@農자료창고

If you’ve ever crossed Iowa on I-80 en route to someplace you fancy more exotic, you might recall mile after solitary mile of soybeans and corn and the occasional side-leaning barn. Agriculture, you may have noticed, is Iowa’s most palpable characteristic — but, I’ll wager a guess, you didn’t see more than one or two farmers anywhere in sight.

Even as a small-town Iowa kid, the only farmers I knew personally were my great-grandparents — who, in their heyday, were known state-wide for their prize-winning watermelons. Iowa has undergone a lot of changes since Grandpa Clyde was grooming his gourds, though. In 1950, the state had206,000 farmers; in 2012, that number was down to 88,637. Iowa land once cultivated a diverse range of crops, but is now seeded almost exclusively with commodity crops like corn, soybeans, and oats that are processed into ethanol or animal feed. Tell me where you can find a watermelon farmer in Iowa now, let alone a famous one, and I’ll buy you one of those blue-ribbon tenderloins

A few months ago, I traveled home to visit family. Flying from Seattle to Des Moines, I watched the landscape shift from snow-capped mountains to carefully gridded squares. From above, Iowa appears to have been meticulously engineered into one, big corn- and soy-producing machine. Though I was there for mom and dad, I was also on a quest to find my home state’s hidden farmers. After 23 years as an Iowa kid, I’d finally meet the farmers behind those fields, the inconspicuous backdrop to my childhood.

Really, I did more than just meet them. I chatted about agricultural policy over cinnamon-spice tea; toured a thousand-acre farm in a fourwheeler seated next to a labrador; and played peek-a-boo with shy, barefoot farming boys.

Iowa commodity growers are often demonized for what and how they grow, and monocultures and ethanol aren’t exactly healthy for the planet. But all of the farming families I talked to expressed a deep respect for the land and the desire to take good care of it for the next generation. If we want to understand how and why our agriculture system is the way it is, we’d be wise to approach all farmers with an open mind.

So, meet a few of Iowa’s farmers. Here are our edited and condensed conversations:

Brock Hansen

Farm stats: 2,300 acres of corn and soybeans in Baxter, Iowa

What’s the history of your farm?

On my mom’s side, our land goes back five generations. We strictly grow corn and soybeans, along with a small amount of alfalfa. My mom and dad have their own operation, and my wife and I have our own operation — but we work together. Until about 10 years ago, we had beef cows, and sold the calves off in the fall. Dad sold seed corn on the side. Since then, we got out of hogs and cattle. We had a hired man who stepped in and took over. When we sold the hogs, we bought a few semis and hauled grain and bean meal out of Des Moines to a chicken farm.

How do you sell your product? 

First, I look up who has the best prices and contracts. Almost 99 percent of our corn goes to ethanol plants, and the byproduct is turned around and fed to livestock. one hundred percent of our beans go to Des Moines for oil and meal production. Have you heard of Unilever? We’re participating in a program so we can trace where the beans come from and what’s being done to them. I think a lot of them go into Hellman’s mayonnaise.

How has your farm changed?

In granddad’s era, the new thing was chemicals — that was probably in the ’50s or ’60s. Then it went to commercial fertilizer and no-till farming in dad’s era. Now, in my era, the newest part is GPS equipment, pin-point location, and all the technology that’s been brought to the farm. Farming is more of world market than it’s ever been. The market used to never move — if there was a $0.10 swing, it’d take years. Now, that’s an everyday thing.

What do you see as the future of your farm?

Who’d a thought 20 years ago we’d have tractors that would drive themselves? Everything gets bigger, it seems like. Is it the best for it? Probably not. People used to live off of 160 or 180 acres — I wish it could go back there. The world might be better, in general, if farming went back to the mom-and-pop shops.

Do I want to get bigger? Well, everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie. I’d like to be the most efficient on the acres I have. But I don’t need 20,000 acres when I can be just as productive on 5,000.

In what ways are the goals of the food movement consistent with the goals on this farm?

I don’t see the consumer, to tell you the truth. It’s a closed circuit for me. I take our grain straight to the ethanol plant. But you know, consumers are asking them for non-GMO bean meal to feed non-GMO pigs at the company we haul our beans to. There’s a growing demand for that. But you as a consumer, and me as a producer, our paths don’t usually cross.

When the consumer asks us what we’re doing, I tell them we’re trying to be better. I don’t think our story is told enough, but we’re trying. I blame some of that on the media — no offense. It’s easy to cover the bad things, not the good things. For instance, we’ve been no-till for 25 or 30 years, which helps with erosion and creates better top soil; we’ve introduced cover crops; we use GPS equipment to help minimize over-use of chemicals; we’ve upgraded grain driers; we applied for an energy grant to make the drier more efficient, to use less natural gas; we’re looking at putting up a wind turbine. We’re trying to be environmental, green — whatever you call it.

Mark and Julie Kenney

Farm stats: 3,000 acres of corn, soybeans, and oats in Nevada, Iowa

What’s the history of your farm?

Mark: We’re fifth-generation farmers. My great-great-grandfather started farming in central Iowa back in the 1880s. The original parcel of land that he purchased, we still own. Generations have added to it, but I’m proud that original piece is still a part of our family farm.

Julie and I make our livelihood on this farm. Where I go to work is where I grew up as a child. I feel really fortunate. As a duty, as a responsibility, we try to be active in promoting agriculture to those who aren’t involved in it. We invite people to our farm to show day-to-day operations. When it becomes more of a conversation, commodity farming becomes more readily understood. It takes time, but it’s just as much as the job as making sure the crops are planted.

How has your farm changed?

Mark: My dad says he remembers the first commercial seed he planted. It was planted by a two-row, horse-drawn planter. The last crop he planted was with a tractor driven by GPS.

One thing that is the same today as it was generations ago is that we’re producing a commodity, so our competition isn’t only local, it’s global. Technology isn’t something to be shunned or afraid of — it’s to be embraced. We need to find ways to use new technologies to make our farm competitive in world markets. I’ve always been taught that technology can give you an edge.

Julie: The thing I’ve seen change the most is how public perception is influencing what we do. In Iowa, more and more young people are removed from the farm. So now, we have a duty to help open doors to explain to others who aren’t as familiar with what’s going on. I try not to think of it as us educating, because I want it to be a two-way conversation; I want to listen to what the general public’s concerns are.

What do you see as the future of your farm?

Mark: The way my grandpa farmed is different from the way we farm now, but there are certain things that endure time. While the equipment has changed, the core values are the same: attention to detail, being fiscally responsible, understanding that there’s more to the world than just yourself, being a member of the community, and making yourself available to help neighbors in need. That’s what I hope will continue on this farm.

Agriculture will keep getting more competitive and capital intensive. I estimate farms will become larger because technology is allowing that, and we’ll continue to produce more from a smaller resource base.

