728x90

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,  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  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  means less runoff and, therefore, less environmental impact, he pointed out. From 1982 to 2007, conservation  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  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 ' 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  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."


728x90

'곳간 > 해외자료' 카테고리의 다른 글

흙을 알면 농사가 산다  (0) 2015.02.28
농약으로 인한 환경오염  (0) 2015.02.28
버마의 농지 문제  (0) 2015.01.24
돼지의 제국  (0) 2015.01.14
지속가능한 농업에 대해 알아야 할 10가지  (0) 2015.01.01
728x90

 

농부

728x90

'곳간 > 사진자료' 카테고리의 다른 글

농생태학 : 주요 개념과 원리, 실천방안  (0) 2016.05.01
토양의 중요성  (0) 2015.02.22
다락논  (0) 2014.07.21
유전자변형 작물의 역사  (0) 2014.07.04
중국 남부 다락논  (0) 2014.06.20
728x90

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. 













728x90
728x90


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 demand for pork rises, China’s porcine empire is sure to expand

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.

728x90
728x90

1. We shouldn't just "accept" climate change

Just because climate change is happening and its effects are already being felt, we shouldn't give up on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural GHG emissions, make up about 25% of global GHG emissions, but there's a lot that can be done to reduce this.

Richard Waite, associate, Food, Forests and Water Program, World Resources Institute explains: "By intensifying agriculture on existing land and protecting the remaining forests, we can eliminate emissions from land-use change. And by addressing key emissions from agricultural production – from cows and other ruminants, from fertilizers, and from rice production practices, we can greatly reduce emissions from agricultural production."

2. We don't need to "accept" a world with 9.6 billion people by 2050

The world population is growing, but fertility rates have fallen rapidly over the last few decades as girls gain better access to education and reproductive health services. African governments have made health and education a priority but greater investment could reduce the population challenge and the demand for food.

This is especially important in sub-Saharan Africa where half of population growth between now and 2050 will occur. A recent report from WRI estimates that achieving replacement level fertility (the rate of fertility at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next) in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2050 would reduce food demand by around 600tn kilocalories (kcal) per year by the mid-century. This would close 9% of the 6,500tn kcal per year global gap between food available in 2006 and food needed in 2050.

3. Switching crops is the future

Emphasis will be on climate smart agriculture in the short-term, but in 10 to 20 years time, the focus will be on switching crops, says Jason Clay, senior vice president, market transformation, WWF. As climate change affects commercial crops, alternatives will have to be sought out. Clay points that sorghum is already being substituted for corn and maize because it can be used in feed and produce like beer. In Mexico, the government is looking to varieties of cocoa to replace coffee crops, which may not be suitable to grow by 2025 due to blight and heat as a consequence of climate change.

With the right technical assistance and packages of better genetics, management practice and inputs, switching crops could be an opportunity for smaller farmers struggling with current crops to leapfrog previous performance and become more productive.

4. Research breakthroughs need more investment

Moving to adapted crop varieties that are more resilient to climate change is feasible, says Chris Brown, general manager for environmental sustainability, at agri-business Olam International. But for the next wave of research breakthroughs, the FAO has estimated that we will need $45-$50bn annual spending globally. It's currently at $4bn.

5. Cultivating trees on farms can boost crop yields

According to Waite, over the last few decades, farmers in Niger have managed the natural regrowth of native Faidherbia trees across 5m hectares. The Faidherbia fixes nitrogen in the soil, protects fields from wind and water erosion and contributes organic matter to soils when its leaves drop. Compared to conventional farms in the country, yields of maize in these agroforestry systems can be doubled and farmers in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zambia are taking note.

6. Small-scale farmers are vital to domestic food security

Small-scale farmers have a guaranteed and growing market for staple crops, but the UK produces 24% less food than it consumes, says Charles Tassell, farmer and co-founder of AgriChatUK. This comes today, as MPs warn that the UK's ability to feed itself is threatened by complacency. Over the last 20 years, the UK's self-sufficiency for domestically-grown food has fallen from 87% to 68%, while yields of its most important staple crop, wheat, have not increased for at least the last 15 years.

Brown argues that governments, banks and companies must coordinate to support the 500m global smallholders to scale-up agri-production enterprises. This support should include legal land tenure, global policies for a level playing field, access to capital and markets, structured training (both agriculture and business development), and investment in technology and infrastructure.

