@農자료창고

Soybeans harvested with a combine in Walnut, Illinois. U.S. farmers increased the harvesting of soybeans at the fastest pace in at least three decades as warm, dry weather allowed for fieldwork after a drought this year reduced yields.

Food prices that doubled in the past 10 years are more the result of population growth and increased demand for protein-based diets than any cyclical reasons, according to Sunny Verghese, chief executive officer at Olam International Ltd. (OLAM), the Singapore-based commodities trader.

Three of the biggest annual gains in food prices in the past 20 years occurred since 2007, with the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization’s global food price index climbing to a record in 2010. Wheat and soybeans led commodities gains last year and corn jumped to a record in August.

“We’ve had a long period of food real price declines and food surpluses and we’ve had three very rapid food crises,” Verghese said at the Kingsman sugar conference in Dubai yesterday. “The price inflation that we’ve seen in the three episodes is more a structural story and not a cyclical issue.”

The United Nations’ Food & Agiculture Organization has said global food output must rise 70 percent by 2050 to feed a world population expected to grow to 9 billion from 7 billion now and as increasingly wealthy consumers in developing economies eat more meat. Agriculture has “good demand growth,” Chris Mahoney, director of agricultural products at Baar, Switzerland- based trader Glencore International Plc (GLEN), said at the conference yesterday.

“In just seven years, the world will need not only to produce, but to move 20 percent more food and also store it, transport it and process it,” Mahoney said. “Without the transport, logistics infrastructure and processing capacity, production even if it keeps pace with demand will be unable to reach the consumer.”

Global Demand

Global oilseed demand is growing at about 3 percent a year, while corn consumption is rising a “little less,” according to Mahoney. Wheat, rice and sugar demand worldwide are expanding at or just below 2 percent a year, he said.

“What concerns people, and perhaps it should, is that the demand side of the equation is clear and it’s predictable, but this demand growth will largely need to be met by yield gain, not by additional planted area and the true potential for yield gain is perhaps known by only a few,” Mahoney said.

High food costs contributed to civil unrest across the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, toppling governments in Tunisia and Egypt. The U.S. State Department estimates that surging food prices triggered more than 60 riots worldwide from 2007 to 2009. In India, about 60 percent of what people spend is on food, compared with 70 percent to 80 percent in Africa, 45 percent inChina, 9 percent in Europe and about 10 percent in the U.S., according to Olam’s Verghese.

‘Serious Problem’

“When you have 50-percent price inflation in the core commodities and 70 percent of your consumption basket is spent on food, then you have a serious problem,” Verghese said.

High food prices are needed to send farmers a signal to increase plantings, Verghese said. Countries from India and Egypt to Vietnam and Indonesia banned exports of rice, a staple for half the world, during the 2008 food crisis. Russia in 2010 banned cereal exports after the country’s worst drought in at least half a century destroyed crops and cut production.

“Price controls are precisely the wrong thing to do when you want to induce a supply response,” Verghese said. “You are distorting the price signal to the farmer to try to increase its production.”

Producing ethanol and biodiesel from food crops is “questionable,” Mahoney said. As many as 150 million tons of grains globally are used to produce ethanol, he said. Making ethanol from corn is inappropriate, Vergehese said.

농민이 농지에 인공 질소비료를 뿌리고 있다. eutrophication&hypoxia/Flickr

최근 Nation 기사에서, 아름다운 Elizabeth Royte 씨는 수압 분쇄 또는 프랙킹과 식량 공급 사이의 직접적인 관계에 대해 캐냈다. 요컨대, 화학물질을 섞은 액체로 암반을 파괴하여 천연가스를 추출하는 것은 오염된 물을 남긴다 —그리고 오염된 물이 우리가 먹는 작물과 가축에 들어갈 수 있다. 

그러나 식량/프랙킹의 관계에는 우리가 알던 것 말고 다른 사실도 있음이 최근에 알려졌다. 미국 농업은 인공 질소비료에 지나치게 의존하고, 질소비료는 천연가스를 연료로 하는 가공을 통해 합성된다. 미국의 천연가스 공급이 프랙킹을 통해 더욱더 공급되면, 농민들이 사용하는 질소비료도 프랙킹을 통한 천연가스에서 더욱더 생성될 것이다. 만약 대형 농업이 화학비료의 수요를 충족시키고자 값싼 프랙킹 가스에 매혹된다면, 화석연료 산업은 프랙킹 사업에 대한 규제를 깔아뭉개고 반대측과 맞설 강력한 동맹을 얻을 것이다. 

