728x90

전통농업의 방법에는 벼논양어라 하여 모내기 무렵 논에 치어를 방류한 뒤 벼와 함께 키워서 벼를 베고 나서 잡아 젓갈도 담그어 먹고 시장에 팔기도 하는 방식이 있다. 이를 통해 벼의 영양분 공급, 병해충 방제는 물론 소득원과 영양원의 다각화를 꾀하는 장점이 있기도 하다. 주로 중국의 사례가 많이 소개되어 있는데, 예전에는 한국에서도 흔히 있던 일이었다. 하지만 농사가 농업으로 전환되면서 점차 사라져 지금은 아예 자취를 감추었다.

그런데 최근 그러한 벼논양어의 방식이  되살아나고 있다. 벼농사만으로는 소득의 안정을 꾀하기가 어려워지면서 나타난 현상이겠으나, 그러한 논에서는 자연스레 친환경농업이 이루어지고 생물다양성이 풍부해진다는 장점이 있기에 주목해 볼 만하다. 최근 이렇게 증가하고 있는 사례와 관련하여 언제 취재, 조사를 해봐야겠다고 마음만 먹고 있는 상태인데, 내년에는 한번 본격적으로 다녀봐야겠다. 

아무튼 아래는 청양군에서 미꾸리를 논에서 벼와 함께 키우는 데 성공했다는 소식. 청양 힘내라!

 





 

청양군농업기술센터(소장 강상규)는 올해 화성면 화강리 신남철 씨 농가의 친환경재배 논에 미꾸라지를 입식해 실증 시험을 거친 결과 친환경재배 농가의 틈새 소득 창출원으로써의 가능성을 확인했다고 밝혔다.
시범농가는 올해 3월에 논 중앙에 미꾸라지가 은신할 수 있는 1m 깊이의 수로와 논둑 가장자리의 도피망, 유해 조수 피해 방지를 위한 방지망을 설치하고 6월초 벼를 이앙한 후 미꾸라지 치어를 논에 입식했으며, 지난 10월 19일에 치어 및 성어가 섞여있는 미꾸라지를 포획했다. 



 

입식된 미꾸라지는 우렁과 함께 제초에도 탁월한 효과가 있으며, 입식 후 3개월 동안에 최대 10배까지 자라 3개월 후부터 포획이 가능하며 벼 생육 후기까지 꾸준히 포획할 수 있다.
기술센터 관계자는 “올해 친환경 미꾸라지 농법의 가능성을 확인함에 따라 내년도에 벼 수확 및 탈곡 시에 미꾸라지, 메뚜기 잡기 체험 등 친환경 농경문화 체험 행사를 개최할 계획”이라고 밝혔다. 


728x90
728x90

작부체계를 바꾸는 것만으로 농약과 화학비료에 대한 의존을 줄일 수 있다는 연구가 발표된 적이 있다. 아이오와 주립대학의 Marsden 농장에서 행해진 실험결과가 그것이다. 약 2,5000평 정도의 농지를 셋으로 나누어 농사를 지었다. 하나는 관행적으로 옥수수-콩 돌려짓기, 다른 하나는 옥수수-콩-귀리 돌려짓기, 마지막은 옥수수-콩-귀리-자주개자리 돌려짓기. 마지막 작부체계에선 자주개자리를 기를 때 가축을 방목하여 똥오줌을 받았다고 한다. 삼포제 농법의 부활이라고도 볼 수 있다. 똑같지는 않지만, 자주개자리를 포함한 마지막 작부체계 전통농법의 하나인 과거 유럽에서 행해지던 삼포제 농법을 새롭게 응용한 방식이라고 평가할 수 있겠다. 자주개자리는 콩과식물인데다가 가축이 그걸 뜯어먹으며 똥오줌을 싸니 밭이 더욱 기름질 수밖에...


그 결과가 아주 재미난데, 새로운 작부체계를 활용하니 옥수수와 콩의 수확량이 늘고, 농약과 화학비료의 사용량은 88%까지 감소했으며, 지하수의 독성물질은 200배 줄었고, 수익에선 큰 차이가 나지 않았다. 물론 좋은 점만 있는 건 아니다. 단점으로 꼽힌 것은 역시 인건비. 인건비가 증가한단다. 이봐라, 왜 현대농업으로 나아갈수록 농민이 가난해지고 농지에서 쫓겨나 도시로 나가는지 엿볼 수 있는 단서다. 아무튼 그래도 낫지 않은가? 담합해서 농민들 땀 묻은 돈이나 뜯어먹는 농약회사, 비료회사, 농협에게 돈다발을 안기기보다는 정직하게 땀흘리며 일하는 농민, 노동자에게 그 돈이 들어간다니 말이다. 인건비 상승, 나쁘게만 볼 것이 아니다.


미국에선 1년에 약 227만 톤의 농약이 사용된다. 많다고 느끼는가? 한국은 OECD 국가 중 농약사용량 1위의 국격 있는 나라다. 작물보호협회(농약이 작물을 보호한다고, 농약이 지닌 나쁜 이미지를 없애고자 만든 이름)에서는 억울하다고 호소한다. 단순히 비교하는 건 의미가 없다고 하면서 말이다. 여기를 보라(http://goo.gl/Mg9It). 핑계를 댄다고 많이 쓰는 게 많이 쓰는 게 아닌 것이 되는 건 아니지 않습니까, 작물보호협회여? 하긴 농업 분야 이외에도 공원, 골프장, 아파트단지 등등의 관리를 위해서도 엄청나게 사용하고 있다. 자살자들도 애용하고...ㅜㅜ


조선의 농법 중에 일본인 농학자들의 혀를 내두르게 한 2년3작식 작부체계가 있다. 이를 유럽의 삼포식 농법과 비교해도 전혀 손색없는 훌륭한 농법이라고 평가했지. 결론적으로 이번 실험결과나 조선의 전통농법이나 일맥상통하는 건 땅을 얼마나 효율적으로 놀려서 최대의 산출을 빼 돈을 벌 것이냐가 아니라, 땅을 얼마나 아기자기하게 놀려서 적당한 산출을 얻으면서도 지력을 유지하도록 할 것이냐다. 


작부체계의 다양성이 증가하면 생산성, 수익성, 환경에 더 이롭다는 연구결과는 여기를 참조할 것(http://goo.gl/S5DaI).


그 실험결과 옥수수 생산량은 평균 4%, 콩은 9% 증가했다. 빨리빨리 옥수수-콩만 돌리는 것보다 시간이 오래걸리니 수익이 떨어질 것이라 예상하겠지만, 수익 면에서는 비슷했다는 점. 농약과 화학비료 사용이 준다는 점이 중요하다. 그런데 이런 재미난 연구는 주목받지 못하고 스탠포드 대학의 유기농을 먹는다고 건강해지는 게 아니라는 연구나 세간의 주목을 받고 말이야(http://goo.gl/HKigg). 


2년3작식이 뭔지 궁금해여? 궁금해여? 궁금하면 500원.