7. Urban farms suit tomatoes, not cows

If urban farmers reduce the need for transport, refrigeration and packaging, and source inputs from local waste streams, then city farms could offer a sustainable alternative for growing fruit and vegetables, says Oscar Rodriguez, director of Architecture and Food. However, livestock farming and urban living make a less practical combination.

8. Meat is off the menu

Achieving replacement level fertility, reducing food loss and waste, reducing biofuel demand for food crops and shifting our diets, will all go some way to closing the gap between food available and food required. Any meaningful change to consumption patterns and the environmental impacts of food production though, will have to involve knocking animal products off the menu, especially beef. Chris Hunt, director of GRACE's food program, points to consumer campaigns like Meatless Monday as evidence of trending in the right direction.

9. The definition of a "good" farmer is culturally complex

What is good criteria for one person, may be shocking for another, saysLouise Manning, senior lecturer in food production management, Royal Agricultural University. In terms of animal welfare, stocking density might be considered an indicator of negative performance but in terms of resource management, a positive one.

10. Everyone has a role to play

The WRI report on Creating a Sustainable Food Future estimates that we need about 70% more food in 2050 than we have today in order to provide every one of the 9.6 billion world population with a daily intake of 3,000 calories. It's a huge challenge, but unlike other sustainability challenges, everyone can play a part in the solution.

728x90

'곳간 > 해외자료' 카테고리의 다른 글

버마의 농지 문제  (0) 2015.01.24
돼지의 제국  (0) 2015.01.14
생태농업이 후진 건 아니야  (0) 2015.01.01
유기농 칠면조가 더 비싼 이유  (0) 2014.11.25
움 온실  (0) 2014.11.10
728x90



Organic farmers who use agroecological practices build healthy soil, conserve water, protect pollinators and keep the air and water clear of harmful pesticides. We owe them thanks for this. They also produce bountiful crops.

Yesterday, these hard-working farmers received an important boost of recognition from the scientific community with the release of findings from a major new study comparing the productivity of organic and conventional farming.

Published in the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, the exhaustive meta-analysis by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley found that the so-called “yield gap” between organic and conventional is far smaller than previously thought.

For organic farmers who diversify their farms with the agroecological practices of multiple cropping and crop rotation, the “gap” shrinks to less than 10%. And for some crops (oats, tomatoes and apples, for example), there were no yield differences at all. As Claire Kremen, study author and UC Berkeley professor, put it:

This paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture... Increasing the proportion of agriculture that uses sustainable, organic methods of farming is not a choice, it’s anecessity. We simply can’t continue to produce food far into the future without taking care of our soils, water and biodiversity.

Digging into the data

The authors examined 115 field studies from 38 countries covering 52 crop species — a dataset three times the size of previously published work — and employed a more rigorous and precise method of statistical analysis (detailed in a 50-page supplement) than studies to date. In so doing, they were able to correct for the kind of measurement errors that led authors of a previous study, published in Nature in 2012, to overestimate differences in productivity between conventional and organic farming.

I was glad to see the good news about organic farming's productivity. At the same time, it's critical for us to realize that one of the most important factors affecting productivity in this study was whether farmers incorporated agroecological management practices or not. This is one reason why industrial-scale monocropped organic farm operations — while certainly less toxic than chemical-intensive conventional agriculture — still do not achieve the same rich and complex benefits of ecologically diversified farming.

One immediate lesson for policymakers is where to put their (our?) money. As the study's lead author, Lauren Ponisio, explained,

“Simply by increasing investment for agroecological research — for example, to improve organic management and to develop seeds for organic farming systems — we could greatly reduce the remaining yield gap, and even eliminate it entirely for some crops and regions.” 

Historically, less than 2% of USDA funding has gone towards organic research — and even less towards agroecological research. Redirecting investments towards agroecology could bring "big payoffs," the authors point out.

Addressing hunger

But what about implications for global food production overall? We know that ultimately hunger and malnutrition are not matters of scarce production, but have everything to do with poverty, inequitable access to food, imbalanced distribution, unfair trade policies, land and resource grabs, and badly misguided “aid” and development interventions that destroy local food systems.

Kremen agreed: “It’s critical to put this yield gap discussion in context.” Noting that “our current agricultural system produces far more food than is needed to provide for everyone on the planet,” she emphasized that simply increasing yields is not the answer. “For one thing," she said, "global food waste alone is 30-40% per year."