프랙킹한 질소비료(N으로 알려진)의 성장에 대한 잠재력은 엄청나다. 2000년대 기존의 미국 천연가스의 공급원이 고갈되어 가격이 치솟을 때, 미국의 화학비료 산업은 주로 트리니다드토바고처럼 기존의 천연가스가 여전히 상대적으로 풍부한 해외로 나가 채취했다. (이에 대해 2010년  Grist의 기사를 참조) 2009년 미국 농무부 문서의 아래 도표는 2000년대 국내의 질소비료 생산이 얼마나 빨리 변화했는지 보여준다. 

질소비료의 시대: 2000년대 질소비료 생산이 미국의 천연가스 가격의 상승으로 해외로 이전됐다. Source: USDA

한편, 프랙킹 붐은 미국의 천연가스를 갑자기 풍부하게 만들었다 —그리고 가격을 끌어내렸다. 현재 미국 천연가스의 비티유(Btu) New York Times에서 최근 보고했듯이, 2008년보다 75% 이하의 비용이 든다. 한편, 질소비료의 가격은 높은 작물 가격으로 강한 수요가 꾸준하여 높은 수준으로 유지되고 있다. 그러한 상황 —낮은 투입재 가격에 최종 생산품에 대한 높은 가격이 더해지는— 은  미국 시장에서 호황을 누리는 값비싼 질소비료를 생산하기 위해 값싼 미국의 천연가스를 활용하는 기업의 잠재적 노다지 광맥을 의미한다. 오늘날, 베네수엘라 해안 저편에 위치한 미국의 주요 질소 수입원인 섬나라 트리니다드토바고는 2000년대 초반의 미국과 같은 상황에 놓여 있다: 기존에 쉽게 채굴하던 천연가스의 공급이 다하고 있다. 2012년, 국제통화기금(IMF)는 현재의 채굴속도로는 그 국가에서 2019년까지만 채굴할 수 있을 것이라고 추산했다.

Kay McDonald가 다음 글(http://blog.daum.net/stonehinge/8727580)에서 표현했듯이 별로 놀랍지 않은데, 산업이 프랙킹 붐의 이득을 취하러 미국으로 되돌아오기 시작하고 있다. McDonald는 천연가스 수송관에 인접한 아이오와주에서 이집트 회사인 Orascom이 14억 달러의 새로운 대형 질소비료공장 건설사업을 9월에 발표한 사실을 지적했다. Wall Street Journal에 따르면, "값싼 미국의 천연가스 공급과 세계의 가장 중요한 식량 공급자라는 국가의 역할"이 미국 시장으로 이집트의 거인을 끌어들였다.

그리고 난 뒤 미국의 화학비료 거인 CF Industries는 11월에 루이지애나와 아이오와에 있는 기존의 질소비료공장의 확장사업에 38억 달러를 투자한다고 발표했다. MarketWatch는 "낮은 천연가스 비용과 높은 곡물 가격의 이득을 취하기 위한" 움직임이라고 보고했다. 같은 달, 미국 소유의 농산업 기업인 CHS는 노스다코다에 질소비료 공장을 세우기 위해 12억 달러를 투자하겠다고 발표했다. Associated Press의 기사는 그러한 사업에서 잠재적 이윤을 맛본다고 했다: "천연가스 가격이 현재 28세제곱미터에 약 2.50달러이다. 그러한 가격에서, 1톤에 약 800달러에 팔리고 있는 암모니아 1톤을 만들기 위해 약 82달러의 천연가스가 든다."

현재, 이러한 투자를 이끌고 있는 초과 이윤에 대한 약속이 없다는 데에 주의해야 한다. 에너지 가격은 매우 유동적이고, 그 산업은 미래의 이익에 대한 희망에 수십 억을 내놓는 것에 수반되는 위험에 조심해야 한다. 납세자로 들어가자: 이러한 사업은 국가, 주, 지자체 차원에서 공공자금으로 서명되고 있다. 아이오와 공장의 확장에 대한 보상으로, CF Industries은 주 정부로부터 7000만 달러 이상의 세제혜택 받았고, Woodbury County로부터 공장 건물에 대하여 20년에 걸쳐 1억 6100만 달러의 재산세를 감면받았다고 Sioux City Journal은 보고한다. 루이지애나 역시 기업의 확장에 대해 몇 백만 달러의 세금을 깎아줄 것이다.

