@農자료창고

메릴랜드 뉴버그의 유기농 생산자 Heinz Thomet 씨가 마른땅에서 벼를 수확하고 있다. (Logan Mock-Bunting/For The Washington Post)

유기농업의 요점은 토양이다. 그러한 방식의 농장은 토양을 건강하게 유지하여 —풍부한 유기물과 영양분, 미생물의 활동— 관행농업에서 사용하는 합성 비료와 농약 없이도 작물을 재배할 수 있다.

유기농 농부는 토양을 개선하기 위해 많은 기술을 활용한다. 그들은 퇴비와 똥거름을 사용하고, 작물을 돌려짓기하며 다양한 종류의 식물을 재배한다. 그들은 농약을 사용하더라도 특정한 종류(주로 천연물질과 승인을 받은 몇몇 합성물질)를 쓰며, 해충 조절법이 실패했을 때에만 그렇게 한다. 

그러나 많은 관행농 농민들 역시 그러한 것을 많이 한다. 당신이 유기농산물을 구입하느라 추가의 돈을 지불할 때, 당신은 환경에 혜택이 된다는 것을 지지하고 있는가? 나는 알고 싶다. 이는 내가 이 글에서 대답하고자 하는 가장 어려운 질문의 하나일 것이다.

모든 유기농과 관행농을 포괄적으로 평가하고 하나의 유형이나 다른 것이 더 낫다고 이야기할 수 있는 토양의 건강이나 환경오염(토양침식, 영양분 유실이나 온실가스의 형태로)에 대한 자료는 없지만, 전국의 과학자들이 비교하는 작업을 하고 있기에 우린 무언가를 계속 해나갈 수 있다. 

계속해서, 당신이 발견하듯이, 그렇다, 유기농업은 몇 가지 중요한 환경 혜택이 있다. —이 논의의 목적을 위하여 유기농업은 미국 농무부에서 정의하는 엄격한 기준을 지킴으로써 인증을 받은 것으로 하자.

그 비교 작업을 하고 있는 과학자의 한 명인 미국 농무부의 Michel Cavigelli 씨가 있다. 그는 토양학이라는 극히 일부의 사람들만 이해하는 세계에 관하여 이야기하지 않는다면, 내가 유기농 대 관행농의 대결이라 부르곤 하는 일을 행하고 있다. 그건 장기간의 대결로, 1993년에 시작되었다.  메릴랜드 Beltsville에 있는 미국 농무부의 농장에서는 다섯 가지 종류의 농업을 시험한다. 그것은 두 가지 관행농업과 세 가지 유기농업이다. (차이점은 돌려짓기와 경운의 종류에 있다.)

캘리포니아의 유기농 농장에서 근대를 수확하는 노동자들. 유기농은 관행농법에서 종종 사용되는 높은 수준의 농약에 농업노동자들이 노출되지 않기 때문에 더 낫다. (Sam Hodgson/Bloomberg)

어느 것이 나은가?

그래, 좋다. 농사는 복잡하여 그에 관하여 이야기하면 딱 부러지게 대답하기 어렵다. Cavigelli 씨가 나에게 가장 먼저 이야기한 건 “모든 관행농업이 똑같지 않고, 모든 유기농업이 똑같지 않다”는 말이다. 그러고 나서 그는 악마와 세부사항에 관하여 말을 이어갔다.  

그럼에도 불구하고, 그 다섯 가지 체계에서 몇 가지 중요한 차이가 지난 23년에 걸쳐 나타났다. 

미국 농무부의 시험에서 유기농 체계는:

●토양이 더 비옥해지고,

●적은 비료를 쓰고 훨씬 적은 제초제를 쓰며,

●에너지를 덜 쓰고,

●토양에 더 많은 탄소를 가두고,

●농민에게 수익성이 더 좋다.

관행농 체계는:

●수확량이 더 많고,

●침식을 줄이는 데 최고이다(무경운을 활용하면).

