“In the Second World War,” Samuel Zook began, “my ancestors were conscientious objectors because we don’t believe in combat.” The Amish farmer paused a moment to inspect a mottled leaf on one of his tomato plants before continuing. “If you really stop and think about it, though, when we go out spraying our crops with pesticides, that’s really what we’re doing. It’s chemical warfare, bottom line.”

Eight years ago, it was a war that Zook appeared to be losing. The crops on his 66-acre farm were riddled with funguses and pests that chemical treatments did little to reduce. The now-39-year-old talked haltingly about the despair he felt at the prospect of losing a homestead passed down through five generations of his family. Disillusioned by standard agriculture methods, Zook searched fervently for an alternative. He found what he was looking for in the writings of an 18-year-old Amish farmer from Ohio, a man named John Kempf.

Kempf is the unlikely founder of Advancing Eco Agriculture, a consulting firm established in 2006 to promote science-intensive organic agriculture. The entrepreneur’s story is almost identical to Zook’s. A series of crop failures on his own farm drove the 8th grade-educated Kempf to school himself in the sciences. For two years, he pored over research in biology, chemistry, and agronomy in pursuit of a way to save his fields. The breakthrough came from the study of plant immune systems which, in healthy plants, produce an array of compounds that are toxic to intruders. “The immune response in plants is dependent on well-balanced nutrition,” Kempf concluded, “in much the same way as our own immune system.” Modern agriculture uses fertilizer specifically to increase yields, he added, with little awareness of the nutritional needs of other organic functions. Through plant sap analysis, Kempf has been able to discover deficiencies in important trace minerals which he can then introduce into the soil. With plants able to defend themselves, pesticides can be avoided, allowing the natural predators of pests to flourish.

According to Kempf, the methods he developed through experimentation on his Ohio farm are now being used across North and South America, Hawaii, Europe, and Africa. The entrepreneur promises clients higher-quality crops, bigger yields, better taste, and produce that carries a lucrative “organic” label. Kempf, however, considers his process as an important improvement upon standard organic farming methods. “Organic certification is a negative-process certification,” he explained, “You can do nothing to your field and become certified. In contrast, we focus on actively restoring the balance found in natural systems.”

I recently sought out Samuel Zook, one of Kempf’s earliest converts, at his farm in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to see Advancing Eco Agriculture’s practices in action. After trailing a leisurely horse and carriage in my car for several miles, I was greeted at the farm by a bounding dog and Zook’s young barefoot son. The boy stared silently with his arms wrapped around a watermelon almost as big as himself. In a straw hat and suspenders, he looked like a miniature version of his father. The elder Zook smiled demurely through a neatly trimmed beard and extended his hand before inviting me on a tour of his fields. A hushed gaggle of children tripped along behind us as we walked among the bales of hay and rows of tomatoes, onions, melons, and squash.

Roc Morin: Can you describe the differences between how you used to farm and how you farm now?

Samuel Zook: The inputs changed drastically. Instead of trying to grow crops that are healthy with fungicides and pesticides, I started to grow crops that are healthy with nutrition.

Morin: What was the hardest part about making the change?

Zook: Well, there was a big psychological block that I had to get through. I’d see a couple bugs out there and feel like I immediately had to do something about it. But, I learned that if I sit back, things will often take care of themselves. That first summer for instance, we saw a lot of horn worms. Before that, I would have sprayed them right away, but this time I waited and a bunch of wasps came along and killed them. once I saw that, I started getting really excited.

Morin: So, when you use a pesticide you’re killing the predators too, right?

Zook: Right. You’re killing the entire ecosystem.

Morin: Have all of your problems disappeared?

Zook: I wish I could say that, but not entirely. We’re not living in the Garden of Eden yet. The issues I had before have disappeared, but we still have some other issues that we’re working on. one of the main things that has improved is how it feels to farm. Before, if I applied fungicide on my tomatoes, I had to wait three to seven days before I could reenter the area. Now, it’s so nice to just walk in my field any day of the week and not worry a bit. That in itself is huge. The other thing is, when I used to mix these skull-and-cross-bones chemicals to put in my sprayer, I’d have to be suited up. The children would be around and I’d say, “Now, get in the house. It’s not safe.” Now though, if the children want to help, it’s fine. If I want to mix the solutions better, I’ll just put my hand in a stir it around.

Morin: What are some of the problems that you’re dealing with now?

Zook: One of my major issues in the greenhouse is spider mites—little insects that just love a warm, dry environment. It’s very hard to control them, even conventionally. We usually get them under control, but we often lose some yield.

Morin: How do you get them under control?

Zook: Mainly through applying specific trace minerals like iodine and a whole line of ultra-micronutrients. We analyzed the sap of the plants with the help of a lab and I think we’ve narrowed the problem down to excessive ammonium nitrates. If ammonia builds up in the plants, it’s bug food, so we need to figure out a way to convert ammonia fast. I just spent two days with John [Kempf], and he came up with an enzyme cofactor which we’ll use to stimulate that ammonia conversion. We figure things out ourselves now rather than call up the chemical rep.

Morin: What did your chemical rep say when you told him that you didn’t need his services anymore?

Zook: Well, that was an interesting summer. He used to come here every week telling me horror stories about all the diseases in the neighborhood. But, I had made up my made up my mind, “No mas.” He came back every week for eight weeks telling me what I needed to spray. I said, “I’m fine, thanks.” The last time he was here, we were out picking tomatoes and he walked over. He was looking around and talking about this and that, and he didn’t even mention pesticides. “Well,” he said, “your tomatoes look pretty good.” I thought, “Yes!”

Morin: One thing that I immediately noticed is how great everything smells here. Do you still smell it, or are you accustomed to it?