Julie: I think there will be more non-traditional people who get involved in farming. I think we’ll see more companies like Google that want to be involved in agriculture. I think we’ll continue to get questions from people about where their food comes from, and we’ll have to become more transparent about that.

In what ways are the goals of the food movement consistent with the goals on this farm?

Mark: Above any other law, my No. 1 boss is Mother Nature. The weather is in control — and such a major factor in our yearly income. It impacts if we can work some days. It’s been true since the dawn of time, but it’s still one of the biggest misconceptions in modern agriculture.

I think I can speak for most farmers and say that we enjoy our independence. A trait that successful farmers share is operating our farms the way that we please. For instance, a mile from our house is a small organic farm with vegetables and honey bees. They have a very small acreage, and it’s a lot of labor — but they’re doing it. Another farmer next to us grows organic corn and soybeans. We’re all farmers, it’s all agriculture, we just all do it a little different.

How does agricultural policy affect you?

Mark: Our farm has operated under the auspices of farm bills since the 1930s. I don’t see how that is going to change how we work on the farm. Government doesn’t outweigh market forces — and it certainly doesn’t outweigh the weather. I do think there’s a role for the government to play in food production. Of all the things we must secure, food is No. 1. We wouldn’t want to outsource our food production like we’ve done with energy production — what a terrible thing that would be.

Ward and Sandi Van Dyke

Farm stats: 2,000 acres corn and soybeans in Pella, Iowa

What’s the history of your farm?

Ward: We’re third- and second-generation farmers, but we’ve had this farm since 1986. There would be days in high school when I would skip school to help with the crops. Back then, that’s just what we did.

Sandi: We started in cattle and hogs and eventually we went strictly to grain. When we moved here, we added a garden as a project for our kids.

How has your farm changed?

Ward: When I was little, my parents had two- or four-row planters. Now, we can plant 30 rows at a time, and that’s just average — it’s actually kind of small. Our combine harvests with a 35-foot head, rather than 16 like it used to be. We went from having no technology to having full auto-guidance, automatic sprayer shut-off, yield monitors, variable rate planning, and variable rate nitrogen application.

That technology makes us much more efficient. For example, when we’re out in the field planting seeds, we want to know what’s been planted. The machine will shut off so we don’t plant more seeds than we need. Same with the sprayer: It’ll shut off so we don’t put out too much herbicides or insecticides.

What do you see as the future of your farm, and farming in Iowa?

Ward: In general, farms are going to continue to get larger. If labor is an issue, you can eliminate people, and tractors do it.

Sandi: I don’t know, sometimes I wonder. There’s been an influx of smaller, niche farms. I don’t know if the general public will catch on and embrace it, though, because we’re used to cheap food. Everybody wants cheap food.

Ward: You wouldn’t have the critical mass for that. It’s hard, it’s tough.

Sandi: It would be fun to go back, though. Wouldn’t it be nice to go back to how it was when we grew up our parents’ farms? There was livestock, chickens, and grain — it was more self-sufficient. It’d be nice.

How does agricultural policy affect you?

Ward: I’ve been to two meetings already to talk about the farm bill — and it’ll take a meeting or two more before I understand it. The policy is complicated. In general, I think less government is better. There are a lot of hurdles to jump over, paperwork, and time and energy and money, versus just doing what we need to do. Why make it so complicated?

In what ways are the goals of the food movement consistent with your goals on this farm?

Ward: We don’t want our grain hauled any farther than it has to — similar to the farm-to-table movement. The fewer miles the grain has to drive is better, because it’s expending less fossil fuels.

And there’s also a lot of consumer education that needs to happen around here. You know, in our kids’ garden we have these great spaghetti squash, but if consumers don’t even know what a spaghetti squash is, then what? You have to educate consumers, so they want to buy the product.

Sandi: We used to have a CSA, but lots of people quit because they weren’t using all the produce. People are in so many activities and always on the go, so they aren’t able to prepare their own food. It’s interesting; there are so many people who think they want to do eat local until they have to implement it. And they can’t, because it doesn’t fit with their lifestyle.

More than two decades ago in the Irrawaddy delta in Myanmar, farmers began planting two rice crops each year. Rice production increased, but for how long? Depleted organic matter and acidification are now affecting soil health, and farmers who can’t afford fertilizer are seeing their rice yields declining. This is why 200 farmers started to compost rice straw. With this they have been able to maintain rice yields and reduce fertilizer costs. They are still improving their composting techniques and some are starting to experiment with green manures.

Organic agriculture is not limited to edible produce. ASA and CSSA member Jane Dever, a professor at Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center in Lubbock, has been breeding cotton plants for years, and today, she strives to maintain the purity of new, improved organic varieties. Also pictured is graduate student Dylan Wann.

 

Around 10,000 BC, the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution, human societies began domesticating wild plants. For the next 12,000 years, farming relied exclusively on natural inputs, such as animal manure and compost.

The first synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were developed only about 100 years ago but quickly became mainstays of “conventional” farming. In 1992, virtually all of the 460 million acres of U.S. cropland—all but 0.001%—were conventionally managed.

About this same time, however, a new trend emerged, marked by growing interest in traditional and innovative farming practices that invigorate the soil, without resorting to most synthetic chemicals. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 laid out the principles of this new “organic” farming and authorized the USDA to establish a program that would identify acceptable organic production inputs and certify farms meeting the agency’s standards. In 2000, the USDA published its final rule for the National Organic Program, which became operational in 2002.

Now, with increased momentum from the farm-to-fork movement and environmentally aware consumers, the organic food industry is going mainstream. Three out of four conventional grocery stores today offer organic products, according to the USDA. And the amount of cropland devoted to organic agriculture rose from just 403,400 acres in 1992 to roughly 3.1 million acres in 2011. In 2014, organic food sales reached an estimated $35 billion.

In fact, organic foods constitute the fastest-growing agricultural sector. This thin slice of the market has enjoyed a double-digit increase in consumer demand every year for more than a decade, notwithstanding an economic recession and a hefty price differential between conventional and organic. In December 2012, for example, a 25-lb sack of loose conventional carrots had a wholesale price of $12.50 in the Atlanta market. A comparable bag of organic carrots, meanwhile, sold for $24.50.

As says Martin Diffley, an organic farmer and farming consultant based in Farmington, MN, “The organic market is not as big [as the conventional market], but very loyal.”

These market incentives notwithstanding, however, adoption of organic farming is still relatively rare. Just 1% of U.S. farms are USDA organic-certified, and these select few are disproportionately small farms, with annual sales under $250,000.

As it turns out, going back to basics—farming in accord with nature and eschewing many of the practices of conventional agriculture—is not so easy after all. And one of the biggest challenges organic farmers face is simply finding locally adapted plant varieties that will thrive under organic farming conditions.