두 체계 사이의 차이점을 연구하는 몇몇 과학자들과 이야기한 뒤, 그리고 그 주제에 대한 수많은 논문을 읽은 뒤, 나는 결과에는 분명 차이가 있지만 그 목록이 각 체계의 장점에 대한 합리적 설명이라는 결론을 내리는 것이 합리적이라고 생각했다. (만약 당신이 유기농업에 대한 다른 중요한, 전면적인 주장을 발견한다면, 출처를 확인하라. 많은 유기농 단체들이 그러한 주장을 한다. 유기농업을 지지하는 단체가 유기농업이 최고라는 연구에 초점을 맞추는 것이 완벽하게 합리적인 것처럼, 관행농업 단체가 효율성과 유전자변형 작물의 이점에 초점을 맞추는 것은 같다. 하지만 난 자료에 초점을 맞추고자 노력했다.)

나는 그 과정에서 몇몇 흥미로운 점을 배웠다. 먼저, 나는 무경운 농법(토양을 경운하지 않고 작물을 재배)이 토양에 탄소를 가둘 수 있다(기후변화에 기여하는 것을 환경에 영향을 주지 않도록)는 많은 주장을 들었지만,  몇몇 자료에서는 격리된 탄소가 토양의 상층에서만 발견된다는 것을 나에게 이야기했다. 더 깊이 파면 아무것도 발견하지 못한다. 이와 대조적으로, Cavigelli 씨의 유기농 체계는 훨씬 깊은 곳에까지 탄소를 격리시킨다.

그러나 유기농 체계의 탄소 격리에 관한 주장을 고려할 때, 우리는 전체 그림을 봐야 한다. 미시간 주립대학의 저명한 교수 Phil Robertson 씨는 그런 탄소의 대부분이 거름의 형태로 토양에 추가된다고 지적한다. 그것은 당신이 어디에서 거름을 줄여 적게 있더라도, 특정한 토양에 더 많은 탄소가 있다는 것을 의미한다. “그건 돌려막기 같은 것이다”라고 그는 말한다. 

Robertson 씨는 또한 유기농 농부들이 이용할 수 없는 환경 피해를 완화시키는 어떤 도구를 이야기했다. 그 가운데 하나는 유전자변형 작물이다. 비록 합리적인 사람들이 그 작물의 장점과 단점이 어떠한지에 대한 의견에 서로 호각을 이루고 있지만, 여러 과학자와 농민들과 함께 Robertson 씨는 두 가지 주요한 유형의 유전자변형 작물 —글리포세이트 제초제 저항성과 유기적 살충제를 내장한 종류— 이 농약 사용을 줄이는 데 도움이 된다고 이야기한다. 

또, 유기농 농부는 무경운을 적용하기가 어렵다. 제초제 없이 최고의 김매는 도구는 경운이고, 그것은 침식과 영양분 유실, 유기농 농부가 육성하려고 열심히 노력하는 미생물 군집의 붕괴로 이어질 수 있다.  일으킬 수 있다.

그러나 대체로 유기농 체계가 관행농 체계에 대하여 일반적으로 더 건강한 토양을 갖고, 환경에 이롭다는 건 꽤 명확하다. 

2005년, Safeway는 더 많은 유기농, 자연농 식품을 제공하는 “lifestyle”이란 상점을 열었다. 일반적으로 식품 구매자들은 유기농 제품에 더 많은 돈을 지불하고, 그래서 유기농 농민들은 그들이 판매하는 것에 대해 더 높은 수익을 올릴 수 있다 이윤이 더 높다. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

그러나 문제가 있다. 환경에 대한 이점은 일반적으로 소비자들이 유기농 제품에 추가로 돈을 지불하려는 이유가 되지 않는다. Organic Trade Association(과 다른 단체들)에 의하면, 소비자들은 주로 그 제품이 자신의 건강에 더 낫다는 믿음 때문에 유기농을 구매한다. 또는 더 영양가 있다거나 안전하다는 이유에서 말이다. 그래서 유기농 식품업자와 지지자들이 그 제품이 더 영양가가 많다거나 안전하다고 홍보하는 것은 놀라운 일이 아니다. 그 주장은 증거에 의해 지지를 받지는 못하지만 말이다.