Zook: Oh, I smell it every time I come here. It’s exciting. Those aromas are actually compounds the plants produce to defend themselves from insects and disease attacks. A lot of people don’t realize that plants have immune systems.

Morin: So, you can smell health—can you can smell problems too?

Zook: Yes. There’s a real science to walking through a field and pausing to feel what the plants are feeling. There’s a huge difference between walking in this field and walking in one that has had six fungicide applications. The plants just don’t radiate that same vitality. Another thing I learned is that every time you spray with a fungicide or something, it’s actually suppressing the plant as well as the fungi.

Morin: The same way that antibiotics can weaken a person’s immune system?

Zook: Yes. It might kill the disease, but then because it has weakened the plant, a week later the plant is much more susceptible to that same disease again. That’s the way it is with miticide. If I come in here and spray the mites with it, it would kill some of them, but it kills by messing with their hormones, so the ones that do survive will then mature 50 percent faster. So, it’s pretty much guaranteed that I’d have a huge mite outbreak 10 years later. Instead of doing that, let’s figure out what this plant wants and provide it. They really do respond.

Morin: What else can you tell by looking at your plants?

Zook: Well, one thing we learn is to read the leaves. This asymmetry here indicates zinc deficiency. The spots over here indicate a phosphorus deficiency. And, this here rippling of the leaf usually indicates excess nitrogen.

Morin: Before you started with this method were you able to read the leaves?

Zook: You know, I barely noticed them at all. I just planted and sprayed. Now, it’s much more fun.

I have a pretty high baseline level of skepticism, and when I’m exposed to rhetorical bombast, it causes those skepticism levels to spike. Objections overflow; doubts seep from my pores. It’s an allergic reaction. So this line, the first sentence in the Rodale Institute’s newwhite paper on the carbon-capturing potential of organic farming, gave me a light rash:

We are at the most critical moment in the history of our species.

The entire history of our species? Including the first faltering steps? Including the thousands of years about which we know zilch? This extension of rhetoric beyond the scope of human knowledge does not inspire confidence.

The paper’s assertion is that, “Simply put, recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100 percent of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term ‘regenerative organic agriculture.’”

This, at least, is a slightly less audacious claim than the last, but not by much. Completely switching food production to organic agriculture would be so difficult that I’m not going bother with it. Instead, let’s see what a first step in that direction might look like, and consider the evidence that that step might be worth taking.

Actually, the methods proposed make a lot of sense: “cover crops, residue mulching, composting and crop rotation. Conservation tillage, while not yet widely used in organic systems, is a regenerative organic practice integral to soil-carbon sequestration.” So far I’m on board. The complete lifecycle carbon impacts of these practices aren’t fully understood yet — the studies suggest that they can help capture a little bit of carbon, though not always enough to make them carbon sinks. Still, all of these measures have additional benefits beyond carbon sequestration: No-till and cover cropping prevents erosion; crop rotation discourages pests. It’s sensible to experiment with these practices vigorously, even if it turns out they don’t sequester an ounce of carbon.

The other major element of “regenerative organic agriculture” is going organic — ostensibly by refraining from using synthetic pesticides and fertilizer. The problem with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is that it can decompose into nitrous oxide — a terrible greenhouse gas with 300 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide. But then all nitrogen fertilizers — whether it’s organic compost, or manure, or nitrogen-fixing legumes — have exactly the same problem. A recent meta-analysis from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland found that organic food actually had more nitrous oxide emissions per calorie than conventional food.

There really hasn’t been enough study to say definitively if synthetic fertilizer is better or worse than, say, manure. I’d bet that the source of the nitrogen matters a lot less than the way it’s used. You can pump a bunch of feces from a giant pig farm onto your field, let it off-gas in the sun, and call it “organic.” Or, on the other side, you could be a conventional farmer working with the Environmental Defense Fund to minimize nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer. The point is, there’s not a smoking gun that makes all conventional agriculture more carbon intensive than all organic farming.

And yet, as I looked through the studies that have been done holistically comparing organic ag to conventional systems, my skepticism receded. There really is a lot of evidence that organic farming can lock up more carbon than other systems. (there’s a great discussion of this evidence in 71 comments of that last link.) There’s even evidence from USDA scientists that organic production (considering both carbon and nitrous oxide) can actually consume more greenhouse gases than it produces. That is, it can be carbon-negative, whereas the conventional fields in that study have always been carbon-positive.

So what accounts for this difference, if not synthetic fertilizer? The best hypothesis I’ve heard is that it’s not any one thing you can point to; instead, it’s the overall philosophy. Organic farms constantly work to build up the soil, which is basically another way of saying that they move carbon out of the air and into the dirt. It’s a central tenet of organic farming, and people have been refining techniques to do it for hundreds of years.

I’m still skeptical of the claim that organic farming could offset all our emissions, but it does have some important lessons to share. Let’s start taking those first steps toward “regenerative organic agriculture.” While we’re doing so, though, let’s also dial back the evangelical fervor. Overselling a case like this can do real harm: Sure, it rallies the faithful, but it also makes it easy for everyone else to dismiss.

The thing is, this may truly turn out to be “the most critical moment in the history of our species.” At the very least, this moment is going to profoundly influence the future of humanity. To deal with that, we need measured and convincing assessments of every good tool we can get — more than we need hype.

http://grist.org/food/organic-farming-is-great-but-its-not-jesus/#.U4d4NHUDFL4.twitter

세계를 먹여 살리는 다섯 단계의 계획

Mariam Kéita 씨는 말리 Siby에 있는 농장에서 땅콩을 수확했다. 하이브르디 종자, 화학비료, 관개라는 녹색혁명의 혼합물은 아프리카에서 시작되지 않았다. 그러나 사하라사막 이남의 국가들은 현재 그들의 수확량이 크게 향상될 수 있기 때문에 세계의 식량생산을 증대시킬 중요한 기회를 제공하고 있다. 