Creating ‘Optimal Genetics’ for Organic Farming

Organic farmers face a unique set of challenges and thus need crop plants with a unique blend of traits. To fight disease and pests in the absence of chemical supports, for example, organic plant varieties should have strong natural resistance to insects and pathogens. They should also grow quickly and densely to outcompete weeds. Of course, researchers have long sought to enhance such traits in plants bred for large conventional farms with uniform production inputs; however, these conventional varieties are not ideal for the diverse growing conditions found on organic farms. And, in fact, some farmers, like Diffley, believe that modern agriculture has unintentionally caused the decline of certain vital attributes.

“Think of it this way,”he says. “The organic system is the system that has existed since cultivation began. But with the advent of chemical dependence, the plants have lost their ability to source nutrients, to put down roots. The chemicals were easy to access. And that attribute was lost.”

Moreover, while organic consumers are willing to pay a premium, they want high-quality produce, with something to set it apart from commodity-type selections. “Consumers are looking for really novel traits—unique flavor profiles, unique colors, different culinary attributes,” says ASA member Erin Silva, an assistant professor of plant pathology and organic cropping specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “Organic farmers are better able to carve out a niche in the marketplace by growing varieties with these unique characteristics.”

Of course, farmers don’t generally bed out leafy plants; they sow seeds. And finding organic seed can be a daunting task.

Kristina Hubbard, communications director for the non-profit Organic Seed Alliance (OSA), says, “We recently heard from one organic seed company that there are so few organic seed suppliers that a single crop failure can mean the complete absence of that variety for the year because, at times, there are no backup sources.”

Under USDA regulations, organic-certified farmers can resort to untreated, conventional, non-genetically modified seed if appropriate organic seed is unavailable for a particular crop. But, says Hubbard, conventional seed is often “bred and produced in chemical-intensive systems that are in conflict with organic principles.” This provenance, she adds, “means [organic] farmers probably don’t get the optimal genetics for their unique production systems.”

Indeed, a 2009 OSA survey of organic farmers found that only 20% of the 1,027 respondents had been using 100% organic seed for at least the previous three years.

Martin Diffley (left) and Bill Tracy in Minnesota.

 

An added challenge of organic seed production is that sometimes the dynamics of the organic marketplace create demand for smaller quantities of seed but more diverse varieties. So, if seed producers are trying to grow smaller quantities, they need to make sure it’s not cross-contaminated with any other varieties of the same crop that they might be growing. This way, farmers who eventually buy the seed can be confident they’re getting what they paid for, Silva explains. But “it’s logistically more difficult than if you’re just growing acres and acres of one variety.”

Marko Colby, who owns 29-ac Midori Farm on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, uses about half conventional and half organic-certified seed because many of his preferred crop varieties are unavailable in organic-certified seed. Although organic seed is becoming easier to obtain today, he says, historically it has been prone to greater variability than conventional seed, stemming from an admixture of genes from wild plant populations and a poor selection process. “A lot of [organic seed] used to come from small farms with limited technical information,” Colby says. “That is changing now.”

Given the limited choice of good-quality organic seed, both Colby and Diffley have joined a small cadre of organic growers who are, quite literally, taking matters into their own hands and working with formal breeders to create the resources they need to sustain their farming operations.

The metrics for success vary from crop to crop—the deep green hue of a spinach leaf, sweet balanced flavor of an ear of corn, or the strong early vigor of a carrot plant, for example. But ultimately, success boils down to one thing: an unblemished, flavorful crop that meets consumer demands.

Who Gets Kissed?

Breeding plants, Diffley says, is like raising children: “Some people are cut out for it, and some are not.” Count him in the first category. The Minnesota farmer is among the proud parents of a new, open-pollinated sweet corn variety adapted for his cool, northern soils, called “Who Gets Kissed?”

With its yellow and white kernels, the variety is named for a game played at corn husking bees of old, where communities gathered to husk corn and dance. When a person found an ear with all red kernels—or a “pokeberry ear”—they could choose one person among the group to kiss. Released last December, the plant was the result of a participatory breeding program involving Diffley, OSA, and UW-Madison sweet corn breeder Bill Tracy.

Tracy, an ASA and CSSA member, says conventional sweet corn seeds are generally treated with fungicides, and maybe insecticides, before they’re sold. “And, of course, that gives those seeds an advantages in terms of germinating and being able to grow rapidly and fight off pests during germination,” he says. In contrast, “Who Gets Kissed” fends for itself; the variety has natural resistance to some of the most common corn ailments, including the soil-borne fungal diseases, smut and rust.

Weeds are another matter. To outcompete the herbaceous pests, “rapid germination and rapid growth are important,” Tracy says. “You want to shade the ground, form a canopy quickly.”

There are different ways to do this, he adds. “With sweet corn, you can pack many plants per acre, but you get smaller ears, and if ears get too small, they’re not marketable.” Other strategies are varying the leaf morphology or varying plant height, taller plants being better weed competitors than shorter plants.

In developing the weed-fighting ability of “Who Gets Kissed,” the breeders either exposed the plants to weed pressure or planted them at high density and then selected the star performers. Says Tracy, “We let the plants tell us which trait is best.”

Diffley points out other considerations. The flavor of the ear shouldn’t be based solely on sugar content, but on an adequate mix of sugar and starch in the kernel. He also looks for commonality or homogenization to a degree, so that the plants and ears are uniform enough that they’re dependable for point-of-purchase and similar enough to represent that variety.

Finally, the perfect organic sweet corn must source nutrients efficiently and display a general, overall vigor. With all of these traits, it is safe to say that “Who Gets Kissed” is no meek maize.

And because the variety is open-pollinated, Diffley says, “We’re talking about the corn delivering the goods and then growers having the option to grow it out as seed, based on their own criteria.”

Three states to the west of Diffley, Colby has been working with OSA on a similar project to breed organic spinach suitable for Pacific Northwest growing conditions. He joined the project after coming across some sample seed that performed so well in his fields that he was eager to help perfect it. The resulting variety, “Abundant Bloomsdale,” is slated for commercial release in 2015 after a decade of fine-tuning on eight organic farms.

During the first season of the effort, Colby explains, the team planted a large amount of the spinach seed and then looked for several preferred traits: plants with dark green, savoy leaves; plants with more round leaves than arrow leaves; and ones that held their leaves upright and away from soil-borne pathogens. Another characteristic they sought was general health and vigor.

Colby then saved seed from about 40 standout plants and sowed hundreds of seeds from each mother plant. Since spinach is wind-pollinated, it was easy to let all those strains cross again, after pulling the poorest performers. The next year, he repeated the process.

Farmer-breeder Marko Colby (right) and former Organic Seed Alliance plant breeder John Navazio assess an “Abundant Bloomsdale” spinach trial on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State.

 

“We did a lot of improvement,” Colby says. “It’s a really nice spinach—super tasty and disease resistant.”