Orascom이 건설하는 아이오와의 공장 같은 경우  주 정부의 경제적 재해복구를 돕기로 한 연방정부의 대출프로그램을 통하여 자금지원을 받고 있다 —아이오와의 2008년 홍수. Orascom에게 민간 시장보다 훨씬 낮은 이율을 허락한 대출프로그램은 사실상 보조금이다 —그 기업이 건설에 대한 이자 지급에서 3억 6000만 달러를 절약할 것 같다고 Des Moines Register는 보고했다. 그리고 아이오와주가 그 사업에 허용한 세금감면액은 최고 1억 달러이다.

납세자들은 이러한 사탕과 교환하여 무엇을 얻고 있는가? 내가 볼 때, 별로 없다. 공업형 농업의 인공 질소비료에 대한 지나친 의존이 일련의 환경오염 문제를 일으킨다: 과다한 질소가 하천으로 흘러가고 결국 미시시피강으로 흘러들어 바다 생물을 파괴하는 엄청난 적조의 먹이가 된다; 이산화탄소보다 300배 강력한 온실가스인 아산화질소를 배출한다; 그리고 토양의 유기물을 파괴한다.

그들이 프랙킹의 확산과 그에 대한 강한 규제에 압력을 가하듯이, 우려하는 시민들은 대형 석유회사만큼 강력하고 돈이 많은 경쟁자에게 의지할 수 있다: 대형 농업. 벌써 근본적으로 대형 농업 회사의 로비스트로 활동하는 미국농업협회(Farm Bureau Federation)는 논란의 여지가 있는 에너지원을 지지한다: "농업협회는 수압 분쇄의 사용을 포함하여 석유와 천연가스의 탐사와 생산에 대한 추가적인 방법을 지지한다"고 2012년 10월 정책성명에서 선언했다. 그러나 농업협회와 그 농산업 동맹들은 프랙킹 규제에 대한 싸움에서는 많은 역할을 하지 않고 있다. 비료산업이 값싼 미국의 천연가스에 의존하게 됨으로써, 상황이 변할 듯하다. 보조금을 받는 새로운 대규모 사업으로 질소의 사용을 지지하기보다, 공공정책은 질소가 덜 필요한 농법을 촉진하는 길을 모색할 수 있다. 한 가지 분명한 전략은 다양화이다. 가장 많이 심는 미국의 작물인 옥수수는 다른 작물보다 질소를 많이 필요로 한다. 아이오와 주립대학 Leopold Center의 연구자들이 작성한 2012년의 논문은 전형적인 중서부의 옥수수-콩 작부체계에 질소를 고정시키는 덮개작물에 더하여 "작은 곡물(귀리나 밀 등)"을 추가하여 확장함으로써, 농민들이 질소 수요를 80% 이상 줄일 수 있음을 보여주었다(이에 대해서는 다음을 참고하라 http://blog.daum.net/stonehinge/8726899) (또한 국내에서도 논에서 보리를 재배해 갈아엎는 것으로 수확량이 오른다는 연구결과도 있다 http://blog.daum.net/stonehinge/8725911). 그러한 변화를 촉진하는 정책들에 투자하는 것이 장기적으로 프랙킹 가스에 의존하는 쪽으로 나아가는 화학비료산업에 보조금을 지급하는 것보다 훨씬 현명한 일일 것이다. 

diversifying-corn-soybean-rotations.pdf

출처 http://goo.gl/758Aj

Millions of the world’s poorest people will face devastation from today’s rocketing food prices because the global food system is fatally flawed and policy-makers can’t find the courage to fix it.

Policy-makers have taken cheap food for granted for nearly 30 years. Those days are gone. Developing countries are bracing themselves for the worst effects of rising corn, soy and wheat prices on their poorest people. 

Fragile populations around the world, living on or near the poverty line, will be dragged under by price spikes and volatility. Nearly a billion people are already too poor to feed themselves, so any long-term food spike is guaranteed to trap millions more who are now just “getting by”. Worrying too is the continuing drop in global corn stocks that are now at their lowest levels for six years .

History is repeating itself and will keep doing so until we tackle the fundamental weaknesses that keep a billion people hungry.

• We must stop the obscene waste of food including burning it as biodiesel in our trucks and cars.
• We need to tackle climate change and land-grabs and damaging speculation.
• We must build up our food stocks and kick-start good investment again in small-holder farmers and in resilient, sustainable agriculture.