If we could cut food waste by half, Kremen explained, that would go a very long way towards addressing food production concerns. Meanwhile, we should also focus our efforts on reducing the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture and building the resilient agroecological farming systems that we urgently need.

Another agroecosystem is possible

What we're talking about here, really, is a meaningful and world-wide transition to agroecological farming. As I recently explained after returning from FAO’s first-ever International Symposium on Agroecology in Rome, agroecology is the way of the future. And much of the rest of the world is already on its way there, most often led by peasant farmers melding rich traditions of Indigenous knowledge with cutting edge ecological science.

Now just take a moment and imagine what the U.S. food system would look like if policymakers in Congress, at USDA and in our land-grant universities actually stopped taking money from Big Ag and the pesticide industry lobby — and really thought long and hard about what this all means. What if we really got serious about investing in biodiverse, ecological agriculture, as the UC researchers suggest we must?

This is an approach the renowned International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development urged us to take. Meanwhile, family farmers, engaged scientists and social movements in Latin AmericaAsia and Africa are already making great strides in that direction.

If we follow suit, we might well end up with a U.S. farming system that produces plenty of fresh, nutritious food. It could enable us to get off the pesticide treadmill once and for all, thereby protecting the health of rural communities and farmworkers. And our farms would be far more ecologically resilient and productive in the face of climate change, drought and other environmental stresses. That would be a worthy result, indeed — supporting empowered, healthy communities around the globe.


728x90

'곳간 > 해외자료' 카테고리의 다른 글

돼지의 제국  (0) 2015.01.14
지속가능한 농업에 대해 알아야 할 10가지  (0) 2015.01.01
유기농 칠면조가 더 비싼 이유  (0) 2014.11.25
움 온실  (0) 2014.11.10
식물도 위급함을 알린다  (0) 2014.10.22
728x90




At the Whole Foods near the Vox office, a store brand free range turkey costs $2.69 per pound. A free-range heritage breed turkey is $3.69 per pound. A free-range organic turkey goes for $3.99 per pound. Those are 37- and 48-percent price differences, and they're both far more than you'd pay for a so-called "conventional" turkey. At a nearby Safeway, the store-brand turkeys are selling for 59 cents per pound, and Butterball turkeys are at 88 cents.

Everyone knows that organic food is more expensive than conventional food, so it's easy to shrug at this. But exactly why is your expensive turkey so wallet-draining?

Organic turkey feed is expensive

The biggest difference between organic and conventional turkeys is feed — that accounts for around half the cost difference between the organic and the conventional turkey, according to David Harvey, the US Department of Agriculture's top poultry economist (and the man you see quoted in dozens of turkey-related stories every November).

Nationally, he says, conventional turkey feed costs around 41 cents a pound on average. Organic feed can be significantly more costly. At Nick's Organic Farm in Potomac, Maryland, which both raises organic turkeys and sells feed, it's $1,080 a ton for broiler feed, or 54 cents a pound when people buy in bulk from him. That's just one example, but it's a nearly 32-percent price jump.

Organic feed is itself more expensive because it can take a lot more work to grow the organic grains that go into it. Not only can organic grain farmers not use herbicides and insecticides to kill off weeds and bugs that can lower yields, but to even get certified organic, a farmer has to refrain from using those chemicals for three years prior, as this guide from Iowa State University explains.

Supply and demand in the grain market also into the equation here, says Wayne Martin, an extension educator at the University of Minnesota.

"Fewer farmers are willing to raise grain organically, when demand is high and prices are good for conventional crops," he writes. And though corn and soybean prices have fallen off recently, they had in the last couple of years been sky-high, meaning less incentive to get into the organic feed business.

Organic turkey processing

Organic turkey-growers have to send their turkeys to special organic turkey processing plants. These can be more costly to operate than other plants.

Most that do organic turkeys also process conventional turkeys but have to take lots of special measures to make sure the two operations are kept entirely separate — the types of products used in organic processing, like cleaning solvents, can be more expensive, and organic plants can only use certain approved pest control methods. Asthis guide from the State of Minnesota points out, they can also require substantially more training for employees to make sure that non-organic substances don't contaminate organic areas. And on top of that, they have to be inspected regularly and pay a fee to be certified — not a huge cost, but it adds to the total cost along the supply chain.



