry? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
  • Did you know that the food on your plate has traveled an average of 1500 miles to get there? (Barker & Mander, 1999, Invisible Government: The WTO Global Government for the New Millenium)
  • Did you know that the average age of a farmer in Colorado is 55?(“Losing Ground - Colorado’s Vanishing Agricultural Landscape)
  • Did you know that between 1997 - 2002 Colorado lost an average of 690 acres of prime agricultural land per day to residential development? (“Losing Ground - Colorado’s Vanishing Agricultural Landscape)
  • Did you know smaller farms tend to be 2-10 times more productive than larger farms? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
  • Did you know that 90% of the agricultural subsidies benefit corporations and big farmers growing food for export; while 500 family farms close down every week in the United States? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
  • Did you know that 91 cents of each dollar spent at traditional food markets [ie: commercial] goes to suppliers, processors, middlemen, and marketers; only 9 cents of each dollar actually goes to the farmer? (Smith, Stewart. 1992. “Farming Activities and Family Farms: Getting the Concepts Right.” Presented to the US Congress Symposium, “Agricultural Industrialization and Family Farms: The Role of Federal Policy.”)

What is sustainable agriculture?

Sustainable agriculture is a way of raising food that is healthy for consumers, preserves agricultural land, provides a fair wage to the farmer, supports and enhances rural communities, does not harm the environment and respects animals.

Some principles of sustainable practices include:

  • Reducing off-farm inputs including petroleum based synthetic chemicals
  • Managing instead of controlling pests and weeds
  • Reestablishing natural biological relationships with the farm setting
  • Farming within the physical limitations of the farm
  • Using plant and animal species that are adapted to the environment of the farm
  • Conserving soil, water, energy, and biological resources
  • Integrating the idea of long term sustainability into the design of the system

Monday, December 29, 2008

7 Things you can do to save the rainforest

7 things you can do to save the rainforest

http://www.certisource.co.uk/Press_Articles/Article_Archive/articles/7%20things%20you%20can%20do%20to%20save%20the%20rainforest%20by%20the%20rainforest%20action%20network.htm

1) reduce your paper and wood consumption.
Logging companies are cutting down some of the most endangered forests on the planet to make wood and paper products such as office paper, phone books, toilet paper, window trim, lawn furniture, and 2 x 4's. Over seventy-eight percent of the Earth's original old growth forests have already been logged or degraded.

You can help reduce the pressure on our remaining forests by taking simple steps to reduce your own wood and paper use. For example, use both sides of each piece of paper, use your own cloth bags at the grocery store, use cloth napkins and towels, and avoid disposable paper plates and cups.

When purchasing paper products, choose products with the highest percentage of recycled content —post-consumer recycled content is the best. Choose tree-free paper alternatives if possible. Tree-free paper is made from agricultural products like waste straw, kenaf, and hemp, so not a single tree is cut down for its production!

If you are building a house or adding on to your home, utilize wood efficient building techniques and avoid old growth wood products. Learn about alternatives such as reclaimed or recycled lumber, composite lumber, and independently certified wood. See our website for more information on old growth wood alternatives.

2) reduce your oil consumption.
The burning of oil, gas, and coal is the primary cause of climate change, a trend that is threatening the stability of the global climate. Scientists have predicted that if we stay on our current path, global temperatures will rise between 2° and 9° Fahrenheit in the next century —a warming rate faster than any occurring in the last ten thousand years. In addition, oil exploration projects lead to toxic pollution and massive deforestation, posing a threat to pristine ecosystems and indigenous cultures worldwide.

You can help alleviate oil's impact on the environment by reducing your own oil and gas consumption. The next time you purchase a car, choose one that gets good gas mileage and avoid gas guzzling sports utility vehicles. If you drive somewhere regularly, start a carpool. Whenever possible, leave your car at home and instead walk, ride your bike, or take local mass transportation. Support funding for mass transportation and bike lanes —options that will serve our transportation needs and our planet much better in the long run than an ever-expanding maze of roads and highways!

3) reduce your beef consumption.
Rainforest beef is typically found in fast food hamburgers or processed beef products. In both 1993 and 1994 the U. S. imported over 200 million pounds of fresh and frozen beef from Central American countries. Two-thirds of these countries' rainforests have been cleared, in part to raise cattle whose meat is exported to profit the U. S. food industry. When it enters the U. S. the beef is not labeled with its country of origin, so there is no way to trace it to its source. Reducing your consumption of beef will reduce demand for it, cutting back on pressure to clear more forests for cattle. For more information on the connection between beef and the environment, contact Earthsave International, 1509 Seabright Avenue, Suite B1, Santa Cruz, CA 95062; 1-800-362-3648; http://www.earthsave.org/.