Here's Oxfam's analysis of 2012 food price hikes (pdf 237kb)

Learn more about Food Prices Spikes

In the Sahel, cereal production is down 26% from last year. Reserves are dangerously low already. Food prices are up to 30-60% higher than the five year average (even 90% in northern Mali). 
Most people (60%) buy food in the marketplace and spend up to 80% of their money on food. So in a region that is in a long-term food crisis, any global hike could be terrible.

Bolivia: High and volatile global food prices are likely to have a significant impact. Bolivians have been consuming more imported meat, sugar and oil. At the same time, a million hectares of the best arable land (i.e. a third of the country’s total) is now used for export-driven agro-industrial production, the most productive soil generally going to the highest bidder and not to ensure local food security.

In Brazil, data from National Secretariat on Civil Defense shows that 1,123 cities are facing a state of emergency – 8.3 million people from nine states on the Semi Arid region – due to the worst drought in the past 30 years. The NGO Articulação do Semiárido (ASA) estimates that the drought may last till 2013. 
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Conab, National Supply Company) estimates that the 2012 grain production will be smaller.

In 2007 Mexico suffered a tortilla crisis which saw the price of the flat corn bread, the main source of calories for many poor Mexicans, rise by up to 400 per cent sparking riots across the country. 

climate and ag_FINAL.pdf

Washington, D.C.—This summer, record temperatures and limited rainfall parched vast areas of U.S. cropland, and with Earth’s surface air temperature projected to rise 0.69 degrees Celsius by 2030, global food production will be even more unpredictable, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org). Although agriculture is a major driver of human-caused climate change, contributing an estimated 25 to 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, when done sustainably it can be an important key to mitigating climate change, write report authors Danielle Nierenberg and Laura Reynolds.

Because of its reliance on healthy soil, adequate water, and a delicate balance of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, farming is the human endeavor most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. But agriculture’s strong interrelationships with both climatic and environmental variables also make it a significant playerin reducing climate-altering emissions as well as helping the world adapt to the realities of a warming planet.

“The good news is that agriculture can hold an important key to mitigating climate change,” said Reynolds, Worldwatch’s Food and Agriculture Research Associate. “Practices such as using animal manure rather than artificial fertilizer, planting trees on farms to reduce soil erosion and sequester carbon, and growing food in cities all hold huge potential for reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint.”

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the global agricultural sector could potentially reduce and remove 80 to 88 percent of the carbon dioxide that it currently emits. By adopting more-sustainable approaches, small-scale agriculture in developing countries has the potential to contribute 70 percent of agriculture’s global mitigation of climate change. And many of these innovations have the potential to be replicated, adapted, and scaled up for application on larger farms, helping to improve water availability, increase diversity, and improve soil quality, as well as mitigate climate change.

This report, Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Supporting Climate-Friendly Food Production,discusses six sustainable approaches to land and water use, in both rural and urban areas, that are helping farmers and other food producers mitigate or adapt to climate change—and often both. They are:

• Building Soil Fertility: Alternatives to heavy chemical use in agriculture, such as avoiding unnecessary tilling or raising both crops and livestock on the same land, can help to drastically reduce the total amount of energy expended to produce a crop or animal, reducing overall emissions.

• Agroforestry: Because trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, keeping them on farms whenever possible can help mitigate climate change. Agroforestry also keeps the soil healthier and more resilient by maximizing the amount of organic matter, microorganisms, and moisture held within it. Agroforestry also provides shade for livestock and certain crops, and creates habitats for animals and insects, such as bees, that pollinate many crops.  

• Urban Farming: Growing food in cities can mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions released from the transport, processing, and storage of food destined for urban populations. Urban agriculture also increases the total area of non-paved land in cities, making urban landscapes more resilient to flooding and other weather shocks, while improving the aesthetic value of these landscapes.

• Cover Cropping/Green Manure: Cover cropping, also known as green manure, is the practice of strategically planting crops that will deliver a range of benefits to a farming system, and often plowing these crops into the soil instead of harvesting their organic matter. Planting cover crops improves soil fertility and moisture by making soil less vulnerable to drought or heat waves. Cover crops also serve as a critical deterrent against pests and diseases that affect crops or livestock, such as corn root worm or Rift Valley fever, particularly as warmer temperatures enable these organisms to survive in environments that were previously too cold for them.