Mmm. He looks delicious. (Shutterstock)

Organic turkey health risks

Organic turkeys face higher health risks than their conventional peers for a few reasons. one is that they are allowed to go outdoors, meaning they can risk death from both predators and the elements, according Martin. Not only that, but farmers can't treat them with antibiotics when they get sick — instead, they might use probiotics or apple cider vinegar. More risk to birds means more dead birds, means smaller supply, means bigger prices.

Those are the big factors that go into making an organic turkey, but if you tack on any of the other modifiers — say, if you want a pasture-raised, organic, heritage turkey — the price factors can increase dramatically.

Pastured turkey is even pricier

You might picture your organic turkey as skipping through a pasture somewhere, but it's altogether possible it was raised in a space nearly as tight as the confinement turkeys experience.

"An organic turkey is required to have access to the outdoors. But the bird doesn't have to have access to any particular amount of outdoors," explains Nick Maravell, owner of Nick's Organic Farm. "So if you have 5,000 birds, you don't have to have so many square feet of access per bird."

But if you do get a pastured bird, that could create a much heftier price tag. That's because pasturing can really alter what farmers call its feed-conversion ratio — the amount of feed you have to give it to add a pound of meat. According to a 2007 estimate from the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, the average feed conversion ratio for a confinement turkey is 2.5 pounds of feed for every pound of meat, but that can be far higher for pastured birds. Just as you would more easily gain weight if you sat behind a tray of Oreos all day than if you went outside and wandered around, a confined bird will be way better at putting on weight.

"Pastured birds are just not going to put on weight as quickly as a bird that's grown no more than 50 feet from food," explains Harvey.



These turkeys all know each other really well by the time they're slaughtered. (Getty Images)

Organic turkey labor costs

Keeping turkeys in a giant confinement house with automated feeders can require very little work per turkey. However, the amount of labor that goes into a turkey can grow substantially depending on what type of special treatment the birds are getting.

More labor goes into the feed for an organic turkey, and if you get a turkey that's pastured, that also makes for a lot more labor. Pasturing a flock means you have to re-pasture it on new land eventually. That takes a lot more work (and more land per turkey) than a cursory walk-through of a turkey confinement house. This also means it can be tougher to scale up pastured turkey production as efficiently as scaling up a confinement operation.

Heritage turkey breed costs

Not only does how the birds are raised matter; different types of turkeys put on weight differently. Broad-breasted whites (the breed you're likely to buy) are bred, as the name might suggest, to have huge breasts (incidentally, those huge white-meat breasts people love to eat also get in the way of the birds' mating, so these birds are bred through artificial insemination). Broad-breasted birds tend to put on weight more efficiently than the so-called "heritage breeds," a broad name given to a several types of turkeys that are closer to the less-genetically-altered forefathers of today's huge-breasted monsters. Really, one way to think about it isn't that heritage birds are expensive; it's that the other turkeys are bred to be cheap.

"When people are selling those heritage breed turkeys, some of those breeds don't convert feed quite as efficiently as conventional breeds," explains Harvey. "Conventional growers put tons and tons of breeding work into it for that purpose."

According to one 2003 study, some of these breeds take more than four, and even more than six pounds of feed per pound of weight gained, the American Livestock Breed Conservancy writes.

Not only that, but it takes most heritage breeds longer to reach market weight. Broad-breasted turkeys take 16 to 22 weeks to reach market weight. For heritage breeds, it's 26 to 28.

---

Then keep in mind that none of this even takes into account whatever margins retailers try to get on the turkeys they sell. This is, so to speak, how your Thanksgiving (turkey) sausage is made. So if your host picked an $80 bird, maybe don't load up on sides (which are more delicious, we know) and appreciate what went into your exorbitantly priced, pasture-raised main dish.

728x90
728x90

As more people become aware of the importance of growing their own food, social media has become a primary way ideas are shared. one of these ideas which is often seen on Facebook and Pinterest is the walipini underground greenhouse. 