728x90
728x90


Planting season — old style

As farmers north of the equator get ready to plant their seeds, we’ve started wondering about agriculture before Columbus. Conventional wisdom says Native Americans were mostly hunters and gatherers. When they did farm, their slash-and-burn techniques exhausted the soil, forcing them to clear new fields.

ENLARGE

Man standing in foreground of a mountain landscape holds a cane in one hand and a root in the other

Courtesy Nancy Turner, University of Victoria
In British Columbia, Clan Chief Adam Dick (Kwaxsistalla) holds “xukwem” (riceroot), a traditional food of the first inhabitants of Canada’s northwest coast.

Although Native Americans domesticated corn, tomatoes and potatoes, their farms were generally unproductive, and most of their plant food came from gathering tubers, greens, berries and shoots.

But as we learned at a series of talks at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this picture needs editing:

* Three centuries ago, corn-farming Indians in today’s New York State were out-producing European wheat farmers

* The lack of plows in the Americas was not a hindrance but rather helped sustain soil fertility

* Stable, sophisticated food-gathering systems in parts of the Great Plains succumbed not to careless farmers but were drowned by dams on the big rivers

* Natives in British Columbia used a sophisticated permaculture to harvest the same plants year after year

The provision of permaculture

Until the 1960s, the government of Canada enforced assimilation of First Nation children at boarding schools that banned ancestral languages and practices. The goal was to homogenize Canada’s population, but suppressing culture also squelched knowledge of the traditional methods for raising and gathering food.

ENLARGE

Row of bright green lettuce between  dark brown dirt and tall grass.

Lettuce grows in soil containingpowdered charcoal. This traditional technology improves soil fertility and yield, and helped the Amazon basin support a large population before 1492.

When the police boats arrived in British Columbia in the 1930s, to take children to boarding schools, Adam Dick (tribal name Kwaxsistalla) escaped, and went to live in secluded locations with his grandparents for about a decade.

Dick, a member of the Kwakwaka’wakw (formerly Kwakiutl) tribe, has become a link to a vanishing past. “His people have learned from him, they all benefit from his teaching,” says Nancy Turner, in the School of Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria (Canada).

Turner, who has spent a career studying indigenous agriculture, says knowing what to look for is key to understanding native agriculture on the coast of British Columbia. “They used perennial cultivation. ‘Keep it living’ was part of their philosophy, and it shows the way they value other life. A lot of perennial plants were being cultivated, but outsiders saw this as random plucking.”

People in the First Nations of British Columbia ate 35 species of roots, 25 greens, berries, even the inner bark of some trees, Turner says.

ENLARGE

Green bush with red berries; rocks visible on ground in bottom right.

Photo: ulalume
Salmonberry was a traditional food along the Northwest Coast, where people also tended and ate red huckleberry, high bush cranberry and crabapple.

Overall, coastal people used 250 species of plants for food, tea, fuel, construction, fiber, canoes, dye and glue, Turner says.

When the natives harvested bark and wood from a living tree, they took what they needed without killing the tree. “They believed trees have sentient life, and called these ‘begged from’ trees,” Turner says. “‘We have come to beg a piece of you today.’”

“Gardens” in the water

The same attitude of “stewardship and caring” also applied to aquatic food, Turner says, especially the all-important salmon. “The salmon streams were carefully tended, and even cleaned. If the stream changed course, Adam and the others were taught by the elders to transplant [salmon] eggs to the new stream channel.”

Similarly, she says, people moved rocks to “create the most productive clam beds on the coast.”

Springbank clover (Trifolium wormskioldii)

Courtesy Nancy Turner.
Small plots of springbank clover (Trifolium wormskioldii), about to blossom in British Columbia produced “immense quantities” of roots that were “regarded as indispensable to good health,” says Turner. In this permaculture, the harvesters replanted segments of the roots for another crop.

This was more like farming and harvesting than hunting-and-gathering, Turner insists. But the colonists, more interested in survival and profit than the people they were displacing, “were blind to these practices. They had in mind Mr. McGregor’s garden, with a fence and rows you can harvest. They looked at these things, but they did not see them.”

Restoring the foods

Most cultures give a central role to the production, preparation and consumption of food. What happens when the land that grew traditional foods is drowned by dams?

That’s the conundrum facing Linda Different Cloud Jones, an activist and student from the Lakota Sioux Nation. “The loss of biodiversity is the greatest challenge on traditional lands,” she told an audience in March at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, “and the loss of one culturally important species has significant impact.”

The Lakota people “are stereotyped as the people of the plains,” says Jones, “but we are also people of the river, or were a people of the river, until, in the 1950s and ’60s, when dams built in the Pick-Sloan project changed the way of life for the Lakota forever.”

Standing Rock, the Lakota reservation, is sandwiched between the Dakotas, and borders the Missouri River. “Overnight, hundreds of thousands of acres of native land was underwater,” said Jones. “All the plant and animal species in the riparian cottonwood forest were gone.”

The underground seedpods of the hog peanut (AKA mouse bean), were collected by prairie voles. These small mammals, which the Lakota called “mice,” cached the big seeds underground.

Lakota women found the caches with a stick and removed the seeds, Jones said, but “They always left a gift, dry berries, animal fat or corn. They would sing, ‘You have helped sustain my children during this coming winter, and we will not let your children go hungry.’ Their song echoed from the trees, and it seriously breaks my heart that my young children will never see that.”

ENLARGE

Map of rivers and completed tributary reservoirs of the Missouri River Basin, western U.S.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers1
The Pick-Sloan Program, enacted in 1944, built a series of large dams and reservoirs on the Missouri River and its tributaries.

A sustainable yield?

The song revealed that “an entire world view and behavior went along with this one plant species,” Jones said, and both suffered when dams flooded the forest. “We haven’t eaten these for 50 or 60 years. With the death of this one plant was the death of a little piece of our culture.”

The hog peanut was part of a larger cycle, Jones says. In spring, “We would tap box elder maples for syrup, then collect biscuit root, wild strawberries, currants, juneberries, cattail shoots, and acorns in December. Nothing was ripe at exactly the same time. When the plants are no longer there, the cycle is broken.”

ENLARGE

Man bends and looks through thick stand of small plants

Hog peanuts make seeds both above and below ground. The Lakota Sioux people ate their seeds until a dam on the Missouri River flooded the forest and extirpated the plant.

Jones, a Ph.D. student at Montana State University, is attempting to grow the hog peanut as a form of “ecocultural restoration.” “Research for the sake of research was not what I wanted to do,” she says. “I wanted to change the world for my people, to make their lives better.”

Millions of people made a living for thousands of years in the New World, she says. “Everyone always thought that when European people colonized the Americas, they were coming into a pristine place, but we were managing the landscape for thousands of years.”

Iroquois corn

Corn is an indisputable triumph of Native American agriculture. The plant, domesticated thousands of years ago in Mexico and Central America, was a staple of the American diet and is now the largest crop in the world (global production in 2009 was 819 million metric tons).