페루의 안데스 고산지대에 사는 Estela Cóndor 씨는 다섯 가지 품종의 감자를 재배해 시장에 내다판다. 그녀는 마슈아mashua라는 노란 감자는 식구들을 위해 요리한다. 콘도르 씨 같은 소농은 개발도상국의 사람들이 먹는 대부분의 식량을 재배한다.

말리 Siby의 Bassama Camara 씨.

미국 아이오와의 Sally Gran 씨.

에티오피아 Tulu Rei의 Girma Wodajo 씨.

미국 위스콘신의 Chris Covelli 씨.

우크라이나 Starovyshnevetske의 Valentin Tarasov 씨. 

방글라데시 Sajiali의 Anwara Begum 씨.

산업형 규모의 농장은 하나의 작물을 거대한 농지에 재배하며 화학비료와 농약을 사용하여 고수확을 달성했다.

소농이 산업형 농장에 비해 수확량에서 뒤처지는 경향이 있지만, 실제로는 사람들을 먹여살리는 더 많은 식량을 제공하곤 한다.

인도네시아 발리의 Pak Kompiang 씨. 

미국 아이오와의 George Naylor 씨.

우크라이나 Hlynske의 Olexandra Salo 씨.

미국 캔사스의 Frank Reese 씨.

영국 스카이 제도의 Paul McGlynn 씨.

첫 번째 단계: 농업의 발자국을 멈추자

대부분의 역사 동안 더 많은 식량을 생산할 필요가 있을 때에는 간단히 숲을 없애거나 초원을 갈아엎어 더 많은 농장을 만들었다. 우린 이미 작물을 재배하기 위해 남아메리카 정도의 크기를 밀어버렸다. 가축을 키우기 위해 우린 아프리카 정도의 크기를 접수해버렸다. 농업의 발자국은 북미의 평원과 브라질의 대서양 숲 및 열대우림을 놀라운 속도로 계속해서 밀어버리는 것을 포함해 전 세계에서 전체 생태계의 상실을 야기하고 있다. 그러나 우리에겐 더 이상 농지를 확장하여 식량생산을 증대하기 위한 여유가 없다. 농지를 열대우림과 맞바꾸는 것은 환경에 행하는 가장 파괴적인 일들 가운데 하나이지만, 여전히 배고픈 지구의 8억5000만 명에게는 거의 혜택을 주지 않고 있다. 농업을 위해 밀어버린 열대의 토지 대부분은 세계의 식량안보에 큰 기여를 하지 못하고 있으며, 대신 소와 가축을 위한 콩, 목재, 팜유를 생산하기 위해 사용된다. 산림 벌채의 방지를 최우선으로 해야 한다.

두 번째 단계: 우리가 가진 농장에서 더 많이 키우자

1960년대에 시작된 녹색혁명은 아시아와 라틴아메리카에서 더 나은 품종의 작물과 더 많은 화학비료, 관개, 농기계를 사용하여 수확량을 증대시켰다. 하지만 그와 함께 주요한 환경 비용을 발생시켰다. 세계는 현재 생산성이 떨어지는 농지, 특히 아프리카와 라틴아메리, 동유럽에서 수확량을 증대시키는 데 관심을 돌리고 있다. 이곳들은 현재의 생산 수준과 향상된 농법으로 가능한 생산 수준 사이에 “수확량 격차”가 있는 곳이다. 최첨단, 정밀 농업 체계만이 아니라 유기농업에서 가져온 방법을 활용하여 이러한 지역에서 수확량을 높일 수 있다. 

우리가 재배하는 곳, 우리가 재배하는 것, 우리가 재배하는 방법을 

더 효율적으로 만들 수 있다.

PAN AND ZOOM on MAPS

PASTURE

CROPLAND

농업이 존재하는 곳

앞으로 25년 동안 거의 모든 새로운 식량생산은 기존의 농지에서 이루어질 것이다.

FOOD

FEED AND FUEL

작물이 활용되는 방법

식량작물 칼로리의 단 55%만 사람이 직접 섭취한다. 동물을 사육하여 발생하는 육류와 유제품, 달걀은 또 다른 4%를 한다.

LOW

HIGH

수확량을 개선할 수 있는 곳

수확량이 가장 낮은 곳의 영양과 물 공급을 개선하는 것은 세계 식량생산을 58% 증대할 수 있다.

국가의 법으로 보호를 받는 브라질의 개암나무만 농민들이 옥수수 재배를 위해 아마존의 열대우림을 밀어낸 뒤에도 남아 있다. 산림파괴의 속도가 늦어졌음에도, 이 파라Pará 주의 북부에서는 지난 세월에 걸쳐 37% 남아 우려스럽다.

브라질 마투 그로수의 Nutribras 양돈농장에서, 모돈이 새끼 돼지를 깔아뭉개지 않도록 스톨로 격리되어 있다. 돼지농장은 엄청난 오염원이 될 수 있다. 평균 90kg이 돼지가 하루에 약 6kg의 분뇨를 생산한다. 하지만 Nutribras에서는 분뇨를 거름과 메탄 발전에 재활용한다.

소가 충격으로 정신을 잃은 뒤, 죽임을 당하고 피를 빼기 전 상공의 노면전차에 다리 하나로 매달려 있다. 세계에서 가장 큰 육류생산업체인 JBS는 브라질에 본사를 두고 있다.

노동자들이 소의 사체를 부위별로 분리하고 있다. JBS는 이를 전 세계로 수출한다. 발굽과 뼈는 갈아서 물고기 사료와 비료로 쓴다. 

브라질 Itapuí의 가금류 기업에서 시간당 1만8000마리의 닭을 가공한다. 미국과 중국에서만 매년 브라질보다 더 많은 닭을 먹는다. 1인당 약 100마리이다. 브라질의 가금류 생산은 2000~2012년 사이 2배가 되었다.