• Improving Water Conservation and Recycling: Innovations in water conservation, including recycling wastewater in cities, using precise watering techniques such as drip irrigation rather than sprinklers, and catching and storing rainwater, all help to reduce the global strain on already-scarce water resources.

• Preserving Biodiversity and Indigenous Breeds: Growing diverse and locally adapted indigenous crops, such as yams, quinoa, and cassava, can provide a source of income and improve farmers’ chances of withstanding the effects of climate change, such as heat stress, drought, and the expansion of disease and pest populations. Preserving plant and animal biodiversity also reduces farmers’ overreliance on a small number of commodity crops that make them vulnerable to shifts in global markets.

By tapping into the multitude of climate-friendly farming practices that already exist, agriculture can continue to provide food for the world’s population, as well as be a source of livelihood for the 1.3 billion people who rely on farming for income and sustenance.If agriculture is to play a positive role in the global fight against climate change, however, agricultural practices that mitigate or adapt to climate change will need to receive increased research, attention, and investment in the coming years.

Scarcity of water can be crippling to jobs and livelihoods, even in the richest nation on Earth as US farmers face worst droughts in living memory Photograph: David Gross/ZUMA Press/Corbis

The National Climate Assessment, released this week, predicted increasingly negative impact of weather extremes on crops. But with industrialized farming as a key player in greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the vicious cycle needs breaking.

This past year treated us to a climate change preview in spades: crazy heat waves, prolonged drought, and epic storms like Sandy. To help us stabilize the climate, before we reach the point of no return, we must tap the immense potential of our food system.

Since becoming an agrarian society, we've known that growing food successfully depends on climate stability. Not enough water, crops wither and die. Too much, they rot. Beyond this, we know that crops have specific climatic requirements. Wheat, for instance, grows best in a dry, mild climate. Stone fruits like cherries need a minimum number of "chill hours" in order to blossom and later fruit. Intense heat disrupts pollination and can even shut down photosynthesis. These are basic parameters. If we continue to disregard them, food will become more scarce over time and we will go hungry. Indeed, as the National Climate Assessment, the government's 1,146-page report released earlier this week states: "The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity because critical thresholds are already being exceeded."

Agriculture, positioned as it is at the intersection of food and climate, presents a unique fulcrum. Pushed in the direction of industrial agriculture, it contributes egregiously to our climate problem: As activist Bill McKibben has noted, industrial agriculture -- predominant in the U.S. -- "essentially insures that your food is marinated in crude oil before you eat it." This is because at every step, from the production of fertilizers and pesticides to the harvesting, processing, packaging, and transporting of materials, the industrial food system depends on climate-changing fossil fuels. Indeed, in a new report on climate change and food systems, the agriculture research organization CGIAR concluded that our global food system is responsible for nearly a third of all greenhouse gas emissions.

But we can tip the scale in the other direction toward sustainable agriculture, working in concert with natural systems instead of depleting them. This side of the scale presents an elegant, under-recognized opportunity to stabilize the climate. Not only do agro-ecological, organic and other sustainable farming methods emit significantly less greenhouse gas (GHG) overall, they can also sequester or store excess carbon. Given our long list of existing environmental worries -- erosion, polluted watersheds, dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico -- strengthening our top soil is a lot smarter than loading it up with nitrogen and washing it down the Mississippi.

Sustainable agriculture not only recaptures GHG, it eliminates the need for synthetic fertilizers like manufactured nitrogen which emits nitrous oxide. According to the EPA, agriculture is directly responsible for 68% of U.S. nitrous oxide emissions (a potent GHG; each molecule has 310 times the atmospheric warming potential of one molecule of carbon dioxide). By favoring biodiversity, productivity, resource efficiency and resilience -- sustainable agriculture also offers tangible benefits like cleaner water, preserved wildlife habitat, and reduced exposure to pesticides.

Despite these obvious advantages, sustainable systems are often dismissed as backward or as some romanticized fantasy, particularly by multi-national chemical companies with a vested interest in maintaining the industrial system. In reality these low-impact methods of farming are rooted in the realities of local climate and culture and provide promising models of resilience. Consider, for instance, Angelic Organics, a biodynamic farm in north central Illinois: it grows more than 55 different crops on 100 acres while using cover crops that sequester atmospheric carbon in the soil, harvest nitrogen from the air, protect the soil from erosion, and provide habitats for beneficial insects. Examples of such productivity combined with critical ecosystem services can be found all over the country and on every continent. Most importantly, a 2009 scientific report known as theInternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concluded that sustainable agriculture is, in fact, more resilient in the face of climate change than industrial mono-cropping -- the mile after mile of corn and soy that now dominates our farming states.