Although natives also invented the highly productive “three sisters” companion-cropping technique, their agricultural prowess has been underestimated, says Jane Mt. Pleasant, an associate professor of horticulture at Cornell University.

ENLARGE


Photo: Musgrave Research Farm, Aurora N.Y., courtesy Jane Mt. Pleasant, Cornell University.
Native Americans grew many variations of the “three sisters” — a mound with squash, maize and beans. Beans climb the maize and add nitrogen to the soil; squash blocks sunlight, retarding weeds and keeping soil from parching. Maize produces a lot of carbohydrate calories, and forms a complete protein when combined with beans.

Although the Native Americans had transformed a weed into the phenomenally productive crop maize, “There are claims by scholars, archeologists, geographers and historians that native agriculture was predominantly shifting cultivation… largely marginal, not too productive,” Mt. Pleasant says.

In “shifting cultivation” (a politically correct locution for “slash and burn”), farmers move to new plots as they exhaust their soil. According to this logic, native farmers in North America “sowed the seeds of their own destruction through environmental degradation,” says Mt. Pleasant, who directs the American Indian Program at Cornell.

But Mt. Pleasant says this is bunk. Rather, she contends that:

* Much indigenous agriculture was permanent cropping

* Maize farmers in east-central North America produced three to five times as much grain per acre as European wheat farmers

* Indigenous cropping was often sustainable and since it did not deplete the soil, farmers did not need to create new fields by burning forest

The soil should be the starting point for understanding agriculture, says Mt. Pleasant. While many soils on the Eastern Seaboard are not great, large parts of upstate New York had good soil that still supports productive farms.









Courtesy Jane Mt. Pleasant

Native Americans grew corn on mounds to keep the roots dry during wet springs in the Northeastern United States.

About 300 years ago, the Iroquois Confederacy, a union of five (later six) tribes, lived in the area, and evidence for their farm productivity comes, ironically, from armies that sought to destroy them. “The quantity of corn which we found in store in this place, and destroyed by fire is incredible,” wrote the governor of New France in 1687.2

The French attacked the Iroquois, who were allied with France’s great enemy, Great Britain.










Slash ‘n burn, or sustainable agriculture?

Then in 1779, a soldier sent by General George Washington reported that his unit had destroyed at least 200 acres of Iroquois corn and beans that was “the best I ever saw.”

“This was not backyard gardening, not primitive farming,” Mt. Pleasant says. “They were dynamic, producing farmers on really good soils.”

In modern tests of corn varieties believed to resemble those grown by the Senecas, one of the Iroquois tribes, Mt. Pleasant got yields of 2,500 to 3,000 pounds per acre (45 to 54 bushels per acre or 2,800 to 3,400 kilograms per hectare).

This was far above the 500 kilograms per hectare of wheat grown in Europe.

ENLARGE


Based on table from The Paradox of Plows and Productivity3.
In experiments replicating agriculture from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, Iroquois corn out-produced of European wheat. one bushel of shelled corn weighs 56 pounds; 1 pound per acre is 1.12 kg/hectare; error bars indicate ranges in the data.

Turner calculated that the Iroquois could support roughly three times as many people on an acre as contemporaneous Europeans could with their wheat crops.

Part of the advantage, she says, comes from maize’s inherent productivity. But observers have long wondered how this production could have occurred with neither plow nor draft animals, usually deemed the hallmarks of agricultural progress.

Plows, however, are now viewed as mixed blessing by many soil scientists. Although they prepare a good seedbed and bury weeds, they expose soil to the air, which encourages oxidation of humus, the organic content that supports essential microorganisms.

ENLARGE

Rows of corn on hillside in foreground and mountains and valleys in distance

Photo: Universidad la Molina, Peru, Universidad la Molina
Maize (called “corn” in the United States) can tolerate a wide range of tropical and temperate climates.

Although, after plowing, the humus briefly releases a burst of nitrogen, the depletion of organic matter and increased erosion continue for decades.

And thus on balance, Mt. Pleasant says the lack of the plow was an advantage, because planting with hand tools saves soil organic matter.

“If you are not tilling, and start with good soil, you are not going to lose fertility,” Mt. Pleasant says. “The system is stable as long as the crop yields are moderate and there is no plowing.”

But without plowing, there was no need for slash and burn.

Overall, Mt. Pleasant says, the new data provide a “quite different” perspective on agriculture. “Who were the primitive farmers? This is sustainable agriculture at its highest level.”

Rethinking agriculture

This type of revelation changes our view of the origin of agriculture, says Eve Emshwiller, an assistant professor of botany at UW-Madison who organized the seminar on native agriculture and who studies oca, a root crop grown in the Andes. “We have always talked about hunter-gatherers as if one day they were gathering food and noticed a plant growing from seed and thought, ‘We could gather seeds and start farming,’ as if this brilliant idea happened all of a sudden.”

ENLARGE


Courtesy Eve Emshwiller, University of Wisconsin-Madison
A woman in Peru’s highlands harvests oca, the white tubers in her hand.

Aside from historical curiosity, why worry about how native Americans grew their crops? one reason is the growing interest in sustainable agriculture, says Emshwiller. As agriculture faces the challenge of feeding more people without further damaging soil and water, older traditions could contribute.

Looking at other ways to grow and gather food will broaden our perspective, Emshwiller says. “There were a lot of people who were not considered agriculturalists, who were [supposedly] just gathering from the wild. But if you really understand what they were doing, there is not a sharp line between gathering and farming. There is a huge continuum of ways that people manage resources and get more from them.”

– David J. Tenenbaum


728x90
728x90

Despite the increasing industrialisation of agriculture, the great majority of the farmers in the Andes are peasants, or small scale producers. They still farm the valleys and slopes with traditional and subsistence methods. After centuries of cultural and biological evolution, traditional farmers have developed and inherited complex farming systems, adapted to the local conditions. These have helped them to sustainably manage harsh environments and meet their subsistence needs, without depending on mechanisation, chemical fertilisers, pesticides or other technologies of modern agricultural science.

ILEIA Newsletter • 12 nº 1 • April 1996

Indigenous knowledge re-valued in Andean agricultura

Miguel Altieri

Despite the increasing industrialisation of agriculture, the great majority of the farmers in the Andes are peasants, or small scale producers. They still farm the valleys and slopes with traditional and subsistence methods. After centuries of cultural and biological evolution, traditional farmers have developed and inherited complex farming systems, adapted to the local conditions. These have helped them to sustainably manage harsh environments and meet their subsistence needs, without depending on mechanisation, chemical fertilisers, pesticides or other technologies of modern agricultural science.

The terraces throughout the Andean slopes, and the waru-waru (raised fields) and qochas in the Altiplano are sophisticated expressions of landscape modification that have historically rendered more than a million hectares of land for agricultural purposes (Rengifo 1987). The past and present existence of these and other forms of intensive agricultural systems document a successful adaptation to difficult environments by indigenous farmers. In fact, applied research conducted on these systems reveals that many traditional farming practices, once regarded as primitive or misguided, are now being recognised as sophisticated and appropriate.