Nutribras는 사육하는 모든 돼지를 자체 시설에서 가공한다. 하루 약 1300마 꼴이다. 가축이 죽은 뒤, 깨끗이 하고 털을 벗기려고 끓는 물 속에 담근다. 

캘리포니아 그린필드 근처의 Bassetti 농장에서 노동자들이 미국과 아시아의 소매점에 출하하고자 셀러리를 수확하고 있다. 미국의 샐러드 그릇이라 불리는 살리나스 계곡은 관개를 위해 지하수에 의존하여, 현재의 가뭄이 계속될 경우 위험해질 수 있다.

매달 약 450만 마리의 닭이 브라질 Sidrolândia 근처의 이 공장에서 도축되어 용기에 담기고 잘리고 장식되고 포장된다. 그 부위는 전 세계로 운송된다. 날개와 발은 주로 중국으로, 다리는 일본으로 가슴살은 유럽으로 간다. 닭에 대한 세계의 식욕이 가금류 생산을 돼지고기나 소고기보다 훨씬 빠르게 성장하도록 하고 있다.

몬산토의 노스캐롤라이나 실험실에서, 옥수수의 성장을 기록하는 자동화된 사진 부스에 들어서고 있다. 이 기업은 물과 비료가 덜 필요한 옥수수와 콩의 특성을 개발하고자 하고 있다. 지금까지 생명공학이 회피하던 목표이다. 그러한 자원의 사용을 줄이는 것이 다가올 시기에 세계를 먹여살리는 핵심이다.

네 번째 단계: 식단을 전환하자

가 재배한 작물을 인간의 위장으로 넣으면 2050년까지 90억 명을 먹여살리기 더 쉬워진다. 오늘날 세계 작물 칼로리의 55%만 직접적으로 인간을 먹여살리는 데 쓰인다. 나머지는 가축을 먹이거나(약 36%) 생물연료와 산업 제품으로 전환된다(약 9%). 우리 대부분이 시설에서 사육된 가축의 고기와 유제품, 달걀을 소비하지만, 가축에게 먹이는 사료의 칼로리 가운데 일부만 우리가 소비하는 육류와 우유가 된다. 우리가 가축을 먹이는 곡물 100칼리로마다 우유로 40칼로리, 달걀로 22칼로리, 닭고기로 12칼로리, 돼지고기로 10칼로리, 소고기로 3칼로리만 새로 얻는다. 가축을 키우는 더 효율적인 방법을 찾고, 육식을 덜하는 식단으로 전환하면 —곡물을 먹인 소고기에서 닭고기와 돼지고기 또는 풀을 먹인 소고기로 전화하는 것만으로도— 전 세계에 걸쳐 상당한 양의 식량을 확보할 수 있게 만든다. 개발도상국의 사람들이 새로 발견된 번영이 주어지는 가까운 미래에 고기를 덜 먹을 가능성이 없기 때문에, 우리는 먼저 이미 육식을 많이 하는 식단에 초점을 맞출 수 있다. 생물연료에 식량작물의 사용을 줄이는 것도 식량 가용성을 강화하는 데 도움이 될 수 있다.

세계는 더 요구하고 있다

By 2050년 까지 세계의 인구는 35% 이상 증가할 가능성이 있다.

그 인구를 먹여살리기 위해, 작물 생산은 2배가 되어야 한다. 

왜? 개발도상국이 경제성장에 따라 더 많은 육류를 먹기 때문에 생산은 인구 성장을 훨씬 앞질러야 할 것이다.

다섯 번째 단계: 쓰레기를 줄이자

세계 식품 칼로리의 25%와 전체 식품 무게의 최대 50%가 소비되기 전에 상실되거나 버려진다고 추산된다. 선진국에서 쓰레기의 대부분은 가정과 식당 또는 슈퍼마켓에서 발생한다. 가난한 국가에서는 식량이 열악한 저장과 운송 때문에 농민과 시장 사이에서 사라지곤 한다. 선진국의 소비자들은 음식을 더 조금 나눠주고, 남은 음식을 먹고, 식당과 슈퍼마켓 등에서 쓰레기를 줄이는 방법을 개발하도록 독려하는 것과 같은 간단한 단계를 취함으로써 쓰레기를 줄일 수 있다. 식량 가용성을 증대시키기 위한 모든 선택지 가운데 쓰레기 줄이기가 가장 효율적인 방법 중 하나이다. 

종합하면, 이러한 다섯 단계는 세계의 식량 공급을 2배 이상으로 만들면서 환경에 대한 농업의 전 세계적 영향을 극적으로 줄일 수 있다. 그러나 그게 쉽지는 않을 것이다. 이 해결책은 사고방식의 커다란 전환을 필요로 한다. 역사의 대부분 동안 우린 농업에 더욱더, 더욱더, 더욱더 지나치게 열성적으로 나서면서 맹목적이 되었다. 더 많은 땅을 밀어버리고, 더 많은 작물을 재배하고, 더 많은 자원을 사용하게 된 것이다. 우린 더 많은 식량을 생산하는 일과 미래세대를 위해 지구를 유지하는 일 사이의 균형을 찾을 필요가 있다.

지금은 식량안보와 지구의 환경 보전에 대한 전례없는 과제에 직면하고 있는 중요한 순간이다. 좋은 소식은 우리가 이미 해야 할 일을 알고 있다는 사실이다. 우린 단지 그걸 실천할 방법을 강구하기만 하면 된다. 세계의 식량 문제를 해결하는 일은 우리 모두가 그릇에 놓이는 음식에 관해 더 사려 깊어지기를 요구한다. 우리는 우리의 음식과 그걸 기르는 농민, 그리고 우리의 음식과 우리를 지탱하는 땅과 유역 및 기후 사이의 연결해야 한다. 슈퍼마켓의 복도에서 식료품 카트를 조종하면서 행하는 우리의 선택이 우리의 미래를 결정하는 데 도움이 될 것이다. 