Organic advocacy groups market safety and nutrition, as with the Organic Center’s “Comprehensive guide for identifying safe and nutritious food,” or the Environmental Working Group’s Healthy Child initiative, touting “more scientific evidence that organic food is more nutritious.” Labels for some organic products use the word “toxic” to describe the pesticides they’re not using, despite the fact that some toxic pesticides (pyrethrin, for example) are allowed in organic agriculture. Although organic farming certainly does use fewer pesticides, and that’s an environmental benefit, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that trace amounts of pesticides in food are not dangerous to human health. (Higher levels of exposure, such as those experienced by farmworkers, are a different story.)

Unfortunately, you can’t believe organic food is more nutritious and safe without believing conventional food is less nutritious and safe, and that infuriates advocates of conventional food. Sometimes that fury takes on a distasteful edge — I’ve noticed some schadenfreude at food-borne illness outbreaks pegged to organic foods — but I understand where it’s coming from. Conventional food is as safe and nutritious as its organic counterparts, and if consumers are told otherwise, they’re being deceived, and conventional producers are being harmed.

And misinformation does nothing to improve the quality of the public debate. on farms, in academic institutions and in regulatory agencies, I’ve found that nearly everyone thinks there is value in having farmers employ and improve all kinds of practices. Feeding our growing population is a big job, and there are many constructive ways — organic and conventional, large-scale and small, urban and rural — in which farmers are tackling it. We need all of them.

According to the Organic Trade Association, grocery shoppers don’t buy organic foods because they’re better for the environment; they buy them because they think the products are safer or more nutritious. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Sometimes it seems as if every column I write has the same conclusion, but it’s an important one. If we’re going to make progress on food, we need a whole lot less of us vs. them. The USDA’s certified-organic program — from its inception a marketing program, not an environmental initiative — has given organic farmers a way to make a living (and farmers do have to make a living) by connecting with like-minded consumers willing to pay a premium for a product that is grown in a way that is often labor-intensive and lower-yielding, and produces some bona fide environmental benefits.

It has also given consumers a choice. For those with concerns about the way most food is grown in this country, organic is a way to vote no. But if organic’s undeniable positives are overshadowed by the negative of organic-vs.-conventional polarization that prevents progress, we all lose.

food@washpost.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-organic-agriculture-really-better-for-the-environment/2016/05/14/e9996dce-17be-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?postshare=2001463410030260&tid=ss_tw

국제 밀옥수수연구소 종자은행에 보관중이라는 멕시코의 토종 옥수수들.

Noah Berger/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The National Academy of Sciences — probably the country's most prestigious scientific group — has reaffirmed its judgment that GMOs are safe to eat. But the group's new report struck a different tone from previous ones, with much more space devoted to concerns about genetically modified foods, including social and economic ones.

The report marks an anniversary. Twenty years ago, farmers started growing soybeans that had been genetically modified to tolerate the popular weedkiller known as Roundup and corn that contains a protein, extracted from bacteria, that kills some insect pests.

In the years since, arguments about these crops have grown so contentious that the National Academy can't be sure that people will believe whatever it has to say on the topic.

Even before this report came out, an anti-GMO group called Food & Water Watch attacked it. The group accused some members of the committee that prepared the report of receiving research funding from biotech companies, or having other ties to the industry.

"The makeup of the panel is pretty clear. People are coming in with a perspective that is pro-genetically engineered crop," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch.

The preemptive attack frustrates Fred Gould, the North Carolina State University scientist who chaired the committee. Gould has been known in the past as a GMO critic. He has pushed for restrictions on the planting of some GMO crops. "I have not been a darling of the industry. As a matter of fact, they denied me seeds and plants to do my experiments," he says.