This greenhouse claims to grow food year-round and only cost $300 in building materials. For lots of gardeners, particularly those in cool climates with short growing seasons, a greenhouse is almost a must-have. Let’s take a look at the advantages of an underground greenhouse: 

Takes advantage of thermal mass. When you dig down even just four feet, the temperature changes dramatically. Frost lines generally are three to four deep, so a six to eight foot walipini is completely protected from frost. one walipini owner claims that his greenhouse keeps pretty steady 70 degree Fahrenheit or warmer temperatures when it’s 10 degrees outside. Because underground greenhouses are warmed by thermal mass on all sides, you really can’t lose any warmth compared to a traditional greenhouse. 

Effective in almost any climate. Walipini and other pit-style greenhouses are effective nearly everywhere. In fact, many of the early designs for these greenhouses originated in very cold climates like Canada. Of course, you won’t be able to get super-hot temps in a cold climate in winter, but it will get warmer than a traditional greenhouse. Many countries outside of the United States swear by these designs, particularly gardeners in China. 

More visually appealing – and hidden. While this is a matter of opinion, most people do agree that underground greenhouses are far more appealing because they don’t take up as much visual space on their landscape. 







728x90
728x90



Eating a leaf off a plant may not kill it, but that doesn't mean the plant likes it. The newest study to examine the intelligence (or at least behavior) of plants finds that plants can tell when they're being eaten -- and send out defenses to stop it from happening.



We’ve been hearing for decades about the complex intelligence of plants; last year’s excellent New Yorker piece is a good place to start, if you want to learn more about the subject. But a new study, conducted by researchers at the University of Missouri, managed to figure out one new important element: plants can tell when they’re being eaten, and they don’t like it.


The word “intelligence,” when applied to any non-human animal or plant, is imprecise and sort of meaningless; research done to determine “intelligence” mostly just aims to learn how similar the inner workings of another organism is to a human thought process. There’s certainly nothing evolutionarily important about these sorts of intelligence studies; a chimp is not superior to a chicken just because chimps can use tools the same way humans do. But these studies are fascinating, and do give us insight into how other organisms think and behave, whatever “think” might mean.

This particular study was on the ever-popular Arabidopsis, specifically the thale cress, easily the most popular plant for experimentation. It’s in the brassica family, closely related to broccoli, kale, mustard greens, and cabbage, though unlike most of its cousins it isn’t very good to eat. This particular plant is so common for experiments because it was the first plant to have its genome sequenced, so scientists understand its inner workings better than almost any other plant.


The researchers were seeking to answer an unusual question: does a plant know when it’s being eaten? To do that, the researchers had to first make a precise audio version of the vibrations that a caterpillar makes as it eats leaves. The theory is that it’s these vibrations that the plant can somehow feel or hear. In addition, the researchers also came up with vibrations to mimic other natural vibrations the plant might experience, like wind noise.


Turns out, the thale cress actually produces some mustard oils and sends them through the leaves to deter predators (the oils are mildly toxic when ingested). And the study showed that when the plants felt or heard the caterpillar-munching vibrations, they sent out extra mustard oils into the leaves. When they felt or heard other vibrations? Nothing. It’s a far more dynamic defense than scientists had realized: the plant is more aware of its surroundings and able to respond than expected.


There’s more research to be done; nobody’s quite sure by what mechanism the plant can actually feel or hear these vibrations, and with so many plants out there, we’re not sure what kind of variation on this behavior there is. But it’s really promising research; there’s even talk of using sound waves to encourage crops to, say, grow faster, or send out specific defenses against attacks. Imagine knowing that a frost is coming, and being able to encourage plants to fruit faster by simply blasting them with music. That’s the kind of crazy sci-fi future this indicates.




(Image via Flickr user Carolyn Conner)

728x90
728x90


Yields on farmland have increased 38% since 1989 but the cost of inputs including fertiliser jumped about 325% during the same time. Photograph: CactuSoup/Getty Images



How do you profitably invest in sustainable agriculture - farms producing diverse, fairly-priced healthy food without harming the environment, but which also restore soil fertility and provide farmers with a fair living? Small farms and community supported agriculture partnerships are nice, but they are predicted in the best-case scenario to reach only 1% to 2% of the population.

Target conventional farms

Farmland LP, a San Francisco-based fund and farmland manager pursues this goal by converting conventional mid-size farms to multi-crop “beyond organic” properties that use a closed-loop, where everything on the farm stays there, a process that reintegrates livestock, also making the system sustainable.

Its newfangled approach moves specialist farmers around the property based on ecology, biodiversity and what’s best for the land in the long run. It has five farms totalling 6,750 acres worth $50m under management east of San Francisco and in Oregon’s Willamette Valley.