Imagine what we could do for the climate if instead of blanketing 30 percent of the nation's farmland with a single industrial crop (corn), the U.S. were to create a thriving network of rural farms and urban gardens. To tip the climate scale in our favor we need the energetic,good food movement to care as much about politics as peaches. By flexing its growing political muscle, the movement can support legislation that promotes research and training in sustainable agricultural practices. These practices mitigate climate change and put good food on our tables. Legions of young people who understand the climate change imperative are turning to agriculture. As a country we must make it as easy as possible for them to pursue careers in sustainable farming, and support them with forward-looking agriculture policies that are grounded in the climate reality of 2013.

코스타리카에서 실험하고 있다는 '수상 텃밭'. 영어로는 "Aquatic agriculture"라고 하여 호수나 연못 등지에서 농사짓는 방법이라고 한다.

정말 재밌는 발상이다. 물이 많고 땅이 부족한 곳에서 실천하면 좋겠다. 

이런 방법이 전통농업 가운데 있기는 하다. 

<농업이 문명을 움직인다>에 보면 "거대한 도시를 부양한 물 위의 채소밭" 장이 있는데 그 내용이 이와 상통한다. 

http://goo.gl/Dl4GZ

이러한 방법이 전통적으로 중남미에서 행해졌고, 위의 실험은 그걸 계승, 발전시키는 차원이라고도 볼 수 있는 것이다. 아무튼 세상에 완전히 새로운 건 없다. 그래서 어떤 학문이든 그 역사를 공부하고, 흐름을 익히고, 어떤 방향으로 나아갈지 살피는 것이겠지.

농사도 마찬가지다. 

아래는 가디언에 뜬 이 방법을 연구 중인 사람과의 인터뷰 내용이다(http://goo.gl/kUgc4).

코스타리카 대학의 water science 교수 Ricardo Radulovich 씨는 아프리카는 물이 부족하여 관개가 제한적이고, 빗물 의존 농업은 긴 건기와 변화무쌍한 우기의 강우량에 영향을 받는다고 지적한다. 그에 해당하는 서아프리카의 사헬 지역은 점점 가뭄이 빈번해지고, 지난해에는 기근을 막기 위해 긴급구호가 필요했다. 

허나 Radulovich 씨는 아프리카의 호수가 아프리카 대륙의 농업문제를 해결하는 새로운 대책의 일부가 될 수 있을 거라 본다. 몇몇 아프리카 국가에는 호수가 있는데, 일부는 매우 넓어서  15만 평방킬로미터 이상인 곳도 있다. 그는 왜 거기서 고기잡이 외에 식량과 수생식물을 기르지 않는지 의문을 가지며 물 과학자가 된 10년 전부터 고민을 시작했다. 

"핵심 문제는 물이다"라고 전화 인터뷰에서 Radulovich 씨가 말했다. "우리는 땅은 있지만, 물은 제한적인 요소이다. 물만 있으면 농사를 지을 수 있다. 호수 표면을 작물과 수생식물을 재배하는 데 활용할 수 있다면, 물을 낭비하지 않아도 된다."

Radulovich 씨와 Schery Umanzor 씨가 포함된 팀은 이미 2001년 니코야Nicoya 만의 바다에서 행한 실험의 연장선으로 니카라과의 호수에 뗏목을 띄우고 상추, 토마토, 오이, 머스크멜론 등을 재배하는 모범이 되는 프로젝트를 시작했다. 토마토 뿌리는 물속으로 뻗거나 화분에 매단 면으로 된 줄을 따라 물속으로 뻗을 수 있다. 

뗏목의 크기는 6평방미터까지 다양하게 만들 수 있고, 예를 들면 페트병 같은 걸로 쉽고 값싸게 만들 수도 있다. 원예로 인하여 물이 오염된 곳에서는 화훼를 하면 된다. 물에서 작물을 재배하는 일의 장점 가운데 하나는 노지에서 기르는 것보다 벌레가 꼬이지 않는다는 점이다. 

그 팀의 선구적 기술은 캐나다 정부가 자금을 지원하는 위대한 도전(Grand Challenges Canada)에서 10만 달러를 받았다. 개발도상국의 혁신을 대상으로 하는 위대한 도전은 그들의 발상이 효율적이라고 입증되면 100만 달러의 자금을 추가로 제공할 것이다.