Gould says that over the two years that he and the other members of this committee worked on this report, they had one important rule: "If you had an opinion, you had to back it up with data. If you didn't have the data, it didn't go into the report."

The report tries to answer a long list of questions about GMOs, involving nutrition, environmental effects, effects on the farm economy and monopoly control over seeds.

The most basic conclusion: There's no evidence that GMOs are risky to eat.

The committee also found that GMOs, as promised, have allowed farmers of some crops to spray less insecticide to protect their crops — although there's a risk that the GMO crops may not work as well in the future, because insects could develop resistance to them. Also, there's no evidence that GMOs have reduced the amount of wild plant and insect life on farms.

And the report found that some claims about the benefits of GMOs have been exaggerated.

For instance, the productivity of crops has been increasing for a century, and that didn't change when GMOs came along. "The expectation from some of the [GMO] proponents was that we need genetic engineering to feed the world, and we're going to use genetic engineering to make that increase in yield go up faster. We saw no evidence of that," Gould says.

The report urges federal agencies to change the way they regulate GMOs. Up to now, companies have introduced just a small number of different kinds of genetically modified crops. That could change very soon, because there's new technology, called gene editing, that isn't exactly genetic engineering, but it's not traditional plant breeding, either.

The report urges regulators to look at all new crops, no matter how they're created, if they "have novelty and the possibility of some kind of risk associated with them," Gould says.

Many scientists who got their first look at the report Tuesday praised it. Some called it the most comprehensive review of GMOs that anyone, so far, has carried out.

But longtime critics of GMOs were less impressed.

Patty Lovera, from Food & Water Watch, the group that attacked the National Academy's committee for being too closely linked to industry, took a quick look at the report and didn't see much that seemed new. "It's not the final word" on GMOs, she says.

The National Academy of Sciences is trying to make this report more easily accessible to the public. It has set up a website where people can read the report and also look up the sections that address specific comments that were submitted by the public.

캘리포니아 개미들이 침입자인 아르헨티나 개미를 쫓아내는 모습이다.

개미의 세계는 봐도 봐도 재밌다.

어린시절로 되돌아간다면 곤충학자가 되고 싶다.

Morocco is a geographically diverse country that encompasses the Atlas and Rif mountains, the Sahara desert and the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy, with over half the active labour force working in farming. However, Morocco faces some significant challenges, particularly with drought and soil degradation. There is also a striking dichotomy between large and small farms that raises the question of how the two distinctly different models of farming can work together and move forward to a sustainable future.

Divided agriculture

Moroccan agriculture is divided between a modern industrial sector that primarily produces food for export, and smallholdings that produce food mainly for local markets and farmers’ own subsistence.

More than 70% of farmers work fewer than five hectares, but this accounts for only a quarter of the total land under cultivation: the large farms dominate the fertile areas. Inevitably, the large farms have a more substantial income, earning approximately nine times more than the average family farm. Many small farms face problems that make it difficult to increase their earnings, including ambiguous land ownership, a lack of infrastructure or access to credit, and poor technical and marketing support. Without registered land, small farmers cannot benefit from government programmes, and even with registered land, many programmes favour larger farms.

The geographical diversity of Morocco results in varied agriculture, with crops ranging from cereals and vegetables to fruits and nuts. Citrus, almonds, argan and olives are major products in the country. Fish are also a significant industry, representing 55% of food exports. This diversity must be celebrated as one of Morocco’s greatest assets; it contributes significantly towards the country’s agricultural sustainability and food security.

Livestock are another major sector of Moroccan agriculture, contributing to the income of more than 80% of the rural population. Animals act as a financial reserve for farmers and as security against the impact of drought. Large numbers of cattle, sheep, goats and dromedaries (Arabian camels) graze 53 million hectares of extensive rangelands.

Drought and soil erosion

A major problem facing Morocco is the impact of climate change and the increased prevalence of drought. Morocco has suffered a drought every three years over the past few decades, with temperatures predicted to rise by three degrees by 2050 and rainfall to decline by 10%. In this same period, demand for water is projected to increase by six times. With most farmland located in areas that receive less than 400mm of rainfall each year, this has serious implications. The government faces a huge challenge in mitigating the impact of climate change, and has even been attempting to desalinate seawater for agricultural use.