Agroecological and ethnoecological evidence increasingly indicates that these systems are productive, sustainable, ecologically sound, and tuned to the social, economic, and cultural features of the Andean heterogeneous landscape (Earls 1989). Cultural adaptations that farmers have developed in the Andes include:

• domestication of a diversity of plants and animals and maintenance of a wide genetic resource base;
• establishment of diverse production zones along altitudinal and vertical gradients;
• development of a series of traditional technologies and land-use practices to deal with altitude, slope, extreme climates, etc.;
• different levels and types of social control over production zones, including sectoral fallows.

Captivated by the ecological intricacies of ancient Andean agroecosystems, many scientists are beginning to show interest in traditional agriculture as  they search for ways to remedy the deficiencies of modern agricultural development, recognising that indigenous farmers and their systems may hold messages of hope for the future of Andean agriculture. Today, it is widely accepted that indigenous knowledge is a powerful resource in its own right and complementary to knowledge available from western scientific sources (Denevan 1995).

So, in this new emerging conception of agricultural development, rural people’s knowledge about plants, soils, and animals gains unprecedented significance. Scientists involved in small farm development must quickly systematize and incorporate farmers’ knowledge, before this wealth of practical knowledge is lost forever, given that most traditional farming systems are rapidly disappearing in the face of major social, economic and political changes occurring in developing countries.

Destructive economy

Economic change fueled by capital and market penetration are leading to an ecological breakdown that is starting to destroy the productivity and sustainability of traditional agriculture. After creating resource-conserving systems for centuries, traditional cultures in areas such as the Andes are now being undermined by external political and economic forces. Biodiversity is decreasing in farms, soil degradation is accelerating, community and social organisation is breaking down, genetic resources are being eroded and traditions lost.

Under this scenario and given commercial pressures and urban demands, many developers argue that the performance of subsistence agriculture is unsatisfactory, and that intensification of production with modern inputs and varieties is absolutely essential for the transition from subsistence production to commercial production (Brush 1990).

Most agroecologists oppose this view and argue that the challenge is how to guide such transition in a way that yields and income are increased without raising the dependence and debt of peasants and without further exacerbating environmental degradation. Agroecologists contend that this can be done by generating and promoting agroecological, resource-conserving technologies a source of which are the very traditional systems that modernity is destroying.

Although it may be impossible to return traditional agriculture to its original state of equilibrium, what is possible is to revert the current process of agricultural "involution" spearheaded by short-sighted development, guiding the transition of the various phases of "modified" peasant agriculture to a more sustainable rural society.

Search for alternatives

As the inability of the Green Revolution to improve food security, production and farm incomes for the very poor became apparent, a quest began in the Andes for affordable, productive and ecologically sound small-scale agricultural alternatives. In many ways, the emergence of agroecology stimulated a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other institutions in the region to actively search for new kinds of agricultural development and resource management strategies that, based on local participation, skills and resources, enhance small farm productivity while conserving resources.
Waru-waru farming uses raised beds surrounded by ditches. Archeological research has shown that 80,000 ha of waru-waru fields could be rehabilitated. About 19 organisations have taken up this challenge and have rehabilitated 80 ha sofar. The "Programa Interinstitucional de Waru Waru (PIWA) has recovered 53 ha together with 3,000 farm families in 16 communities. For more information write to: Maria del Carmen Carranza, Apartado Postal nº 11-0178, Lima, Peru. Fax: +51 14729380
Photo: Drawing: Minka
One of the early projects advocating this agroecological approach occurred in the early eighties in Puno, Peru. Several government and non government organisations created the Proyecto Interinstitucional de Rehabilitacion de Waru-Waru en el Altiplano (PIWA) aimed at assisting local farmers in the reconstruction of an ingenious system of raised fields that evolved on the high plains of the Andes about 3,000 years ago. These waru-warus consisted of platforms of soil surrounded by ditches filled with water. They produced bumper crops in the face of floods, droughts, and the killing frosts common at altitudes of almost 4,000 meters.

Technicians initially assisted local farmers in reconstructing some 10 hectares of the ancient farms, with encouraging results. For instance, yields of potatoes from waru-warus can outstrip those from chemically fertilised fields. Recent measurements indicate potato yields from waru-warus of 10 tons per hectare compared with the regional average of 1-4 tons per hectare (Erickson and Chandler 1989). The combination of raised beds and canals has proven to have remarkably sophisticated environmental effects. During droughts, moisture from the canals slowly ascends the roots by capillary action, and during floods, furrows drain away excess runoff.

Waru-warus also reduce the impact of extremes of temperature. Water in the canals absorbs the sun’s heat by day and radiates it back by night, thereby helping protect crops against frost. on the raised beds, night-time temperatures may be several degrees higher than in the surrounding region. The system also maintains its own soil fertility. In the canals, silt, sediment, algae, and plant and animal residues decay into a nutrient-rich muck which can be dug out seasonally and added to the raised beds.

This ancient technology is proving so productive and inexpensive that now it is actively being promoted throughout the Altiplano. It requires no modern tools or fertilisers, the main expense is for labour to dig canals and build up the platforms.

Restoring abandoned terraces

Also in Peru, several NGOs as well as government agencies have engaged in programmes to restore abandoned terraces and build new ones in various regions of the country. For example, in the Colca Valley, PRAVTIR (Programa de Acondicionamiento Territorial y Vivienda Rural) sponsors terrace reconstruction by offering peasant communities low-interest loans or seeds and other inputs to restore large areas of abandoned terraces. The main advantages of using terraces is that it minimises risks in times of frost and/or drought, reduces soil loss, amplifies the cropping options because of the microclimate and hydraulic advantages of terraces, and improves crop yields.

First year yield data from new bench terraces showed a 43-65% yield increase in potatoes, maize, and barley compared to yields of these crops grown on sloping fields. one of the main constraints of this technology is that it is highly labour intensive, requiring about 350-500 worker/days/ha (Treacey 1989). Such demands, however, can be buffered when communities organise and share tasks.

Despite the onrush of modernisation and economic change which has promoted intensive reliance on expensive machinery, chemicals and seed strains, has encouraged agroindustrial monocropping, increased the concentration of landholdings and wealth in the countryside, and accelerated the exodus of small farmers to overcrowded cities, a few traditional agricultural management and knowledge systems still survive in the Andes.

These systems exhibit important elements of sustainability, namely: they are well adapted to their particular environment, they rely on local resources, they are small scale and decentralised, maintain biodiversity and conserve the natural resource base (Rengifo and Regalado 1991). Therefore, these systems comprise a Neolithic legacy of considerable importance, yet modern agriculture constantly threatens the stability of this inheritance.

Promising options

These microcosms of traditional agriculture offer promising models for other areas as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals and sustain year-round yields. It is particularly evident from the examples provided, that ancient agricultural systems and technologies can aid in the rescue of today’s Andean peasants from the vicious cycle of rural poverty and environmental degradation.