That’s what got us into breeding,” he adds. “We can impact genetics within a couple generations [to get a plant] that will grow well in our particular microclimate. It’s an art that been perfected over hundreds or thousands of years.”

Silva, at UW-Madison, is trying to work the same magic with carrots, one of the largest organic vegetable crops nationally, but also one of the hardest to cultivate organically. Working with unadapted wild species collected from across the globe by USDA researchers, Silva has found great diversity in early emergence, canopy closure, and the amount of canopy—all critical attributes for weed control.

“Particularly, weed management is difficult,” Silva says. “There are some organic insecticides and fungicides but no organic herbicides.”

The carrot-breeding effort is still young, but Silva is optimistic. “If we can continue to demonstrate we do have effective methods of managing weeds and insects, conventional farmers would be more interested in transitioning to organic, at least for a portion of their acreage,” she says.

‘Tremendous Value’ to Farming This Way

After a hundred-year interlude, organic farming is undergoing a renaissance. And innovative breeding programs and initiatives such as the three-year-old Student Organic Seed Symposium—which promotes dialogue among horticulture students, researchers, and farmers—promise continued expansion. According to those interviewed for this article, access to better plant varieties will make it easier for more farmers to give up their chemicals.

But even for farmers who don’t make the switch to organic production, research on organic systems and organic varieties can still be beneficial, Dever says. We need “knowledge of a lot of different farming systems, including organic, especially when dealing with [herbicide] resistant weeds. Younger farmers who have been using Roundup their whole careers don’t know how to deal with that,” she says. “So, even though organic is less than 1% [of all U.S. cropland], the knowledge these guys have gained by farming this way has a tremendous value.”

Dever is also quick to acknowledge the added benefits of organic farming, including greater worker safety and ecosystem enhancements. “I don’t necessarily condone all the economic studies comparing farming systems,” she says, “because that’s not why these guys go into [organic farming].”

Colby echoes that thought. “Organic farming has a host of challenges,” he says. “But I think the joys of the successes we do have, and the ability to see the soil improving over time and see the plants responding to that healthy soil and having our hands in part of the creation of what we’re doing, well, I’m pretty happy about it every day.”

http://covercrops.cals.cornell.edu/index.php

If you’re planning to get serious about gardening it’s crucial you get to know your soil type. No matter how much work you do in your yard and garden, all that careful sowing, weeding and tending could be in vain if the quality of your soil is not up to scratch.

The soil provides your plants with the vital nutrients, water and air that they require for healthy growth and development. But each plot of ground has its own blend of minerals, organic and inorganic matter which largely determines what crops, shrubs or trees can be grown successfully.

Ideal soil conditions for specific crops can be created in contained plots such as raised bedsor planters, but for larger gardens and landscapes it helps to understand thecharacteristics of the soil you have to work with.

The Six Types of Soil

There are six main soil groups: clay, sandy, silty, peaty, chalky and loamy. They each have different properties and it is important to know these to make the best choices and get the most from your garden.

1. Clay Soil

Clay soil feels lumpy and is sticky when wet and rock hard when dry. Clay soil is poor at draining and has few air spaces. The soil will warm up slowly in spring and it is heavy to cultivate. If the drainage for the soil is enhanced, then plants will develop and grow well as clay soil can be rich in nutrients.

Great for: Perennials and shrubs such as Helen’s Flower, Aster, Bergamot, Flowering quince. Early vegetable crops and soft berry crops can be difficult to grow in clay soil because of its cool, compact nature. Summer crop vegetables, however, can be high yielding vigorous plants. Fruit trees, ornamental trees and shrubs thrive on clay soils.

2. Sandy Soil

Sandy soil feels gritty. It drains easily, dries out fast and is easy to cultivate. Sandy soil warms up fast in spring and tends to hold fewer nutrients as these are often washed away during wetter spells. Sandy soil requires organic amendments such as glacial rock dust, greensand, kelp meal, or other organic fertilizerblends. It also benefits from mulching to help retain moisture.

Great for: Shrubs and bulbs such as Tulips, Tree mallow, Sun roses, Hibiscus. Vegetable root crops like carrots, parsnips and potatoes favour sandy soils. Lettuce, strawberries, peppers, corn, squash, zucchini, collard greens and tomatoes are grown commercially in sandy soils.

3. Silty Soil

Silty soil feels soft and soapy, it holds moisture, is usually very rich in nutrients. The soil is easily cultivated and can be compacted with little effort. This is a great soil for your garden if drainage is provided and managed. Mixing in composted organic matter is usually needed to improve drainage and structure while adding nutrients.

Great for: Shrubs, climbers, grasses and perennials such as Mahonia, New Zealand flax. Moisture-loving trees such as Willow, Birch, Dogwood and Cypress do well in silty soils. Most vegetable and fruit crops thrive in silty soils which have adequate adequate drainage.

4. Peaty Soil

Peaty soil is a darker soil and feels damp and spongy due to its higher levels of peat. It is an acidic soil which slows down decomposition and leads to the soil having fewer nutrients. The soil heats up quickly during spring and can retain a lot of water which usually requires drainage. Drainage channels may need to be dug for soils with high peat content. Peat soil is great for growth when blended with rich organic matter, compost and lime to reduce the acidity. You can also use soil amendments such as glacial rock dust to raise pH in acidic soils.

Great for: Shrubs such as Heather, Lantern Trees, Witch Hazel, Camellia, Rhododendron. Vegetable crops such as Brassicas, legumes, root crops and salad crops do well in well-drained peaty soils.

5. Chalky Soil

Chalky soil is larger grained and generally stonier compared to other soils. It is free draining and usually overlays chalk or limestone bedrock. The soil is alkaline in nature which sometimes leads to stunted growth and yellowish leaves – this can be resolved by using appropriate fertilizers and balancing the pH. Adding humus is recommended to improve water retention and workability.

Great for: Trees, bulbs and shrubs such as Lilac, Weigela, Madonna lilies, Pinks, Mock Oranges. Vegetables such as spinach, beets, sweet corn, and cabbage do well in chalky soils.

6. Loamy Soil

Loamy soil, a relatively even mix of sand, silt and clay, feels fine-textured and slightly damp. It has ideal characteristics for gardening, lawns and shrubs. Loamy soil has great structure, adequate drainage, is moisture retaining, full of nutrients, easily cultivated and it warms up quickly in spring, but doesn’t dry out quickly in summer. Loamy soils require replenishing with organic matter regularly, and tend to be acidic.

Great for: Climbers. bamboos, perennials, shrubs and tubers such as Wisteria, Dog’s-tooth violets, Black Bamboo, Rubus, Delphinium. Most vegetable crops and berry crops will do well since loamy soil can be the most productive of soil types. However, loamy soil requires careful management to prevent depletion and drying out. Rotating crops, planting green manure crops, using mulches and adding compost and organic nutrients is essential to retain soil vitality.