Jonathan Foley는 미네소타 대학의 환경연구소를 이끈다. Jim Richardson의 농민 사진은 농업을 기록하는 그의 최신 작품이다. George Steinmetz의 big-picture approach는 산업형 먹을거리의 경관을 보여준다.

록펠러 재단과 내셔날지오그래픽 회원들이 이 글에 관대한 지원을 해주었다.

모든 지도와 도표: Virginia W. Mason and Jason Treat, NGM Staff. 

A World Demanding More, 출처: David Tilman, University of Minnesota. 

Agriculture's Footprint, 출처: Roger LeB. Hooke, University of Maine. 

Maps, 출처: Global Landscapes Initiative, Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/#top

Organic farming is an important source of fresh produce in Havana, but that is a virtue born of necessity and in the countryside it is a different story.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/mythical-paradise-cuba/

Article first published online: 7 FEB 2014

DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12219

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12219/abstract

“Agroecology can double food production in entire regions within ten years, while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.”

This is the conclusion of Olivier de Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, in the presentation of his report in March 2011. This statement is based on his research around the world. In the report, he forcefully called upon states to adopt ambitious public policies for supporting agroecology.

For a long time now, agroecology has been promoted within La Via Campesina (LVC) as a paradigm for achieving food sovereignty. Demonstrating this commitment are the more than 40 peasant agroecology schools in existence or being built within the movement. If we are convinced that agroecology is the path, these centers respond to a question that always strikes us as urgent: “how can we spread agroecology?” In this context, the success of the Farmer-to-Farmer method used by the National Small Farmers Assocation (Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños—ANAP), the LVC member organization in Cuba, is an inspiring example for the movement. ANAP and LVC organized the biannual international encounter of the Farmer to Farmer Agroecological Movement from the 17^th to the 24^th of November 2013, which was an opportunity for La Via Campesina to learn more about Cuba’s successful experience.

Of the 80 foreign participants in the international encounter (in addition to over 200 Cuban delegates), half were representatives of member organizations of La Via Campesina: from America (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, the United States, Canada, Mexico) and Africa (Mozambique, Mali, Zimbabwe). The vast majority of these delegates stayed on for an additional week to study the Farmer to Farmer methodology, in a special course designed by the professors of ANAP’s national school.

Farmer to Farmer: popular education meets agriculture

Farmer to Farmer breaks the conventional of vertical transfer of knowledge from the technician who arrives in the countryside to teach the “ignorant peasant farmer” what to do. Here the protagonist is the peasant farmer him or herself, with experiences to share based on his or her practical knowledge in his or her own terrain. The farmer becomes a “promoter”—with the job of reproducing his or her own knowledge.

A methodology born in Guatemala and later arriving to Mexico, Honduras and Nicaragua, it was in Cuba where Farmer to Farmer really “bore fruit”: reaching more than 100,000 families in only 10 years. The achievements of the methodology were visible to the participants in the international encounter, who were able to visit the agroecological farms of promoters in all 15 provinces of Cuba:

“I learned a great deal and was able to get to know practices that I hadn’t seen before, such as vermicomposting and the use of micro-organisms. For me, it is of fundamental importance that these techniques become known across the world, by all farmers.”Mamadou Coulibaly (CNOP-LVC, Mali)

“This is the proof that healthy food can be produced sustainably, in contrast to the myth we often hear that such production would be too slow and uncompetitive.” Nury Martinez Silva (FENSUAGRO-LVC, Colombia)

Learning from ANAP’s experience

In ANAP’s Niceto Pérez National Training Center, professors shared with participants what they do in terms of training of trainers. They dynamically showed the basic principles of the Farmer to Farmer methodology, as well as techniques such as the participatory assessment, which uses indicator systems to analyze farms, identify local problems and classify farms based on their level of agroecological integration. In working groups, course participants prepared workshop proposals on subjects like soil conservation, sustainable livestock-raising, ecological pest management, and native seed production and conservation. Since course participants had widely divergent levels of practical experience in popular education, the course identified the need to further develop trainings in popular education within LVC organizations and processes.

If there were one principle that especially stood out, it would be the first principle of Farmer to Farmer: start slowly and at a small scale. By achieving rapid success at small scales, people remain motivated and are more inclined to reproduce the experience, as well as share it with others.

“Little people doing little things in little spaces can change the world.” -Eduardo Galeano.

More than a method, a movement

The truly impressive characteristic of ANAP’s national agroecological experience in Cuba is the amazing spread of small, local experiences. The “Special Period”—an economic crisis that initiated in Cuba with the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s—forced the country to produce outside of the conventional model, abstaining from external inputs made unavailable by the economic blockade imposed by the United States. Despite this context, it was the transformation of a pedagogical methodology into a social movement that now appears to have been the key to the triumph of agroecology in Cuba.

“That is what impressed me. I thought that agroecology was a state policy in Cuba but now I realize that it is a decision of ANAP! An organization that exists since 1961 and in which the entire leadership took on the responsibility of implementing agroecology and the method.” -Nury Martinez Silva (FENSUAGRO-LVC, Colombia)

“If the movement is strong, the State has no option but to support it.” -Mamadou Coulibaly (CNOP-LVC, Mali)

As an organization, ANAP not only implemented the method as it existed—with farmer promoters and facilitators who organize trainings—but also added a new role, the coordinator, an ANAP cadre who acts at the municipal or provincial level to direct trainings and bring in allies among institutions and researchers working in the local territories where the movement is present. The entire system is maintained through ANAP’s cooperative structures at the base—each cooperative across the country has several promoters and a couple of facilitators, who work as volunteers unless the local cooperative is willing and able to pay them.