4) hold businesses accountable.
Corporations need to know that the public will hold them accountable for business practices that are socially or environmentally destructive. If you feel that a company's business practices are environmentally irresponsible, send the company a letter expressing your concern, or organize a boycott of the company. Below you'll find information about two companies that you can write to today to help protect the Earth's forests. To learn more about these companies, please visit our website at http://www.ran.org/.

a. Boise sells wood products from the world's most endangered forests, including the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and Southeast Asia and the temperate rainforests of Chile. Boise is also the country's largest logger of U. S. public lands. Please ask Boise to phase out its logging and distribution of old growth wood. Write to George Harad, Chairman &CEO, Boise Corporation, 1111 West Jefferson Street, PO Box 50, Boise, ID 83728.

b. Citigroup is a key financial player in many of the world's most destructive projects, including construction of the Chad/Cameroon oil pipeline in Africa, the replacement of orangutan habitat with palm plantations in Indonesia, and the logging of California's Headwaters Forest. If you have a Citibank credit card, cut it up! Mail the cut up card back to Citibank in your next bill statement, and let them know why you no longer want to be a customer. If you are not a Citigroup customer, let them know that you will never be a customer unless they change their business practices. Call Citigroup at 1-800-456-4277 or write to Mr. Sandy Weill, Chairman and CEO, Citigroup, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, New York 10043.

5) invest in rainforest communities.
RAN's Protect-an-Acre Program was created to protect the world's rainforests and to support the rights of rainforest communities. The Protect-an-Acre Program is an alternative to "buy-an-acre" programs, which tend to ignore the fact that there are often people who depend on the forest and have lived in the forest sustainably for centuries. Protect-an-Acre provides funding to help forest peoples gain legal recognition of their territories, develop locally-based alternative economic initiatives, and resist destructive practices such as logging and fossil fuel development. For information about how you can support the Protect-an-Acre program, visit the Protect-an-Acre section of our website.

6) Support the grassroots.
In 1999, Home Depot, the single largest retailer of lumber in the world, agreed to phase out its sales of old growth wood. This victory was a direct result of the hard work of grassroots activists, who staged more than six hundred demonstrations at Home Depot stores across the U. S. and Canada. You can play a critical role in future victories by joining or starting a Grassroots Action Group in your area! Contact RAN's Grassroots Coordinator at 415-398-4404 or organize@ran.org for help in finding a local group or advice on starting your own group. Equally important, help protect the forests in your region by getting involved with a local forest preservation group.

7) support Rainforest Action Network.
Rainforest Action Network is an effective, hard-hitting organization. In 1985, RAN launched a nationwide boycott of Burger King, which was importing cheap beef from tropical rainforest countries. Two years later, Burger King canceled thirty-five million dollars worth of beef contracts and agreed to stop importing beef from the rainforest. RAN then led a global consumer boycott against Mitsubishi, which resulted in Mitsubishi Motor Sales America and Mitsubishi Electric America committing to unprecedented environmental reviews of their business activities. Most recently, as a result of a two year campaign led by RAN, the nation's top home improvement etailers and largest home builders agreed to phase out the sale and use of wood from the Earth's endangered forests. None of these victories would have been possible without the support of our members. To join RAN, please call us at (415) 398-4404 or join online!

Resources for more information
Breeden, Stanley. Visions of a Rainforest: A Year in Australia’s Tropical Rainforest. Ten Speed Press, 1993.

Brown, Lester R. State of the World: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. W. W. Norton & Company, published yearly.

Caufield, Catherine. In the Rainforest. University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Forsyth, Adrian and Ken Miyata. Tropical Nature: Life and Death in the Rain Forests of Central and South America. MacMillan Publishing Co., 1987.

Hawken, Paul. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. HarperBusiness, 1993.

Korten, David C. When Corporations Rule the World. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1996.

Rifkin, Jeremy. Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of Cattle Culture. Dutton/Penguin, 1992.

Schoonmaker, Peter K., Bettina Von Hagen and Edward C. Wolf, eds. The Rain Forests of Home: Profile of a North American Bioregion. Island Press, 1997.