Simple Tests to Help Determine Your Soil Type

The water test

Pour water onto your soil. If it drains quickly it is likely to be a sandy or gravelly soil, on clay soils the water will take longer to sink in.

Squeeze test

Grab a handful of soil and softly compress it in your fist.

• If the soil is sticky and slick to the touch and remains intact and in the same shape when you let go it will be clay soil.
• If the soil feels spongy it’s peaty soil; sandy soil will feel gritty and crumble apart.
• Loamy and silty soils will feel smooth textured and hold their shape for a short period of time.

Settle test

Add a handful of soil to a transparent container, add water, shake well and then leave to settle for 12 hours.

• Clay & silty soils will leave cloudy water with a layer of particles at the bottom.
• Sandy soils will leave the water mostly clear and most of the particles will fall, forming a layer on the base of the container.
• Peaty soils will see many particles floating on the surface; the water will be slightly cloudy with a thin layer at the bottom.
• Soils that are chalky will leave a layer of whitish, grit-like fragments on the bottom of the container and the water will be a shade of pale grey.
• If the water is quite clear with layered particles on the bottom of the container with the finest particle at the top – this soil is likely to be a loamy one.

Acid test

The standard pH for soils usually ranges between 4.0 and 8.5. Plants favor soil which has a pH between 6.5 and 7 because this is the level where nutrients and minerals naturally thrive. You canbuy a pH test kit here, or from a local garden center. As a general rule, in areas with soft water you will have acid soil and hard water areas will tend to have alkaline soil.

Soil test kit

Use a soil test kit to assess primary nutrients (N-P-K) as well as pH levels. By testing your soil, you determine its exact condition so you can fertilize more effectively and economically. Soil should be tested periodically throughout the growing season.

How to make the most of your soil, whatever the type

Plants generally prefer neutral soil but it’s worth bearing in mind that some favor slightly acid or alkaline soils. Regardless of the pH of your soil it is possible to adjust the level slightly to make it more hospitable to the type of plants you want to grow. Remember this is only temporary, so it’s advised to make the most from the soil type you have.

Adding ground lime to your soil will make it more alkaline and aluminium sulfate or sulfur will help to make your soil more acidic.

If your soil is low in nutrients (like sandy soil), try supply it with organic matter such as compost and manure to enrich the soil and improve its texture. Use organic mulches such as straw, dried grass clippings and deciduous leaves. These mulches break down and incorporate into the soil, building a new supply of organic nutrients while improving the soil structure.

Clay soil is often not aerated enough and is deficient in good structure which makes it more difficult for successful growing. To get the most out of clay soil it’s best to add large quantities of well-rotted organic matter in the fall and peat a few weeks before planting. Greensand can also be used to loosen heavy clay soils or bind sandy soils.

It is often difficult to cultivate in chalky soil due to its alkaline nature. To help rectify this add bulky organic matter which breaks down over time, adding nutrients and minerals to the soil.

Make sure your soil is healthy.

It’s a good idea to regard your soil as living as your plants – it too needs food and water. Make sure it contains the three main nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) which are vital to growing plants effectively. Organic matter and fertilizers are rich in these.

After a crop is harvested the soil needs to be renewed before planting a successive crop. Many gardeners plant ‘green manure’ crops such as legumes, buckwheat, vetch and clover which fix nitrogen into the soil while building texture, improving aeration and drainage and adding organic matter. These cover crops are tilled in before they go to seed, and break down quickly so a new harvestable crop can be planted without much delay.

Crop rotation, green manures and cover crops, the use of mulch and the periodic addition of organic materials like compost and fertilizer are standard ways of restoring soil health after crop harvests. Rock phosphate, or rock dust, is also a valued amendment to restore phosphorus levels needed for vigorous plant growth.

If you can, introduce and encourage living organisms to your soil. The fungus Mycorrhize will aid your plants in the absorption of water and nutrients and worms will help speed up the composting process and help spread fertilizer through the soil.

When you first start out this can all seem very complicated but by identifying your soil type it will make the growing and maintaining of a healthy garden a lot easier. Remember, it’s well worth the trouble as your soil type is never going to change!

Use of insecticides in the West Bank is shown. The investigation showed that with higher average temperatures even more insecticides are used and therefore streams are more at risk in warmer regions than in colder.

Leipzig/ Landau. Streams within approx. 40% of the global land surface are at risk from the application of insecticides. These were the results from the first global map to be modelled on insecticide runoff to surface waters, which has just been published in the journal Environmental Pollution by researchers from the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research (UFZ) and the University of Koblenz-Landau together with the University of Milan, Aarhus University and Aachen University. According to the publication, particularly streams in the Mediterranean, the USA, Central America and Southeast Asia are at risk.

Unlike other chemicals, agricultural pesticides are intentionally applied to the environment to help farmers control insects, weeds and other potentially harmful pests threatening agricultural production. They can therefore affect land ecosystems but also surface waters from runoff. According to estimates, ca. 4 million tons of agricultural pesticides are applied annually, equating to an average of 0.27 kilograms per hectare of the global land surface. „We know from earlier investigations for example that pesticides can reduce the biodiversity of invertebrates in freshwater ecosystems by up to 42 percent and that we can expect an increased application of pesticides as a result of climate change", explains Prof. Dr. Matthias Liess from the UFZ, who was recently appointed to a term of five years on the scientific advisory board "National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products" where he advises the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Liess warns of an increase in the application of pesticides in many developing countries as farmers increasingly switch from traditionally extensive agricultural practices to more intensive ones. Until now the global extent of the potential water pollution from the application of insecticides has remained largely unknown.

The international team of scientists therefore came up with a global model with a raster of ca. ten kilometres, into which agricultural data from FAO and land use data from NASA among other data were entered. Annual average temperatures and monthly maximum precipitation measurements from around 77,000 weather stations were also taken into account. Following that, the researchers then estimated the so-called runoff potential (RP), in other words the amount of insecticides that enters streams and rivers through the rainwater from agricultural land. „In this respect, daily rainfall intensity, terrain slope, and insecticide application rate play an equally important role as well as the crops cultivated", explains junior professor Dr. Ralf B. Schäfer from the University of Koblenz-Landau. „In order to test such complex models, we therefore carried out control measurements of insecticide contamination in freshwater ecosystems from four different regions".

Several world maps were produced: the vulnerability map only takes into account the geographic and climatic background. The risk map on the other hand shows the risks from this natural vulnerability through anthropogenic land use. In Central Europe, scientists largely assessed the risk for water bodies as medium to high. In the northern hemisphere, insecticide runoff presented an overall more significant latitudinal gradient. „The risks of insecticide exposure to water bodies increased significantly the further South one travelled on a North-South gradient in Europe, North America and Asia, mainly driven by a higher insecticide application rate as a result of higher average temperatures", Dr. Mira Kattwinkel reports, who is now conducting research at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Because the economy and the population are growing rapidly in many countries of the southern hemisphere, scientists expect a higher insecticide application rate in those countries in the future to cover an increase in agricultural production. The map could therefore still change colour considerably in other parts of the world. At the moment it is water bodies in the Mediterranean, the USA, Central America and Southeast Asia that are particularly vulnerable.