The relationship between ANAP and La Via Campesina

In a meeting with the top leadership of ANAP, the foreign LVC delegates presented their future plans, their commitment with Cuba and the ANAP, and also made petitions to ANAP.

The creation of a network of peasant agroecology schools in LVC is a key to the future strategy. Of these schools, the African schools in Mali, Niger, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, as well as the new Latin American schools in Nicaragua (IALA Mesoamerica) and Colombia (IALA Andina), were among the major examples debated during the course in Cuba. This network of schools needs to be understood globally, with all experiences analyzed and shared within LVC.

During the meeting, LVC declared its continuing solidarity with Cuba and in opposition to the economic blockade imposed by the U.S. government. In this sense, LVC committed itself to offer its capacities for international support. At the same time, LVC asked ANAP to widen its presence within LVC, given its inspiring example of successful implementation of agroecology at the territorial and social level. ANAP was asked to participate and take on an important role in the creation of the network of agroecology schools.

At the conclusion of the course, many spoke of the love that they felt for the Cuban people. “We share values,” said Ariel of CAN-LVC Colombia: “Dignity, Solidarity, Love and Unity!”

Rethinking agroecology…

“It would be interesting to take an inventory of the agroecological practices in each country, and revalidate them in order to create a catalogue of the good agroecological practices within LVC. With that, we could defend agroecology everywhere, starting with our own countries.” -Mamadou Coulibaly (CNOP-LVC, Mali)

Over the duration of the course, it became evident that there needs to be more work done to clarify what agroecology means, in its systemic, integrated, holistic characteristics. In several moments, it was clear that agroecology is still sometimes understood simply as a technique. Agroecology is often presented as having three pillars: agricultural techniques, scientific research, and a social movement. Questions that emerge from the Farmer to Farmer methodology could be:

Should popular education be a fourth pillar of the agroecological proposal? Could this method, this educational philosophy, be a necessary condition for scaling-up agroecology? How can popular education help us re-think our organizations and structures? How can it modify our agricultural techniques, valuing them for their popular character? How can it change scientific research by seeing peasants as the scientists they are? In other words, wouldn’t agroecology be more coherent if we saw it, in all its aspects, from the perspective of popular education? This would mean that pedagogy needs to be in the center of all our processes, not only education and trainings, but also in organization and research.

Candles from Cuba to the world

Without a doubt, there is much road ahead before agroecology becomes the new paradigm for global agriculture, despite the public recognition of this need by the UN. The two past weeks in Cuba with ANAP left as many questions as lessons for LVC. How can Farmer to Farmer be applied in each specific context, within countries dominated by neoliberalism? How can we pressure our governments at all levels to adopt our definition of agroecology, as LVC is achieving with food sovereignty? How can we guide public policy toward this strategic objective?

“I am leaving here thinking that the first task that I have after this course is to meet with the leadership of my organization and share what I have learned, so that they get as excited as I am, to begin to put this into practice with our base organizational structure.” -Nury Martinez Silva (FENSUAGRO-LVC, Colombia.

¡Globalize struggle, globalize agroecology, globalize hope!

더 읽을거리:

 Agroecological revolution. The Farmer-to-Farmer movement of ANAP in Cuba.

 Agroecology and right to food, Olivier de Schutter, UN report, MArch 2011

For most people willing to pay a premium for organic food, the reason is some nebulous combination of health, environment and flavor. If pressed, however, few could point to evidence that organic food is better than conventionally grown products on any of those counts.

This month, a new piece of evidence emerged on this issue, and the news was bad for organic agriculture. A report out of Stanford University found no consistent differences in nutritional content between organic and conventionally grown crops. So how about the other reasons for buying organic? Let’s start by looking at the environmental differences between conventional and organic farming.

Comparing the environmental impacts of two products involves many considerations: chemical runoff into our water supply, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions, to name just a few. Since there isn’t enough space to consider all of those in a single article, we’ll take one environmental consideration at a time in an occasional series.

Land use is a reasonable place to begin. Part of a product’s environmental impact is the amount of space required to produce it. After all, if a plot of land weren’t required to produce corn or avocados or pigs, it could be used for environmentally helpful purposes such as habitats for wild animals or carbon-eating plants or land for solar panels and wind farms.

Food production requires an incredible amount of land. By some estimates, croplands and pastures now occupy 40 percent of Earth’s land surface. Producing more food with less land could be a major win for the environment.

In May, researchers at Canada’s McGill University and the University of Minnesota published an article in the journal Nature comparing the productivity of organic and conventional farms.

This particular study is known as a meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis, a researcher compiles all of the studies on a particular issue, usually discarding those that are methodologically unsound, then finds a statistical method with which to combine them. Ultimately, a meta-analysis turns a series of smaller studies into a large study, which, if done right, carries more persuasive heft and can bring real clarity to disputed scientific issues.

In their meta-analysis, McGill’s Verena Seufert and her colleagues examined 66 previous studies. Their results are bound to disappoint organic advocates. Overall, they found that organic methods produce 25 percent less food than conventional farming on the same land area.

That headline number, however, tells only part of the story, and the details can help guide your decisions as a consumer.

For some crops, organic methods are nearly as productive as conventional farming. Organic fruit farms, for example, finished in a statistical dead heat with conventional acreage. The yield of organically grown tomatoes (considered separately from other fruits) was statistically indistinguishable from conventional tomatoes as well, as were organic oilseeds such as sunflower and canola. Organic legumes, such as peas and beans, also performed well.

Conventional methods soundly outpaced organic among grains and vegetables. Among wheat, corn and other cereals, organic farms were 26 percent less productive, while organic vegetable growers turned out 33 percent less food per acre than those who used pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizer.