For agroecologists, what has been especially useful are the ecological principles that underline the sustainability of traditional farming systems, which once extracted and systematised can be combined into alternative production systems for peasants. Agroecological research convincingly shows that the crop and animal combinations evolved by traditional farmers can often be adapted to increase productivity when the biological structuring of the farm is improved and labour and local resources are efficiently used.

This has been documented by IDEAS’ model farm design in the San Marcos province of Cajamarca (Chavez et al. 1989). The main aspects of IDEAS’ agroecological proposal included:

• Rational use of local resources, including human and animal labour;
• High diversity of native and exotic adapted crops and animals grown in polycultural and rotational patterns;
• Recycling of organic residues and optimal management of small animals.  
The agroecological module consisted of a one hectare model farm inserted in an area with similar conditions facing the average campesino of the area. The farm was divided into four plots, each following a particular rotational design. After three years of operation, field results showed the following trends:
• Organic matter content increased from low to medium and high levels, and N levels increased slightly. Additions of natural fertilisers were necessary to maintain optimum levels of organic matter and nitrogen;
• Phosphorous and potassium increased in all plots;
• Crop yields varied among plots, however in plots with good soils high yields of corn and wheat were obtained;
• Polycultures overyielded monocultures in all instances;
• To farm 1 ha. of the model farm it was necessary to use 100 man-hours, 15 oxen-hours, and about 100 kgs. of seeds.

These preliminary results indicate that the proposed farm design has potential to enhance the diversity of food crops available to the family, increases income through higher productivity, and maintains the ecological integrity of the natural resource base.

Knowledge combined

Realistically, the search for sustainable agriculture models for the Andes will have to combine elements of both traditional and modern agroecology. Traditional patterns and practices encompass mechanisms to stabilise production in a risk-prone environment without external subsidies and to limit environmental degradation. Such stabilising qualities of traditional agriculture must be supported and complemented by agroecological practices that enhance the soil, water, and germplasm conservation potential of traditional technologies, and that also provide diversification guidelines on how to assemble functional biodiversity so that peasant systems can sponsor their own soil fertility, plant health and productivity.

For example, it may be possible to utilise Lupine, or other adapted legumes that produce high biomass, as green manures to improve traditional fallow systems or to incorporate such legumes in intercropping systems to break the monoculture nature of potato systems. This would allow farmers to derive benefits on soil fertility and pest regulation that emerge from well planned rotations and polycultures.

Miguel Altieri, University of California Berkeley, 1050 San Pablo Ave, Albany CA 94706, USA

References
- Altieri, MA. 1995. Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder.
- Araujo, H. et al. 1989. Ecología, agricultura y autonomía campesina en los Andes. Fundación Alemana para el Desarrollo Internacional. Feldafing-Lima-Hohenheim.
- Brush, SB et al. 1981. Dynamics of Andean potato agriculture. In: Economic Botany 35: 70-88.
- Brush, SB. 1990. Diversity and change in Andean agriculture. In: PD Little et al. (eds). Lands at Risk in the Third World. pp. 271-289. Westview Press, Boulder.
- Chavez, J et al. 1989. Propuesta de agricultura orgánica para la Sierra. IDEAS-CONYCET, Lima.
- Denevan, DW. 1995. Prehistoric agricultural methods as models for sustainability. In: Advanced Plant Pathology II: 21-43.
- Earls, J. 1989. Planificación agricola Andina. COFIDE, Lima.
- Erickson, CL and KL Chandler. 1989. Raised fields and sustainable agriculture in the lake Titicaca basin of Perú. In: JO Browder (ed.). Fragile Lands of Latin America. pp. 230-243. Westview Press, Boulder.
- Rengifo, G. 1987. La agricultura tradicional en los Andes. Editorial Horizonte, Lima.
- Rengifo, G and E Regalado. 1991. Vigorización de la chacra Andina. PRATEC-PPEA, Lima.


728x90
728x90

우리에게도 시사하는 바가 크다. 

현재 우리도 이러한 모임이 있는데, 아직 요리로까지 연결되지는 못했다.

전통 식문화의 부활이란 측면에서 접근할 필요가 있겠다. 




토종작물은 수십 년, 수백 년이란 세대를 넘어 맛과 향기, 식감에 재배법과 요리법을 현대에 생생히 전하는 '살아 있는 문화재'이다.

그러나 고도 경제성장의 시대, 대량생산, 대량소비에 적응하지 못하며 사라져 버렸다. 

사회의 가치과니 다양해지는 현대에 보조를 맞추어 토종작물은 귀중한 지역의 자원으로 재검토되고 있다.

토종작물을 아는 것은 음식과 농업의 풍부한 관계를 아는 연결고리가 될 수 있다.

그리고 지역의 토종작물이 되살아나 이어져가는 모습은 풍부한 음식을 맛보고 즐기는 모습이며, 지역사회에서 사람 사이의 정이 깊어지고 창조하는 모습이다.

불과 수십 년 전만해도 다양한 토종작물이 존재했지만, 음식과 농업의 변화에 대응하지 못하고 사라졌다. 

그러나 다행히도 아직까지 토종작물을 지키고 있는 사람들이 있었다.

그리고 야마가타山形 대학 농학부를 중심으로 조사한 결과, 야마가카현에 150가지 이상의 토종작물이 확인되었다.

자가채종의 관습이 뿌리를 내리고 있는 배경에 있는 토종작물의 연구자나 요리사, 그리고 토종작물을 재배하는 사람들의 활동과 교류를 아는 것으로, 그립고도 새로운 지역사회의 모습, 음식과 농업의 풍부한 관계에 관심을 쏟도록 하자.  

728x90
728x90

2008년 12월, 2주일에 걸쳐서 제주도의 모든 마을을 돌며 토종종자를 조사 수집했다. 그렇게 하여 200여 종이 넘는 토종종자를 모았다. 그렇게 모은 종자는 일부를 농촌진흥청 유전자원센터에 보관시키고, 일부는 씨드림에서 보관하고, 나머지는 모두 제주도 여성농민회에게 맡겼다. 

이제 그 작업이 서서히 정리가 되면서 새로운 싹을 틔우고 있는 중인가 보다. 제주에서 토종씨앗과 식량주권을 연결해 새로운 일을 벌이고 있다. 

그런데 안타까운 것은 2008년에 수집한 농가에 다시 방문했는데, 많은 할머니들이 돌아가셨나 보다. 아아.... 



강순희 전여농 제주도연합 정책위원장은 14일 "토종농작물 보존육성을 위한 조례제정은 제주지역 사회의 먹거리 순환체계를 구축하는데 의의가 있다"며 "제주 토종종자의 농사기반을 지원하고 판로를 보장해야 한다"고 밝혔다.


강 위원장은 이날 오후 5시 제주도의회 의사당 소회의실에서 열린 '제주도 토종농산물 보존 육성 조례제정을 위한 정책 토론회'에서 주제발표를 통해 이같이 말했다.