Rainforestweb.org: http://www.rainforestweb.org/

Rainforest Action Network: http://www.ran.org/

World Resources Institute: http://www.wri.org/

Worldwatch Institute: http://www.worldwatch.org

Gaia Forest Conservation Archives: http://forests.org/

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Farm To School Programs Grow Students' Appreciation for Locally Grown Food

Farm-To-School Programs Grow Students' Appreciation for Locally Grown Food

* By Diane Raymond
Natural News, October 20, 2008

Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15243.cfm

As farmers struggle to mitigate the increasing cost of transporting produce from farm to store and schools face smaller budgets and increasing concerns over the nutritional content of school lunches, some schools opt to bring the farm to the lunch table.

The concern over the nutritional value of school lunches isn't unwarranted: 15% of children ages 6-19 are considered overweight, according to a recent study conducted by CDC epidemiologist Cynthia Ogden, PhD. Between pre-packaged, highly processed lunches and vending machines loaded with sugary snacks and sodas, it is little wonder parents also worry about fueling their kids' minds. Many are asking the schools to do more, pointing out that the National School Lunch Program isn't passing muster.

Nearly half of the children in the U.S. who attend private and public schools participate in the NSLP, a federally assisted meal program that dates back to 1946. While the NSLP does provide a low-cost (and in some cases, free) means of delivering lunch through subsidies to schools, the program has been widely criticized in recent years for contributing to America's obesity epidemic. According to the Sustainable Table, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public about the problems with our food supply, our children are not meeting the RDA of vitamins and nutrients under the current NSLP guidelines. Couple that with the skyrocketing price of food, which extends beyond the family table to the school cafeterias as well. Forced to consider lower-priced alternatives to fresh foods, many schools have no alternative but to rely on the cheaper, less healthy fare. A number of districts across the country are taking matters into their own hands and breaking the mold. Instead of doling out sodium and fat-laden chicken nuggets for lunch, they are opting to assist local farmers and provide healthier, locally grown foods to students.

Eating and Learning: Models of Success

In the small community of Glen Lake, Michigan the farm-to-school program gives local schools an opportunity to sample tasty, healthy meals grown with as many locally grown products as possible. Not only is this a great opportunity for the children to develop an appreciation for locally grown food, studies show that children who are fed healthier, more nutrient rich foods are better learners. Michigan's program is a prime example of how school districts can assist local growers and simultaneously teach students about the health and economic benefits of consuming local produce.

Schools in Berkeley, California, have become a national model for how to make schools more sustainable. The Edible Schoolyard Project at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School takes the farm-to-school concept one step further: the students use their school's organic garden as a learning tool. Students learn about planting and harvesting, cooking and eating, and biology, ecology, nutrition and sustainability. This program has become so successful that many schools around the country now have their own gardens. The National Gardening Association (http://www.kidsgardening.org/School/sea...) has a list of thousands of school gardens nationwide.

Students at the Louisa May Alcott elementary school in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood savor daily lunches dished up by local chef, Greg Christian. Christian runs the nonprofit Organic School Project, through which he donates half of his time and salary to a grand mission: seeing that Chicago students eat better. Nearby schools will be added to the OLP, with further plans to build teaching gardens at each school.

There is more good news: The National Farm to School program, a national network of community-based food systems that assist farmers and improve student health, estimates that more than 2,000 Farm to School Programs are currently underway in the U.S., with more than 8,700 schools actively participating.

HOW TO START A FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAM
(from The National Farm to School Program website)

1. Research: Read the publication Going Local to acquaint yourself with model farm to school programs from across the country. As Farm to School programs come in many shapes and sizes, it's important to begin to identify what you want and what would work best in your school. Visit www.farmtoschool.org to learn if there is a program in your area.

2. Organize: Coordinate a group of cross-sector stakeholders in the community for a meeting to discuss farm to school (food service directors, parents, teachers, farmers, students, school administration, local nonprofits, etc.) Inspire potential supporters with an activity such as a farm tour or a farm-fresh taste test.

3. Assess: Facilitate conversations with various stakeholders to determine the feasibility of the program in your area—discuss where to buy local foods, assess how to serve them at school, identify staff or volunteers to support the program, and determine what the budget for your program can be.

4. Plan: Create a short description of your ideal program and then list specific first steps. Tip: start with easy wins! Try to limit this to five steps to help you organize and communicate your goals to others.

5. Start: Take small steps such as working with one or two whole products that are easy to process and popular among kids. Local apples, oranges, or strawberries are a good choice when they are in season.

What are you waiting for? Plant the seeds of farm to school!
Related Posts with Thumbnails