If you’re wondering why organic productivity might be as good as non-organic for some crops but not for others, it has a lot to do with nitrogen. Organic farmers can’t load up their fields with synthetic fertilizer, so crops that use nitrogen more efficiently, such as legumes, perform better in an organic system than those that rely on heavy infusions of nitrogen.

Relative productivity of organic and conventional fields can also depend on more obscure factors, such as the pH of soil. Organic crops perform well when the soil’s pH stays inside a certain range, but they do poorly in high-alkaline or high-acidity environments. Unfortunately, consumers standing in front of a bell pepper display would have a hard time figuring out the acidity of the soil that produced them, so you might as well forget about those details.

Meta-analyses are not perfect, and organic yields were found to be better in a study that predated Seufert et al. Those results, however, came in for serious criticism, and the more recent meta-analysis seems to have solved some of the methodological problems.

None of this is to say you should stop buying organic corn, wheat or vegetables. Overall organic yields in Seufert’s meta-analysis were depressed somewhat by farmers who weren’t applying the right nutrients in the right quantities at the right time. Farmers who manage their crops more expertly come quite close to matching conventional yields.

Over time, it’s entirely plausible that increased demand for organic food will improve techniques further, with investment funding research on best practices and improving farmer know-how. And, as noted above, land use is just one of many considerations when comparing the environmental impacts of two products. Stay tuned to this space for further looks at the environmental impacts of organic vs. conventional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-environmental-footprint-of-organic-vs-conventional-food/2012/09/14/40b16582-fb65-11e1-b2af-1f7d12fe907a_story.html

According to the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, the number of women-operated farms more than doubled in the 25 years between 1982 and 2007. In fact, female farmers now make up the fastest-growing sector of the country's changing agricultural landscape and nearly 1 million women - approximately one-third of total domestic farmers - list farming as their primary occupation. The National Women in Agriculture Association calls it "breaking the grass ceiling." It's that and more.

Some are choosing to farm as a way of maintaining continuity, tending land that has been in their families for decades. Others, however, are choosing farming for many different reasons, among them the desire to do something concrete, constructive and quickly gratifying; to tweak gender norms; or simply to have better control over their work lives. Many see their efforts as overtly political.

"Women are leading the way in sustainable and organic agriculture," Lindsey Lusher Shute, executive director of the National Young Farmers' Coalition told Truthout. Although she works for the Coalition full time, as co-owner of the Healthy Roots Community Farm in Tivoli, New York - 100 miles north of the city - she is involved intimately in all aspects of growing fruits and vegetables in a sustainable manner.

A Midwesterner whose grandfather farmed, Lusher Shute's career was launched in Brooklyn, New York, where she helped create the East Williamsburg Community Garden in 2002. "We grew vegetables, ornamental plants and flowers," she begins. "I loved the interface between gardening and the community. The community started out divided between residents who'd been there for a long time and newcomers, but the opportunity to work together on something to beautify the neighborhood led to friendships that might not have happened otherwise. We held weekly barbecues, and the garden became a place to work out community tensions and problems."

Lusher Shute, now 34, ultimately left Brooklyn, married, had children and moved upstate. Nonetheless, the desire to farm led her and her farmer spouse to buy 70 acres of farmland. "It is critical for farms to ring cities," she said. "We employ eight or nine people, some of them year-round and some seasonal, and grow vegetables and produce eggs for a community-supported agriculture program that runs 22 weeks a year."

As Lusher Shute speaks, her enthusiasm and pride are obvious. "For me, farming is an amazing career. It allows you to be an entrepreneur and offers flexibility. I like being able to put high-quality, healthy food in the hands of people. It's something you can feel good about. It's a way to give back and at the same time earn a paycheck."

But this is not to say that it is easy. "Over the next 20 years, 70 percent of the nation's farmland will change hands," she said. "At this point the social circles you see farmers running in are largely male. They're typically very buddy-buddy and may never think to involve younger female farmers. It's hard to know why, if it's gender-driven discrimination or if they've just known each other forever and are comfortable doing what they've always done. Plus, the young people may want to do things differently."

In addition to being ignored or greeted with overtly sexist derision, Lusher Shute reports that a lot of young farm women are working hard to figure out how best to balance parenthood with their work lives. Indeed, the Young Farmers' discussion board is filled with questions, concerns and suggestions about achieving an effective balance. A closed thread called "Moms and Dad/baby wearing on the farm" includes Emily's post: "Instead of carting my screaming child out into the field where we'll both be uncomfortable, I've decided to take over more of the business end of things," she wrote. "And God knows, there are tons of things to be done on that end of the farm operation - applying for grants, responding to emails, keeping up the website and blog, writing our newsletters, organizing our CSA, hiring interns and staff. Although it's been really hard to be out of the field, I have come to the conclusion that all the other stuff is essential to running our farm and I'm grateful to have enough flexibility to be able to tailor a role with my son in mind."

While some might see this as falling into traditional gender roles - with mom in the house and dad on the tiller - 30-year-old Debbie Weingarten, one of four co-owners of the 15-acre Sleeping Frog Farms in Cascabel, Arizona, notes that for her, the decision to focus on business tasks was driven by pragmatism. "My son is 30 months old, and I have had a very difficult time trying to integrate him into my farm responsibilities. He has been a difficult sleeper, which has left me pretty sleep-deprived and not operating on all cylinders. I also have a 7-year-old stepson who we are homeschooling, which further splits my time. As my journey into motherhood has progressed, I've found it easier to take care of the backbone of the business."

Like Emily, Weingarten answers emails, organizes the farm's CSA and develops fliers and promotional materials. But she also makes deliveries, milks the goats, and runs their farmers market. "In between I raise my children," she wrote in an email. "I definitely see this as becoming more of a central conversation between women as more young families become involved in agriculture." That said, Weingarten admits that the stress - worry over uncontrollable things like the weather as well as fear of a pest infestation or CSA closure - can impact the household in negative ways.