In Southeast Asia, countries such as the Philippines or Vietnam are greatly affected for example. UFZ researchers are looking into solutions for such regions within the framework of the LEGATO-project together with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), in an attempt to reduce pesticide application rates. one approach for example could be to revitalise the functioning of ecosystems so that the natural competitors of rice pests can help to avoid their mass reproduction and subsequent harvest yield losses.

„Our analysis provides a global map of hotspots for insecticide contamination that are a major risk for biodiversity in water bodies. To our knowledge this is the first study that assesses insecticide contamination of water bodies on a global scale", Prof. Dr. Matthias Liess summarizes the significance of the new investigation. The researchers intend to use the global map to sensitize citizens and authorities about this issue in vulnerable regions and to incite local investigations. Buffer zones along the edge of water bodies can significantly reduce negative impacts for example. Efficient environmental management and conservation efforts in the future should focus on informing authorities and farmers about the costs, impacts and alternatives. Ultimately, mitigation and management takes place at the local level, determining the extent to which a water body will be affected under the application of such chemicals.

###

Publications:

Alessio Ippolito, Mira Kattwinkel, Jes J. Rasmussen, Ralf B. Schäfer, Riccardo Fornaroli, Matthias Liess (2015): Modeling global distribution of agricultural insecticides in surface waters. Environmental Pollution, Volume 198, March 2015, Pages 54-60, ISSN 0269-7491, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.12.016

J.H. Spangenberg, J.-M. Douguet, J. Settele, K.L. Heong (2015): Escaping the lock-in of continuous insecticide spraying in rice. Developing an integrated ecological and socio-political DPSIR analysis. Ecological Modelling, Volume 295, 10 January 2015, Pages 188-195, ISSN 0304-3800, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.05.010

Further information:

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) 
Prof. Dr. Matthias Liess 
Phone: +49 (0)341-235-1263 
http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=3714

and

Institute for Environmental Sciences / University of Koblenz-Landau 
Jun.-Prof. Dr. Ralf B. Schäfer 
Phone: +49 (0)6341 280-31536 
http://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/en/campus-landau/faculty7/environmental-sciences/landscape-ecology?set_language=en

or via

Tilo Arnhold, Susanne Hufe (UFZ press office) 
Phone: +49 (0)341-235-1635, -1630 
http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=640

and

Kerstin Theilmann (press office of the University of Koblenz-Landau) 
Phone: +49 (0)6341 280-32219 
http://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/en?set_language=en

Further Links:

Pesticides significantly reduce biodiversity in aquatic environments (Press release, 17 June 2013): http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=31771

Study: Pesticide authorisation procedures fail to adequately protect biodiversity in rivers (Press release, 31 May 2012): http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=30499

Insecticides an increasing problem in future for streams in Europe (Press release, 6 December 2011):http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=22378

LEGATO - a major international project on sustainable development of rice ecosystems in Southeast Asia (Press release, 14 June 2011): http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=21842

Pesticides - Easier detection of pollution and impact in rivers (Press release, 4 September 2009): http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=18595

First forecast of the ecological risks associated with plant protection products in Europe (Press release, 2 October 2007): http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=14970

Tillage practices that conserve moisture, plants that use water more efficiently and soil with more organic matter have produced higher yields even in dry conditions, according to soil scientist David Clay, professor of plant science.

Research shows that soil carbon levels have increased by 24 percent from 1985 to 2010, according to Clay. Over the same period, corn yields increased by 73 percent.

Clay pointed out that these statistics are the result of a decrease in tillage intensity resulting from the development of specialized farm equipment and development of improved soybean and corn cultivars.

"Higher organic matter content means the soil can store more water, which improves the crop's ability to resist drought and to fully take advantage of genetic enhancements," Clay said.

In addition, greater water retention means less runoff and, therefore, less environmental impact, he pointed out. From 1982 to 2007, conservation tillage practices reduced erosion by 34 percent in South Dakota, 23 percent in Nebraska and 20 percent in North Dakota.

Evaluating impact of water stress

Water stress causes leaf pores, or stomata, to close so that the plant doesn't lose moisture, according to Clay. To assess that impact, he collaborated with colleague professor Gregg Carlson, wife Sharon, a professor in weed science, U. S, Department of Agriculture plant physiologist David Horvath and agronomy doctoral students Stephanie Hansen and Graig Reicks. They analyzed how water stress affects gene ｅxpression in corn at the V-12 stage.

"Isotopic techniques when combined with molecular techniques give us the ability to look at plant physiology in addition to yield," Clay said. For instance, water stress results in a change in the relative amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-13 fixed during photosynthesis.

By measuring stable carbon isotopic ratio, crop yield and relative gene ｅxpression, the researchers concluded that water stress decreased the plants' ability to take up nutrients and recover from pest injury.

High organic matter levels mean the soil can store more water, Clay says.

"Plants have only so much carbon and energy," Clay pointed out. "If they are allocating most of their resources to finish the reproductive cycle, that doesn't leave much energy for other functions.

"By understanding the stress that the plant is undergoing, we can develop management practices to close the gap between the plants' achieved yield and its genetic yield potential," he said, thus supporting worldwide food security and South Dakota workforce development.

Looking at increased yields

To gauge the impact plant breeding and soil research have had on crops grown under dry conditions, Clay compared corn, wheat and soybean yields during droughts in 1974 and 2012. Rainfall amounts were the same, but the Palmer Drought Severity Index rated 2012 as a more severe drought than 1974.

Despite this, yields increased significantly—soybeans by 50 percent, wheat by nearly 150 percent and corn by more than 200 percent, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data. Clay estimated that the increased water available to the crops through improved soil management had a net impact of $1.1 billion on South Dakota agriculture in 2012.

This illustrates the value that research brings to producers, Clay explained, "and how important it is for all of us to work together."

가디언에 버마(미얀마라고도 하는)의 토지 문제에 관한 좋은 사진자료가 올라왔다. 

요지는, 2012년에 농지법이 통과되었는데 그 이후 농민들이 군사정권이 강탈해 갔던 땅을 되찾으려고 노력한다는 이야기이다. 하지만 정부에서는 토지이용 정책을 올해까지 입안하려고 하는데, 그 등록 절차 중 여성이 추방되고 소유권이 불안한 많은 농민들이 땅을 빼앗길 것이란 우려가 커지고 있단다. 