강 위원장은 "전여농 제주연합은 생산자는 농사를 지으면서도 항상 부채에 시달리고, 소비자는 먹거리에 대한 불안이 커지면서 이것을 극복할 수 있는 대안농업을 고민하다가 종자를 지키는 일이 식량주권을 지키는 것이라 정리하고 지난 2005년부터 통일 텃밭 가꾸기 사업을 진행해왔다"고 소개했다.

강 위원장은 또한 "2007년부터 본격적으로 토종실태조사, 1회원 1종자 갖기운동, 토종종자 채종포운영, 소비자를 모집해 텃밭에서 나온 제철채소를 포장·배달하는 꾸러미사업, 토종종자·묘종나눠주기, 토종축제 등 다양한 사업을 전개했다"고 덧붙였다.

그러면서 강 위원장은 "지난 2008년 제주도 토종종자 실태조사 결과, 한해동안 76종의 토종종자를 수집할 수 있었다"며 "이 때는 우리나라 주요토종인 콩과를 중심으로 흑찰보리, 밀, 기장, 옥수수 등 다양한 품종을 수집할 수 있었다"고 설명했다.

강 위원장은 "올해도 농업기술원의 후원으로 다시 토종종자 실태를 조사하고 있다"며 "조사결과가 마무리 되지는 않았지만 2008년 조사대상자를 찾아가보니 돌아가셨거나, 연세가 많아 종자를 냉장고에 보관해두는 형식의 사례가 많아 다양한 품종이 사라지는 추세"라고 밝혔다.

크게보기
또 강 위원장은 "채종포는 2008년부터 현재까지 계속해서 운영하고 있지만 여러사람이 공동으로 파종하고 관리, 수확하는 일이 쉽지 않았다"며 "때문에 2010년부터 지금까지 회원들이 수확하기 어려운 씨앗을 채종포에 심고 채종포 운영자를 지정해 관리하고 있다"고 설명했다.

강 위원장은 또한 "1회원 1종자 지키기 사업은 지난 2009년부터 시행해오고 있다"며 "봄에 토종씨앗 지킴이 발대식에서 씨앗을 분양받고 파종을 해서 수확을 하고 있는 상황"이라고 말했다.

강 위원장은 "그러나 1회원 1종자 지키기 사업은 파종시기를 잘 못 맞추거나 기후변화가 심해 종자를 보존하지 못하는 사례가 발생하고 있고 교잡이 심한 종자가 파종되면 우량종자를 생산할 수 없는 일이 생겨나고 있다"고 문제를 지적했다.

강 위원장은 "전여농 제주연합이 독자적으로 여러 사업을 진행해 왔지만 토종종자를 보존 육성하는 것은 한 단체, 몇몇 개인의 노력으로는 부족하다"며 "농업행정과 토종에 대한 관심을 갖는 생산자 단체, 개인들이 머리를 맞대야 할 때"라고 강조했다.

이어 강 위원장은 제주 토종농작물 보존 육성을 위한 조례안을 내놓았다.

강 위원장은 "토종농업자원의 안전한 보존 관리로 지속가능한 지역농업 육성과 토종의 보존을 통한 자원의 다양성 확보, 식품안전성 확보, 농업인 소득증대에 기여해야 한다"며 "이 목적에 부합하기 위해서는 경쟁력 있는 토종씨앗 몇 품종을 심어 상품화시킬 것이 아니라 지속가능한 농업실현과 토종씨앗을 통해 안전한 먹거리를 확보할 수 있는 방향으로 가야 한다"고 제안했다.

강 위원장은 또한 "토종씨앗 실태조사를 통해 우수한 토종자원을 보유하고 있는 농민들을 토종씨앗 보유자로 지정하고, 지속 가능한 농사를 지을 수 있도록 지원이 이뤄져야 한다"고 강조했다.

강 위원장은 "토종종자의 보존 육성으로 자원의 다양성을 확보하고 토종농산물 재배 확산을 도모하고 농업인의 소득 증대에 기여하기 위해 소득보전 직불제를 시행해야 한다"고 주장했다.

또 강 위원장은 "작물의 제한 없이 일정한 절차를 거쳐 토종작물에 대해 지원하는 것이 바람직하다"며 "그래야만 다양한 품종의 토종을 육성할 수 있고 종자가 유전자원의 역할 뿐 아니라 현장보존의 가치를 인정받을 수 있다"고 밝혔다.

그러면서 강 위원장은 "토종농산물 보존 육성 사업은 토종종자를 찾아내 종자은행에만 보관해 두는 것이 아니라 변화되는 기후조건, 병충해, 농사방법에 적응하는 종자를 파종해 가꾸고 갈무리해서 국민들이 안전한 먹거리를 생산해내고 다음해 다시 종자로 사용할 수 있는 순환체계를 만들어야 한다"고 역설했다.

이어 강 위원장은 "토종농작물 보존육성을 위한 조례제정은 제주지역 사회의 먹거리 순환체계를 구축하는데 의의가 있다"며 "제주토종종자가 지역 브랜드로서 자리매김할 수 있도록 해야 한다"고 강조했다.<제주투데이>


728x90
728x90


Overview

Farm ponds have great potential to improve agricultural water security through the capture, storage, and provision of water for irrigation in all regions of California. Farm ponds can also supply a water source for frost protection, recharge groundwater, and provide a wide range of additional economic and environmental benefits.

Ponds can be filled by rainfall, as is common with farm and ranch ponds that are sited at a low point and serve to collect runoff from higher in the watershed. Alternatively, farm ponds can be filled with tailwater from irrigation, which can then be recycled. Ponds can also be filled by diverting water from streams at peak winter flows, offsetting water withdrawals during the dry season when higher instream flows are needed.

Ponds can recharge groundwater, which keeps more water in the system for longer, providing greater quantities for use in the watershed and allowing seepage into streams later into the summer. Devoting more land to ponds in valleys that are overdrafting groundwater would help minimize impacts and would contribute positively to overall watershed management.

Ponds can also be used to trap, filter, and store tailwater from irrigation. Sediment can be settled and returned to the fields; water can be re-used in subsequent irrigations, reducing the need to divert or pump more irrigation water. Pumping from a pond uses much less energy than pumping groundwater. A common approach is to construct a smaller sediment trap that then flows into a pond.

Ponds are common on farms and ranches, however the vast majority of ponds are currently constructed for fish farming, fire protection, stock watering, or simply landscape beautification. Their usefulness as irrigation and watershed management tools have not been sufficiently appreciated or exploited in the West, probably because farmers have largely been able to rely on organized irrigation districts and their reservoirs to store and deliver irrigation water. As water supplies become more uncertain in California, it will behoove farmers and water regulators to make more concerted efforts to institute on-farm ponds.

Obstacles

The regulatory context for constructing new farm ponds is currently challenging. A significant obstacle to using ponds to manage watersheds is the system of water rights. As the State Water Resources Control Board attempts to permit and regulate farm ponds, they are faced with dilemmas in trying to rearrange water rights to accommodate in-stream flows and fish. The Department of Fish and Game, the Environmental Protection Agency, and county governments also have jurisdiction and their own laws and rules that govern when and how such ponds can be filled. The cost and time involved in such permitting is often discouraging to the farmer.