Still, Weingarten underscores how much she loves farming and farm life. "There is something inherently nurturing in food production," she wrote. "It feels important, like a tangible piece of the revolution."

Discrimination and Isolation 

For Leigh Adcock, executive director of the 16-year-old, 3,200-member, Women, Food and Agriculture Network, the social and political empowerment of women is always front and center. The group's goal? "To strengthen the role of women from the farm house to the White House." Nonetheless, Adcock concedes that obstacles abound and are significantly worse for women living in remote, rural areas. "Farm women face three primary challenges," she said. "First there is discrimination. Then there is geographic isolation. Many farms have no close neighbors. Cultural isolation is also a problem. Women in male-dominated professions need to talk to each other and see others like themselves, but a network like ours exists primarily on the Internet. It's a Catch-22. Women in the most need of a network are usually in isolated areas with little Internet access and have to go to a library or community college to use a computer."

Then there's outright backlash, especially against those who favor sustainable or organic methods. Several years ago, in 2010, Adcock reports that the National Soybean Association and the Corn Growers Association teamed up to create an ongoing campaign called Common Ground. "They wanted to put a softer face on big ag," she said, "and have used women to say that genetically modified organisms give us better-tasting fruits and vegetables that are naturally resistant to insects. The message is that we should not worry about hormones or GMOs in our food."

Like many farmers, Adcock disagrees and, through WFAN, promotes chemical-free agriculture.

Likewise the Oklahoma-based National Women in Agriculture Association, founded by Dr. Tammy Gray-Steele in 2008. "I grew up on a farm in Wewoka, Oklahoma," she said. "My family was awarded 40 acres and a mule. We still have the 40 acres, but now five family members collectively own 2,600 acres there. I live in Oklahoma City, where I do urban farming and outreach in the heart of the low-income community."

Each year, Gray-Steele brings approximately 50 schoolkids to her 10-acre plot. "We run a highly structured program," she said. "Between October 1 and the end of November, we do outreach. Then from early December to mid-March, we sponsor a once-a-month class in sustainable horticulture practices, covering everything from pest control to planting. In April we begin implementing what we learned. We grow greens, purple peas, berries and squash and have another acre of raised beds and a flower garden. In the summer the kids make snow-cones from fresh fruit grown on the land and run a weekly farmers market. What they make, they take. The participants are typically 60 percent female. I always tell the kids, you'll always have a job if you work in agriculture." Secondary skills, including the ability to work cooperatively and market and advertise their produce are emphasized simultaneously.

"Farming Was 'Women’s Work' "

The multiplicity of tasks involved in farming is part of what drew 33-year-old Sarah Sohn, a former public interest lawyer, to farming. As a child growing up in an affluent Detroit suburb, she loved annual trips to the County School Farm, an educational demonstration project. Visits to a neighboring family's 30-acre "hobby" farm were even more pleasurable. Her parents, both of whom grew up in Seoul, South Korea, further captivated her with stories about the gardens in their ancestral homeland. "I can't explain it," she laughs, "but growing things became an obsessive delight to me. And when I get interested in something, I want to learn everything about it."

As a high school student, Sohn got hooked on a Learning Channel program called "Gardening Naturally." Her interest developed even further following a summer internship at an Ann Arbor farm and a part-time job in a natural-food store that introduced her to wheat grass, sprouts and other organic items. Volunteer work at a garden affiliated with a homeless shelter during college gave her additional experience. Nonetheless, she went to law school and, for nearly five years, represented the urban poor.

"In 2006, we moved to Maryland for my wife's job," Sohn said. "I was home with our daughter, who was then under 1. After a while I began looking for legal work, but the downturn in the economy meant that none of the nonprofits in the area were hiring. I knew that I really needed to get out of the house at least one day a week so started looking at farms because I wanted to be outdoors, move and clear my head." By the summer of 2007, Sohn had secured work on two organic farms, one 285 acres and the other a smaller, family-run operation. Several years later, in the winter of 2013, she became the manager of the 3-acre Side by Side Farm in Freeland, Maryland, and is presently in the process of leasing land to create her own small farm in partnership with the Camellia School in Arlington, Virginia. The farm will serve special needs children. "Horticulture gives participants - adults as well as kids - the skills to work efficiently. There are also built-in opportunities for a sense of accomplishment, from growing something to selling it to a CSA, farmers market, restaurant or individual."

"Traditionally, for the vast majority of human history, farming was women's work," she said. "Then it changed into a masculine, patriarchial model with a man on a giant tractor trying to beat nature into submission. But small is not just beautiful and quaint. It's economically viable and smart. You can manage an acre and make a living. If you manage well, you can gross $20,000 per acre per year."

Can, of course, does not mean will and Leigh Adcock of the Women, Food and Agriculture Network cautions that 75 percent of women farmers earn less than $25,000 a year. At the same time, she notes that many women find the work deeply fulfilling and their efforts often extend far beyond the fields in which they toil. And thanks to the many groups that have developed, women farmers now have the tools to advocate for better policies - from more government support for family farms to subsidies for farmers markets and local food promotion.

Deborah Maud, who works with Sarah Sohn at the Side by Side farm in Maryland, said she loves farming because "it puts you in an intimate relationship with the Earth. You're caring for it, and, in turn, it's caring for you." At the end of the day, however, she said what motivates her is not particularly ideological. "I believe people across the economic spread should have access to good, clean, healthy food. Women know they can provide it and can develop the confidence to do what needs to be done. We sometimes have to be aggressive, pushing to learn how to change the oil on a tractor or to weld, but we have the endurance and sustaining strength to feed ourselves and our neighbors."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/20047-women-lead-the-way-in-sustainable-and-organic-agriculture