버마도 아직 농업국가라서 국민의 65%가 농민이라고 한다. 하지만 토지법은 구식이고 모순적이라, 수십 년에 걸친 독재정권 때 군대가 토지를 수탈하고 그랬단다. 그래서 정부에서 새로운 토지이용 정책을 입안한 것인데, 그마저도 지배층이 뒤흔들어 실패할 것이란 우려가 있다고 한다. 

아래의 분은 87세의 농부인데, 군대가 자신의 땅을 빼앗고 임대료를 지불하라고 강요했다고 한다. 이를 거부하여 현재 법정에 불려다니는 신세라고 한다. 

Pyay 지구의 길가에 군부가 만들어 놓은 양어지라고 써 놓은 팻말이다. 

Dwar Ther Hle 마을의 농민들이다. 정부에서 송전탑을 건설한다며 농작물을 망쳐 놓았다고 한다. 정부에선 피해보상을 거부했지만 마을사람들이 스스로 법적 분쟁을 통해 결국 보상을 받아냈다고 한다. 

그 결과, 마을 사람들은 예전과 다름없이 농사를 짓고 있단다. 그들에게 조언을 하고 훈련시킨 건 국제법률단체인 Namati와 지역의 시민단체인 CPRCG라고.

아래는 황혼 무렵의 Paung Tel 읍이라고 한다. 2011년 개혁적인 정부가 들어서 개발사업을 벌이고 있지만 여전히 대부분의 농민들은 농사와운송에 소달구지를 쓴다고. 

Pyay 지구의 논. Namati와 CPRCG가 처리한 수많은 사례를 바탕으로 정보를 수집하여 토지 등록과정에 대한 정보가 정부보다 더 많다고 한다. 이 정보를 활용하여 토지수탈에 대항하고 여성에게 더 공평한 과정을 만들 것이라고. 

2012년 농지법이 통과된 되, 전국적으로 121000헥타르의 농지를 농민들이 되찾게 되었다. Namati와 CPRCG의 도움으로 돌려받은 경우도 있지만, 아직 많은 농지가 미해결 상태로 남아 있다고 한다. 

PIG number 5422 saunters into the pen, circles its few square metres and mounts a plastic stand. The farmer cleans the animal’s underside, feels around and draws out what appears to be a thin pink tube around 30cm long. He begins to massage. Pigs elsewhere snort, grunt or squeal, but the alpha pig is unmoved. Soon he has filled a thermal cup with more than 60 billion sperm. Around 150 pigs will owe their short, brutish lives to this emission.

A malty smell hangs in the air at the Fuxin Breeding Farm in Jiangxi province in central China, 10 hectares of low concrete barns and fields beside a small reservoir, which is home to around 2,000 pigs. The business was started four years ago by 31-year-old Ouyang Kuanxue. Mr Ouyang’s friends say he was destined to be a pig farmer—he was born in the Chinese zodiacal year of the pig—but his own explanation is more prosaic: when he came back to Pingxiang, his hometown, in 2003 after studying management at university in Beijing, he could not think what else to do. His grandfather was a coalminer who kept a few pigs. His father already had 100. He decided to expand.

Now the whole family is involved: together they have three farms with a total of around 5,000 swine. Mr Ouyang’s younger brother is in charge of production; his sister-in-law runs the office. The past year has been hard for them and other pig farmers, Mr Ouyang says, because pork prices have been low and feed expensive. But this lean year followed many fat ones. Mr Ouyang drives a Volkswagen SUV; his wife has a new Audi, wears a Cartier bracelet and runs two nail bars; they own an apartment in a new block in the local town. Mr Ouyang has a panoply of pig-related news feeds on his phone. Still, when he goes out for dinner with friends, he tends to avoid pork.

A brief history of Chinese pork

The family’s good fortune is emblematic of China’s flying pig market over the past 35 years. Since the late 1970s, when the government liberalised agriculture, pork consumption has increased nearly sevenfold in China. It now produces and consumes almost 500m swine a year, half of all the pigs in the world. The tale of Chinese pigs is thus a parable of the country’s breakneck economic rise. But it is more than symbolic: China’s lust for pork has serious consequences for the country’s economy and environment—and for the world.

Pigs have been at the centre of Chinese culture, cuisine and family life for thousands of years. Pork is the country’s essential meat. In Mandarin the word for “meat” and “pork” are the same. The character for “family” is a pig under a roof. The pig is one of the 12 signs of the Chinese zodiac: those born in that year are said to be diligent, sympathetic and generous. Pigs signify prosperity, fertility and virility. Poems, stories and songs celebrate them. Miniature clay pigs have been found in graves from the Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD). Historians think people in southern China were the first in the world to domesticate wild boars, 10,000 years ago.

For centuries sacrificial pigs—and the eating of pork—featured prominently in all forms of commemoration and festivity. At the autumnal Double Ninth Festival (on the ninth day of the ninth lunar month), male elders gathered at their ancestors’ tombs and slaughtered a pig as a symbol of that forebear’s ongoing provision for his descendants. When an estate was in financial trouble, pigs were the last expense to go, says James Watson, an anthropologist at Harvard University, because if the autumn rites were neglected, the ancestor would die a second, terrible death, a final expiration of his spirit.

Every household needs one

Almost every rural home once had a pig, not least because, well into the Communist era, the animals were part of the household recycling system. They consumed otherwise inedible waste and were valued for their manure (even Mao Zedong was a fan of the “fertiliser factory on four legs”). And their meat has always been central to Chinese cooking: it has “the perfect flavour for Chinese cuisine,” reckons Fuchsia Dunlop, a food writer and cook. Nothing is wasted. Pigs’ faces are served whole as a gourmet treat; their brains, says Ms Dunlop, are “soft as custard, and dangerously rich”. The appeal is medicinal as well as culinary: the innards are ascribed therapeutic benefits.

From trotter to tail, the Chinese eat the whole hog. Still, for much of China’s history, pigs were a luxury consumed only rarely, sometimes extremely rarely. That has changed dramatically.

Everything but the squeal

Lei Xiaoping, the manager of Mr Ouyang’s farm, eats pork for every lunch and dinner these days—swine from the farm that have died in a fight or are too small to sell. He is not squeamish about guzzling pigs he has reared himself. After all, as a child Mr Lei (now aged 51) ate pork only three times a year.

Even before the revolution of 1949, most people in China got only 3% of their annual calorific intake from meat. Pork soon became scarcer still. Tens of millions died in the famine that followed Mao’s Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s and early 1960s. For decades after that peasants would rub pork fat around their woks to give their vegetables a meaty hint, says Ms Dunlop, before putting the fat away to use on another occasion. As recently as the early 1990s many Chinese mostly subsisted on a diet of vegetables bought at street markets.