The cost of constructing the pond can be an issue. A tailwater return pond can easily cost $20,000-$40,000 plus $1,000 a year to maintain, although the federal government (through NRCS) will often share the construction cost, and ponds provide a long-term offset for the cost of purchased water.

Another obstacle to creating more farm ponds in intensively farmed areas is simply the opportunity cost of removing land from production. In the Central Coast, for example, where land can rent for $2,000 per acre per year, and most of the land is not owned by the people farming it, this is a barrier. The recent rise of often irrational food safety concerns in such areas as the Salinas Valley has also slowed or reversed the creation of ponds, as frogs are associated with salmonella bacteria by some in the food industry.

Ponds can attract wildlife and increase populations of endangered species such as red-legged frogs or the San Francisco garter snake. However, the National Fish and Wildlife Service has developed “safe harbor” agreements that allow the development of such ponds and limit any subsequent Endangered Species Act consequences for the farmer.

Water Savings

Farm ponds can significantly offset growers’ and ranchers’ reliance on purchased water. one calculation in Pennsylvania showed that a 2-acre clay-lined pond with an average depth of 7 feet will provide roughly 10 acre-feet of irrigation water, accounting for loss to seepage and evaporation. For a vegetable crop that requires 4 inches of irrigation water, this 2-acre pond will irrigate 30 acres of crop. Click herefor more detail on the calculation.

Ponds also present an opportunity to store water in ways that can have other beneficial effects on water supply for growers and ranchers. For example, seepage from ponds can recharge groundwater and help to offset pumping from groundwater basins. In this sense, ponds act to slow the flow of water through the basin, allowing more of it to be retained for use. In a clay soil-lined pond, seepage of only 500 gallons/day is considered excellent and 1,000 gallons/day good, so even in these cases the ponds will augment groundwater supplies throughout the year.

In the case of using ponds to maintain in-stream flow levels for anadromous fish, as in the Pine Gulch Creek case study, removing irrigation water from the stream in the winter provides more water for the environment in the summer. Though more total water would have to be withdrawn for agriculture due to seepage from the ponds (though this would be returned to groundwater flows) and evaporation from the ponds (which reportedly averages 6 inches a month during the summer in this region) than would be the case if the water were pumped as needed for irrigation directly from the stream to the fields, the added water is essentially going to sustain fish (salmonid spawning).

The greatest water savings associated with ponds can be realized by constructing tailwater return flow ponds. By capturing tailwater in a pond and allowing sediment and contaminants to settle out, the pond provides the dual benefit of recycling irrigation water while also recharging groundwater. This approach is carried to an extreme in the Red Rock Ranch case study “RED ROCK RANCH”, where on-farm drainage management in the southern San Joaquin Valley by John Diener reuses tailwater again and again through a series of ponds, applying the resulting water to ever more salt tolerant crops.

Applications

Ponds do not function well on sandy or other highly porous soils, but the many clay soils around California provide ample opportunity to employ this practice. Irrigation ponds can be effectively applied in both coastal and Central Valley agriculture. The use of ponds to simultaneously supply irrigation water and regulate streamflows for anadromous fish is being explored along the coast from Santa Cruz northwards. Tailwater recovery ponds are being implemented all around the state, especially in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys.

The size of ponds, the water demands of the crop, and the acreage of irrigated land all determine the efficacy of ponds. While ponds can benefit all sizes of farms, they can have the greatest impact on smaller acreages of intensive crops.

Additional Benefits

Ponds can provide the following benefits in addition to the provision of irrigation water.

Ponds are commonly used on ranches for stock watering. Cattle and horses require 12-15 gallons of water per day. Rather than allow the stock to drink directly from the pond, a more environmentally friendly innovation is to fence the pond and use solar pumps to move water into troughs for the cattle.

Ponds are often used for frost protection, particularly on wine grapes. The use of water for this purpose typically ranges from 0.4-1.6 inches of water in a year.
Ponds can be managed to provide wildlife habitat. Although any pond will attract waterfowl, a number of RCDs, Audubon California, and other organizations have been working with farmers to plant native habitat around farm ponds. Researchers are also exploring the use of such ponds to re-introduce native fish species, for example an effort to raise threatened Sacramento perch in Yolo and Solano counties.

Ponds constructed primarily for fish production, typically at least a half-acre in size and a minimum depth of 8 feet, can yield 100-300 pounds of fish per year for each acre of water surface.

Ponds can assist in flood control by capturing and slowing the flow of water through a watershed. Particularly as climate change leads to greater storm flows, a distributed network of ponds could play an important role in attenuating peak flows and reducing flooding.

Ponds help recharge groundwater. Whether filled with water diverted from a stream or with tailwater from irrigation, clay-lined ponds seep water into the ground at highly variable rates (anywhere from 500-10,000 gallons/day depending on size and construction), but typical seepage loss from a well-sealed pond is estimated at one foot of water per year. Every acre of pond would thus on average recharge groundwater with one acre foot—or 325,000 gallons—of water a year.

Ponds at least one acre-foot in size can serve as water sources for fire protection if they are sited in proximity to structures.

Ponds can be used to settle and filter farm runoff, capturing soil that can be returned to fields and filtering pollutants and particulates that would otherwise negatively impact the broader ecosystem.

A more localized and distributed water supply can offset water transported from distant reservoirs, reducing the energy needed for water conveyance.

Resources

Farm Pond Poster 
Published by the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in July 2002, this poster describes the various uses and benefits of a farm pond, how to manage the pond, habitat requirements, and where to go for more information.

Ponds—Planning, Design, Construction 
An 85-page guide to constructing farm ponds, with engineering detail, provided byUSDA NRCS. Revised November 1997.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Pond Standard
A description of farm pond standards required to obtain cost sharing from the federal government.

On-Farm Water Storages: Guidelines for Siting, Design, Construction & Management
A New South Wales, Australia, guide to farm ponds. While intended for a different geographic context, this is a good summary of the farm pond construction process.

Rainfall Capture and Storage for Marin Agriculture
This primer on using rainwater for agriculture is specific to Marin County, but may be applicable to other areas as well.

Rangeland Ponds, Irrigation Ponds

Hill Ponds for Landowner and Wildlife Benefit
A concise overview of ponds with a special focus on ranch ponds and habitat considerations. Sources of technical and financial support are identified.

Sanctuary Forest, Mattole Flow Program Newsletter, Spring 2009
Describes the current status of the Mattole River Project, which aims to address the problem of low summer stream flows by helping landowners install storage tanks that capture winter flows for summer use.

Legal Options for Streamflow Protection
A publication by Sanctuary Forest that explains various legal options for shifting stream withdrawals from summer to winter, including Section 1707 water rights dedications to in-stream flows.

Water Storage Guide: Storing Water to benefit streamflows and fish in North Coast creeks and rivers
A May 2008 guide to household and garden water requirements, practical water withdrawal techniques, and storage solutions, published by Sanctuary Forest.