These prolonged droughts are increasing soil degradation, with desertification threatening 80% of land, and soil erosion affecting nearly half of it. A rising population is leading to increased pressure on resources and the removal of natural vegetation as more land is converted to cultivation. The erosion rate in the Rif Mountains, for example, is one of the most severe in the world. This problem is also causing water pollution through rising siltation levels in reservoirs and oceans, and is leading to conflict in regions where land is collectively owned and grazed.

What is the solution to such a large-scale problem? The government is attempting to tackle these issues by increasing irrigation infrastructure and encouraging drought-resistant crops. But modern practices, such as intensive cropping under irrigation and heavy tillage, is leading to loss of soil organic matter. Perhaps part of the solution lies with more traditional practices. Mixed farming seems to be an important aspect of Moroccan agriculture, and using livestock manure to build soil fertility is highly valuable. 

Food security and socio-economic issues

Morocco’s rural areas have poor socio-economic infrastructure, low levels of education and an ageing farmer population. Small farmers are economically vulnerable, particularly to instability in global markets and the impact of large farmers flooding local markets with produce when they fail to sell it abroad. one report says farmers are “not equipped to face the challenges of an economy that is opening up to free market competition”, yet this seems to be where Moroccan agriculture is heading – there is a greater emphasis on cash crops and a “progressive transition towards liberalisation”.

Morocco is highly dependent on imports, consuming three times the amount of imported cereal than the world average. But current policy encourages farmers to produce cash crops for export rather than food for their own population. The government has also leased land to foreign investors – such as the 700,000 hectares leased to an investment firm from Abu Dhabi. “The investors can keep 100% of the produce and export it, all we are asking is for them to invest in our sector and create employment for our people,” one official said.

This shows the degree to which raising income is a priority over producing food for domestic consumption. But what are the long-term costs of such an approach? Will Morocco’s vibrant and diverse local food economy be lost? There is already a loss of farmers, as people from rural areas migrate to cities for work – urbanisation is now at 50%.

The Green Morocco Plan

The government’s attempt to deal with its agricultural problems is embodied in The Green Morocco Plan, which began in 2008. This plan has two pillars, one addressing the large intensive farms, and the other addressing the small subsistence farms. It aims to double the value of agricultural production, increase productivity and improve food security. on the one hand it is progressing towards liberalisation and modernisation, but on the other it claims to maintain the ‘social character’ of Moroccan agriculture.

The plan is comprised of 1,500 programmes requiring more than $10 billion to implement. It includes the construction of dams, the expansion of irrigation and the conversion to crops better suited to the climate. one component of it involves planting fruit and olive trees in former grain fields.

While many of these programmes are beneficial, some believe the Plan gives priority to large intensive farming. There is concern that the government, urged along by international development organisations and commercial seed and chemical corporations, is pushing further a model of intensive agriculture that is dependent on the global market and free trade. Simon Gray, World Bank Maghreb Country Director, prioritises Morocco’s integration into the global economy, and developing a liberalised market environment. But will this really improve Morocco’s long-term economic sustainability and food security?

Hafez Ghanem, at the Brookings Institute, speaks for many when he writes that the government needs to put more emphasis on the Plan’s second pillar. Ghanem argues that increasing food reserves, improving links to markets and supporting the development of independent producer organisations should be the priority of government policy. This would strengthen the resilience of smallholders and enable them to contribute meaningfully to a sustainable food supply for Morocco. 

Co-operatives, organic farming and community supported agriculture

One way to support small farmers is through cooperatives and community supported agriculture (CSA). Cooperatives can share the costs of machinery and packaging, as well as provide training and support. Community-managed tree nurseries are providing trees at a fraction of the cost of large commercial nurseries. Working together can help small farmers fare better in the global economy. Pooling produce allows them to compete with larger farms.