또한 Radulovich 씨와 그의 동료들은 큰물개구리밥, 부레옥잠, 악어풀 같은 수생식물의 잠재력에 주목한다. 그는 수로를 어질러놓는 잡초라고 치부되기 일쑤인 그런 식물이 생물다양성을 풍부하게 하고, 큰 물고기를 끌어들이는 작은 물고기들와 달팽이의 영양원이자 서식지라고 본다. 예를 들어 부레옥잠은 잉어와 가축 같은 초식성의 먹이로 활용할 수 있고, 심지어 가루의 형태로 인간이 먹을 수도 있다고 한다. 

위의 사진이 바로 부레옥잠이다. 우리의 냇가나 연못가에 자라는 부레옥잠과 크기가 다르다! <농업이 문명을 움직인다> 중남미 편을 보면, 이미 인디오들이 수로에서 자라는 부레옥잠을 다양하게 활용했던 모습을 볼 수 있다. 이미 그때부터 이걸 가져다 사료로 쓰거나 아니면 거름더미에 넣어 거름으로 활용해 왔다. 그도 그럴 것이, 수로에다 흙을 돋워서 밭을 만들어 농사를 짓는데 농사지으면서 어쩔 수 없이 물로 흘러들어가는 영양분이 있을 것이다. 그렇게 흘러들어가는 양분을 부레옥잠 같은 물풀이 먹고 자라고, 그걸 가져다 다시 거름을 만드는 것이다. 또 부레옥잠 같은 물풀이 다양해질 수록 거기에 깃들어 서식하는 물고기들도 많아지기에 물고기가 좋은 단백질 공급원이자 시장에 내다팔 수 있는 상품이 되기도 한다. 

"현재 수로를 어지럽힌다며 골칫거리로 여겨지는 그들의 꽃을 수확하여 활용하는 새로운 추세로 나아가려 한다"고 Radulovich 씨는 말한다. "새로운 추세는 그것을 재배해야 한다. 이들 모두는 선발과 유전자 개량 프로그램을 시작하지 않아도 몇 년 안에 농업 개선에 일부가 쓰이는 것으로도 엄청난 발전을 이끌 수 있다."

Radulovich 씨는 특히 줄에 벼를 매달아 농사짓는 가능성에 들떠 있다. "물에 산소 함량이 낮아도 1년에 3번 벼농사를 지을 수 있다. 다만 경제적으로 그렇게 할 수 있는지는 모르겠다"고 한다.

우간다, 에티오피아, 필리핀, 말라위를 포함한 몇몇 국가는 수상 농업에 관심을 표현했다. 그러나 Radulovich 씨는 도전을 시작하기에 앞서 큰 장애물이 될 식습관 등을 포함한 문화적 변화를 기술적인 문제라고 본다. 

"만약 사람들이 그것이 필요하고 그렇게 한다면, 물 환경은 생물학적, 환경적 혼란이 없을 정도로 변화시키며 지능적으로 활용되어야 한다."

강연도 올라와 있음.

음식-기후의 관계

With the droughts, heat waves, wildfires and hurricanes of 2012 fresh on our mind, it may be an opportune moment to examine the connection between these extreme weather episodes and our warming planet. one aspect that is often overlooked is the surprising relationship between the foods we eat and climate change.

A new public radio project, called “The Diet-Climate Connection” examines how the environment is affected by the foods we eat and the food system that produces them, in some cases emitting substantial greenhouse gases. Why this is so and choices individuals can make to lower their “food footprint” is explored in depth in audio documentary segments with climate scientists, citizen activists, public health experts, and others.

This project was created in association with WGBH/Boston and distributed worldwide by NPR. Each segment explores how different individuals and organizations across the nation are tackling this issue. For example, the first segment discusses how diet-climate concerns are playing out in higher education. We visit the campus of Carleton College,in Northfield, Minnesota. Students and administration there share a commitment to environmental responsibility. The food service on campus has also followed suit and has adjusted their menu offerings accordingly.  This movement towards becoming more environmentally conscious is currently reaching more than 200 U.S. campuses, where students are pressing for more sustainable dining services, including and emphasis on locally-grown food (which reduces their carbon footprint by minimizing heavy-emission, long-distance transport of food).