Managing partner Craig Wichner claims that after the soil is restored, this approach (which eliminates the need to grow corn and soy for animal feed) produces the same amount of food as conventional agriculture, but is more profitable because input costs are so much lower.

While yields on farmland increased 38% since 1989, the cost of inputs used by conventional agriculture – fertiliser, herbicides, pesticides, GMOs and fuel – jumped about 325% during the same timeframe, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.

Premium for organic?

The five year-old firm has launched its second fund, a $250m private real estate investment trust, or REIT, open to institutional investors and high net worth individuals. Wichner plans to hold the land long-term, but pay investors an estimated 6-8% net cash flow after the soil has been certified organic in a three to five year conversion period.

According to Wichner, that’s nearly double the cash flow for conventional farmland, the price farmers generally pay to lease it. The hitch is that rather than lease land for a fixed cost, farmers share profits with the REIT, something that will be cheaper for them in a bad year and more expensive when times are good.

With such high returns, it appears the firm is betting on more good years than bad. But it currently has 20 different tenant farmers growing 20 different crops in diverse geographies. That means the fund’s volatility will be lower than for conventional farmland. But because the growing is more complex, Wichner says it’s more management intensive and requires more intellectual property. And it’s a “team sport.”

Even so, his estimates for the higher lease payments are based on his expectation that organic vegetables will continue to command a 50% to 200% premium to conventional, depending on the crop. About two-thirds of the land will remain in pasture, and 10-20% will be devoted to growing vegetables and 10-20% for grains.

According to Wichner, 2013 revenues were $1.8m representing a 3.6% gross cash flow – exactly the return he says you’d expect from conventional farmland. Most of that was generated from conventional crops grown on the 4,200 acres the firm bought in December 2012 where the lease for last year was already in place.

But the firm also had 783 certified organic acres last year. All told, Wichner says, 15% of revenues came from the sale of grass-fed lamb, cows and hogs that are feeding on pasture in the land conversion stage, and a small amount from the sale of organic seed.

Wichner claims that revenues will be boosted substantially in 2014, the first year Farmland LP is cultivating vegetables. Citing USDA statistics, he says it’s not unusual for organic farmers to gross $20,000 to $50,000 per acre.

Does this mean the firm’s projected high returns in any given year ultimately will come mostly from as little as 10-20% of its land? Not exactly. As farmers rotate around the site, of course, which part of the property that represents is constantly changing. That’s a must because annual crops are extractive, meaning they deplete soil. But there’s more.

Beyond organic to sustainable best practice

To replenish soil, conventional agriculture uses fertiliser that is synthesised from mined materials. Although organic fertiliser must be natural, it can still be mined. And organic farmers often use manure from feedlots or compost imported from off-site. Between crops, they use cover crops for protection against erosion between seasons, drought resistance, pest control, and to restore nitrogen and soil carbon.

There are two ways to move to sustainable best practice. The first is to plant annual cover crops such as clover or legumes – something that New York chef Dan Barber features in his new book, The Third Plate: Field Notes on the Future of Food.Barber points outthat we cherry-pick organic farms when we eat ecologically demanding and expensive foods like heirloom tomatoes, and he argues that we should support the whole farm by including cover crops in our cuisine. Right now, organic farmers typically do not sell their cover crops for cash.

But pasture is another form of cover cropping, and one that could result in a very different diet of the future than the one Barber is promoting.

Here, imitating the diversity of nature, Farmland LP has planted the pasture in multiple perennial grasses in the same space. Unlike annuals, these plants have deep roots that can access nutrients and water not available to annuals, meaning they need less from the farmer. But it also makes them more resilient in extreme conditions. And they are also less energy intensive than annuals because they don’t need to be replanted each year.

Ultimately, though, the idea is that livestock and crops work together to regenerate the soil. Perennial plant roots link up with fungi that can delve 25 feet deep and pull minerals out of the earth’s rock, which are expressed in leaves. These, in turn, are eaten by animals and become part of the topsoil as the livestock’s manure decomposes.

“Cover crops are halfway there in a sustainable agriculture system, but that’s not enough,” Wichner explains, adding that livestock also improve the economics of farming. “Instead of just having a cost for the cover crop, you can convert that cover crop to a cash crop.”


728x90

+ Recent posts