Many farmers are passionate about becoming more sustainable. A cooperative in a village near Taounate has a field school where farmers are experimenting with more sustainable farming practices. This is allowing farmers to do their own research and develop solutions for themselves.

Organic farming is also becoming popular in Morocco. one CSA association, Sala Almoustaqbal, began producing organic food that it sells directly to the consumer. Support for the project is growing, with a waiting list of over 100 families.

Another farmer, Abdellah Boudhira, has transitioned from modern intensive farming, using patented hybrid seeds, back to traditional organic practices using only heritage seeds, which he believes taste better and have much higher nutritional value. He has also decided to sell directly to customers, as dependence on middlemen to access the market results in such low prices for producers and high costs for consumers. Boudhira’s farm has garnered a following on social media as he attempts to raise his profile and encourage sustainable organic agriculture. He says that more people in Morocco are becoming interested in healthy organic food, and that, “Healthy food can be affordable for everybody if we farm wisely, and don’t rely on chemical corporations.”

Boudhira’s success shows that farmers can be willing to change the way they farm and to become more sustainable. But they need support to do so – through financial assistance, training and improved infrastructure. Government policy should give meaningful help to these small-scale farmers, and not simply facilitate the growth of intensive agriculture.

What next for Morocco?

Morocco faces multiple problems of climate change, drought and soil degradation. The divide between rich and poor, between large and small farms, requires an imaginative and diverse approach to improving agriculture. But with smallholders comprising such a major part of the sector, there is real opportunity to improve people’s livelihoods and food security, as well as to prevent further environmental degradation. Government policy needs to recognise the integral importance of smallholders, not simply for their ‘social character’, but for the real value they add to Moroccan food systems. These hard-working people will hold the key to Morocco’s future.

You can read more about Abdellah in the premiere issue of Rodale’s Organic Life, on stands next week, find out more at www.rodalesorganiclife.com

세계의 종자 관련 법안. 

그래도 한국은 미국에 비하면 느슨한 편이라고 할 수 있다. 

http://ejatlas.org/featured/seeds

도시농업 과제 -김석기.hwp

이런 과제를 작성했다.

강진 / 사당리 / 푸조나무

강진 / 삼인리 / 비자나무

강진 / 백련사 / 동백나무 숲

강진 / 성동리 / 은행나무

광양/ 광양읍 나무, 이팝나무 

광양 / 옥룡사 / 동백나무 숲

구례 / 화엄사 / 올벚나무

구례 / 화엄사 / 매화

나주 / 송죽리 / 금사정 동백나무

나주 / 상방리 / 호랑가시나무

담양 / 대치리/ 느티나무

담양 / 관방제림

담양 / 봉안리 / 은행나무 

무안 / 청천리 / 팽나무, 개서어나무 숲

보성 / 전일리 / 팽나무 숲

순천 / 평중리 / 이팝나무

순천/ 송광사 천자암 / 곱향나무

순천 / 선암사 / 선암매

영광 / 불갑사 / 참식나무 자생북한지

영암 / 월곡리 / 느티나무

완도 / 주도 / 상록수림

완도 / 예송리 / 상록수림

완도 / 예작도 / 감탕나무

완도 / 대문리 / 모감주나무 군락

완도 / 정자리 / 황칠나무

장성 / 백양사 / 비자나무 숲

장성 / 백양사 / 고불매

장성 / 단전리 / 느티나무

장흥 / 어산리 / 푸조나무

장흥 / 옥당리 / 효자송

진도 / 쌍계사 / 상록수림

진도 / 상만리 / 비자나무

진도 / 관매도 / 후박나무

함평 / 향교리 / 느티나무, 팽나무, 개서어나무 숲

함평 / 기각리 / 붉가시나무

해남 / 대둔산 / 왕벚나무 자생지

해남 / 녹우단 / 비자나무 숲

해남 / 성내리 / 수성송

화순 / 야사리 / 은행나무

화순 / 개천사 / 비자나무 숲