Another segment delves into how public school cafeterias, which are changing in response to new U.S. federal policies that pay greater attention to healthier meal options than were typically available in the past. For example, Codman Academy, a public charter high school in Boston’s inner city, banned junk food from campus and the buying of fast food during school hours. Instead, students can access veggie-burgers, low-calorie foods, and healthier options. With a similar goal in mind, public schools in Burlington, Vermont have prioritized supporting local agriculture to provide students with healthier food options (and have recognized the environmental benefits as well).

In the third segment, Diet for a Hot Planet author Anna Lappé  (daughter of Frances Moore Lappé, whose ground-breaking 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet laid the basis for today’s understanding the link between the environment and the food we eat), discusses how our food choices affect the daunting problem of climate change. This segment also explains how heavily industrialized agriculture, especially the conventional production of livestock- produces significant emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Further, damage to the environment results from the growing of so many feed crops for the animals (and the clearing of forests to grow them) and the animals’ own waste products. This waste also produces potent heat-trapping gasses. Alternatively, crops grown directly for people have smaller environmental impact. This information leads us to understand that it is possible to combat climate change by reducing our consumption of animal products (especially dairy and red meat). We can instead enjoy more fruits and veggies as well as non-animal sources of protein, which can do much less environmental harm. And we learn about the global Meat Free Mondays campaign, and listen to Paul McCartney’s song about it!

Finally, we hear a segment on the importance of growing locally and thinking globally. As only two percent of Americans are now working on farms, many of us are unaware of the industrial operations that produce most of our food. However, there is a new movement that brings together people in vibrant gardens and small urban farms, where they grow tasty, nourishing food, save money, and get to know their neighbors while combatting climate change.

In addition to the audio content, you can download a small eBook at no charge, called “The Climate-Friendly Food Guide.” Using the information provided in the four segments of “The Diet-Climate Connection” and the food guide, we not only make a positive impact on our environment and minimize our carbon footprints, but we reap the personal benefits as well – including improved health and becoming a part of a global movement.

http://goo.gl/1IT1q

KENYA: Largely criminalised and facing accusations ranging from encouraging breeding of mosquitoes to acting as hiding places for thugs, urban agriculture is slowly emerging as a food security option, with reports indicating that up to half of the food consumed in Nairobi is grown in big towns.

Experts are accusing urban authorities and policy makers for at times opposing and generally underestimating the actual value and contribution of urban farming to poverty and food insecurity.

Population increase

“Urban agriculture is a potentially viable policy response to the complex challenge of feeding a burgeoning mass of urban residents amid decline in food production in rural areas,” says a new report published by the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF). The report quotes studies indicating that urban agriculture contributes substantially to food security and safety for approximately 50 per cent of city dwellers worldwide, while about one-third of Nairobi households earn income related to urban farming.

The number of people coming into towns is increasing rapidly, but most find themselves worse off economically than they were back in their rural homes.  A recent report from Tegemeo Institute says that a fifth of Nairobi residents are “ultra-hungry”.

It is estimated that by 2030, half of all Kenyans will be living in urban areas, with that growth expected to not only significantly increase household food demand in major towns, but also to cause a decline in rural agricultural productivity due to loss of farm labour.

Health nuisance

ACBF says that for years, urban agriculture has been considered a public health nuisance and an activity characteristic of rural and not urban economies. As a result, people who engaged in urban agriculture have not been supported and instead harassed, even in years of food shortages.

In the National Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture and Livestock Policy, which is still in draft form, the ministry of Agriculture acknowledges that urban and peri-urban farming is on the increase, but laments lack of policy guiding the practice.

One of the major challenges is the sheer number of laws in Kenya that have a bearing on urban and peri-urban agriculture, with at least 24 having something to say on the matter. 

Draft policy

These include the Local Government Act, Animal Diseases Act, Public Health Act, Land Control Act, Science and Technology Act and the Fertilizers and Animal Feedstuffs Act. According to the draft policy, some of these legislations indirectly support or hinder the growth and development of the sub sector.

The muddled policy situation has led to a lack of clarity about the legality of urban agriculture and ambiguity about its legitimacy as a permissible activity.

The general reluctance to facilitate urban farming is the association of the practice with various forms of pollution.

These include land pollution from careless dumping of manure and crop residues, excessive use and unsanitary disposal of pesticides and their packages, use of raw sewage containing industrial effluents, heavy metals and microbes.

According to the draft policy, about 80 per cent of urban farmers use inputs with potentially negative implication on the environment and human health.  Urban farming has thrived amid legal uncertainty along roadsides, railway lines, among others.

Sprinklers water crops in Bakersfield, California, during a heatwave. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images