For Mr Lei, as for many of his countrymen, the years of deprivation are well within living memory. Not surprising, then, that eating meat has become a symbol of triumph over hardship, as much a part of China’s transformation as the towering skyscrapers and glistening cities. Grandparents who once went hungry stuff their grandchildren with the treats they lacked—and top of the list is pork. The average Chinese now eats 39kg of pork a year (roughly a third of a pig), more even than Americans (who typically prefer beef), and five times more per person than they ate in 1979.

Four legs good

The most obvious impact has been on the pigs themselves. Until the 1980s farms as large as Mr Ouyang’s were unknown: 95% of Chinese pigs came from smallholdings with fewer than five animals. Today just 20% come from these backyard farms, says Mindi Schneider of the International Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. Some industrial facilities, often owned by the state or by multinationals, produce as many as 100,000 swine a year. These are born and live for ever on slatted metal beds; most never see direct sunlight; very few ever get to breed. The pigs themselves have changed physically, too. Three foreign breeds now account for 95% of them; to preserve its own kinds, China has a national gene bank (basically a giant freezer of pig semen) and a network of indigenous-pig menageries. Nevertheless, scores of ancient variants may soon die out.

But China’s pigs are far from the only victims of their popularity. Demand for them worries the Communist Party, underpins what will soon be the world’s biggest economy and threatens Amazon rainforests.

This little piggy stayed home

The Chinese eat so much pork that when its price goes up, the cost of other things rises, too. For the Communist Party, therefore, keeping affordable meat on the table is vital, not least for the stability of the economy. In 2007, for example, an estimated 45m pigs died in China from “blue ear pig disease”. Pork prices rocketed; the annual rate of increase of the consumer price index (sometimes known as the “consumer pig index” because of the creature’s prominent role in it) hit a ten-year high. Panic buying ensued. There were reports of customers being injured in a crush on a supermarket escalator when rushing to buy cheap chilled pork in Guangzhou, and a general pork-buying frenzy across China. Imports doubled.

In response the party established the world’s first pork reserve, some of it in frozen form and some the live, snorting variety. This aims to keep pork affordable and reasonably priced: when pigs become too expensive, the government releases some of its stock onto the market; if they become too cheap, the reserve buys more porkers to keep farmers in profit. Other pro-pork policies include grants, tax incentives, cheap loans for farms and free animal immunisation—all intended to boost intensive pig farming and to keep plates loaded high with Chinese pork. According to Chatham House, a London-based think-tank, the Chinese government subsidised pork production by $22 billion in 2012. That is roughly $47 per pig.

Yet even the Communist Party can no longer control every aspect of this vast industry. That is partly because the appetite for pork is now so great—and growing so fast—that sating it depends on places far beyond China’s borders. Chinese pigs, in turn, are reshaping the environments of faraway countries.

The Communist Party prizes self-sufficiency in food. Most of the pigs China eats are indeed home-grown. But each kilogram of pork requires 6kg of feed, usually processed soy or corn. Given the scarcity of water and land in China, it cannot feed its pigs as well as its people. The upshot is that Chinese swine, which previously ate household scraps, increasingly rely on imported feed.

Ms Schneider reckons that more than half of the world’s feed crops will soon be eaten by Chinese pigs. Already in 2010 China’s soy imports accounted for more than 50% of the total global soy market. From a low base, grain imports are rising fast as well: the US Grains Council, a trade body, predicts that by 2022 China will need to import 19m-32m tonnes of corn. That equates to between a fifth and a third of the world’s entire trade in corn today.

As a result, land use is changing drastically on the other side of the world. In Brazil, more than 25m hectares of land—parts of which were once Amazon rainforest—are being used to cultivate soy (Chinese companies have not signed up to the “soy roundtable”, a voluntary association, the members of which agree not to buy soyabeans from newly deforested land). Entire species of plants and trees are being sacrificed to fatten China’s pigs. Argentina has chopped down thousands of hectares of forest and shifted its traditional cattle-breeding to remote areas to make way for soyabeans. Since 1990 the Argentine acreage given over to that crop has quadrupled: the country exports almost all of its whole soyabeans—around 8m tonnes—to China. In some areas farmers harvest two or three crops a year, using herbicides that have been linked to birth defects and increased cancer rates.

All these imports have made China ever-more exposed to global commodity prices. China has responded by buying land in other countries, some of which is used to grow feed crops or to raise pigs that are sold onto the domestic market at preferential prices. China itself is secretive about these purchases, but the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think-tank, calculates that it has bought 5m hectares in developing countries; others think the total is higher. When Shuanghui, China’s largest pork producer, bought Smithfield Foods, an American firm, in 2013, it acquired huge stretches of Missouri and Texas. As demand for pork rises, China’s porcine empire is sure to expand.

Pigging out

Feeding the pigs is not farmers’ only concern. Their greatest fear is disease: growth slows when a pig gets sick, and, even more worryingly, swine on modern Chinese farms tend to be genetically similar (many are half-siblings), so when one gets ill, much of the herd may succumb. Farmers routinely add small doses of antibiotics to their feed, and this, too, has daunting knock-on effects. In America and Europe such practices are associated with the emergence of “superbugs”, bacteria in animals and humans that are resistant to most antibiotics. In 2009 pigs exported from China to Hong Kong were found to harbour one such bug. The mainland government acknowledged the problem, yet the use of antibiotics, hormones and growth-promoters is barely regulated.

These drugs pass into the wider food chain partly via sizzling plates of pork, and partly through the 5kg of manure that the average pig produces a day. This once-desirable substance is now a critical problem for China. Though large swathes of land have been set aside to contain it, they are poorly managed. The billions of tonnes of waste China’s livestock produce each year are one of the biggest sources of water and soil pollution in the country, according to the Ministry of Agriculture. The 16,000 dead pigs that were dumped in the tributaries of the Huangpu river, a source of Shanghai’s tap-water, after a virus outbreak in 2013, were a lurid indicator of a seeping national problem.

Porcine waste also contributes to emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Intensive swine-farming is much more polluting than smallholding. So, as well as depriving Earth of the natural cooling function of the rainforests they displace, Chinese pigs contribute to global warming more directly. Greenhouse-gas emissions from Chinese agriculture increased by 35% between 1994 and 2005. The global expansion of livestock production is one of the primary causes of climate change, says Tony Weis of the University of Western ontario, Canada, responsible for almost a fifth of emissions produced by human activity.

So although its proliferating pigs are a resonant symbol of China’s prosperity, they are also a menace. A few in China—a very few—are beginning to question the benefits of eating more and more pork. Meat consumption is beginning to plateau among the very rich; health scares have boosted sales of organic food, though it still accounts for a tiny share of agricultural production. Vegetarianism is growing, but is generally thought eccentric. The ambition of most Chinese continues to be to devour as large a slice of the pork pie as possible. In much of the rich world meat consumption is stable or falling but in the Middle Kingdom it soars unrestrained. Forget the zodiac: in today’s China, every year is the year of the pig.