Water and Wine
A brochure that describes Trout Unlimited’s work with landowners and government agencies to restore streams for salmon and steelhead spawning, including their efforts to work with grape growers to install farm ponds.

Coastal Streamflow Stewardship Project
A Trout Unlimited project along the coast of California working with landowners on physical and management solutions – including ponds – to streamflow problems.

Hill Ponds
A Yolo County Resource Conservation District article on hill ponds that covers aspects of construction, maintenance and obtaining support.

Ponds and Wildlife

Bring Farm Edges Back to Life! 
A Yolo County Resource Conservation District publication excerpt covering hedgerows, native grasses, vegetating canals, managing ponds and sloughs, encouraging beneficial insects and wildlife, weed control, and government cost-share programs. From the Landowner Conservation Handbook. 5th Edition. July 2001.

Audubon California Land Stewardship ProgramA description of Audubon’s programs to work with landowners to implement conservation practices and improve wildlife habitat. Audubon California has worked with partners to develop farm ponds in the Sacramento Valley.

Fish Ponds

A Guide to California State Permits, Licenses, Laws and Regulations Affecting California’s Aquaculture Industry
A description of the State guide to permitting and operating an aquaculture facility, including fish ponds. Explains how to obtain the guide, which is available for purchase from the State.

State of California, Department of Fish and Game “Farm Fish Pond Management in California
A 35-page manual about siting, stocking, and managing a farm fish pond. Contains a list of useful references.

Sonoma Cooperative ExtensionThis website contains useful information and links pertaining to stocking farm ponds, aquaculture and pond management.

Managing for Wildlife Habitat on Rangeland Video This YouTube video is one of eight produced by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service in California In December 2011. The videos provide a quick glimpse into some of the Agency’s most popular conservation opportunities. 
Managing for Wildlife Habitat on Rangeland: There’s a Plan For That

Conservation planning Video This YouTube video is one of eight produced by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service in California In December 2011. The videos provide a quick glimpse into some of the Agency’s most popular conservation opportunities.Conservation Planning: There’s a Plan For That

NRCS Technical Guide
NRCS provides a set of key technical resources to guide on-farm water (and other resource) management practices. These include information and recommendations about specific practices related to farm ponds for irrigation as they pertain to local areas. Visit the online Field Office Technical Guide (eFOTG) and click through to the map to your county for details. once there, you can search through practices listed in Section IV of the pull-down menu in the left-hand column of the page. Here, you may also find information about financial support that may be available for implementing these practices. In addition to practice-specific assistance, the eFOTG provides key data to help growers in resource management decision-making, including natural resource information (Section II in the pull-down menu) about local soil (e.g. web soil survey), water, air, plant and animal resources; planning tools for developing resource management systems (Section III); and other useful tools and information.

Case Studies

Suncrest Nurseries

Suncrest Nurseries is a California Institute for Rural Studies case study of a nursery utilizing tailwater ponds to clean and recycle water in the Watsonville area. Access the full report, California Water Stewards or download just the Suncrest case study.

Pine Gulch Creek

A pilot project more than 10 years in the making involves a group of farmers in West Marin and is detailed in the Pine Gulch Creek case study,-Marin-County. Farmers will swap summer riparian water rights for winter appropriative water rights and build ponds to store water in the winter and spring for use in the dry season.

Mattole River Project

project on the Mattole River and its tributaries, led by Sancturary Forest and its partners, is providing large storage tanks to homeowners in addition to encouraging farm pond storage to similarly minimize summertime water withdrawals. The project also envisions some 100 groundwater recharge efforts: off-stream ponds and wetlands; in-stream ponds upstream of fish habitat; infiltration swales (small check dams); and infiltration areas (shallow basins or drain fields).

Sustainable Conservation: Ponds Project

Published in 2008, the Ponds Project details the benefits of new or modified off-stream water storage ponds to boost declining fish populations – including endangered coho and steelhead salmon – while increasing the certainty of irrigation supplies for farmers within coastal watersheds, particularly San Mateo and northern Santa Cruz counties.

Clos Pegase Winery

This article from the Napa Valley Register discusses the water security garnered by the irrigation ponds of Clos Pegase Winery in the Napa Valley. The winery’s newest 22 acre-foot irrigation pond covers a surface area of 2.8 acres and irrigates a 35-acre vineyard.

Red Rock Ranch

A concise description of John Diener’s Integrated on-Farm Drainage Management system, the crops he grows, and by-products produced.


728x90
728x90


Overview

Dry farming is not to be confused with rainfed agriculture. Rainfed agriculture refers to crop production that occurs during a rainy season. Dry farming, on the other hand, refers to crop production during a dry season, utilizing the residual moisture in the soil from the rainy season, usually in a region that receives 20” or more of annual rainfall. Dry farming works to conserve soil moisture during long dry periods primarily through a system of tillage, surface protection, and the use of drought-resistant varieties.

Dry farming has a very long history of use. Particularly in the Mediterranean region, crops such as olives and grapes have been dry farmed for thousands of years. Even today, vast swaths of Spain (e.g. Rioja and Andalucia), Greece, France, and Italy dry farm these crops, and in some regions of Europe it is illegal to irrigate wine grapes during the growing season, under the contention that the water will dilute the quality of the grapes.

The production of some of the finest wines and olive oils in the world is accomplished with dry-farmed fruit. The famous California wines that won the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting were all dry farmed. Today, California has dry-farmed vineyards all up and down the coast, from Mendocino in the north, Sonoma, Napa (estimated 1,000 acres), to San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara on the central and south coast. There are a few old dry-farmed vineyards remaining in Lodi and the Sierra foothills, particularly Amador County. In addition to wine grapes and olives, a wide range of crops including tomatoes, pumpkins, watermelons, cantaloupes, winter squash, garbanzos, apricots, apples, grains, and potatoes are at times dry farmed in California.

Dry farming is not a yield maximization strategy; rather it allows nature to dictate the true sustainability of agricultural production in a region. David Little, a Sonoma vegetable grower who says he at times gets only a quarter of the yield of his competitors, describes dry farming as “a soil tillage technique, the art of working the soil; starting as early as possible when there is a lot of moisture in the soil, working the ground, creating a sponge-like environment so that the water comes from down below, up into the sponge. You press it down with a roller or some other implement to seal the top…so the water can’t evaporate and escape out.”

Dry farming is more than just the absence of irrigation. In the following example of wine grapes, there are five key elements:

  • • The soil must be appropriate, with good water holding characteristics.
  • • Grape vines must be spaced sufficiently to allow the plant to obtain the moisture it needs from the soil. In practice we have found that this varies from 32 to 120 square feet, which may in fact depend on the soil, rainfall, and altitude.
  • • Vines must be planted on a rootstock that will seek the moisture down in the soil. Most dry farmers agree that St. George rootstock is best at this, although Frank Leeds reports that he has successfully dry farmed grapes on SO-4 and 110-R rootstocks. Vines are often given some water during the first season or two.
  • • Vineyards tend to be cultivated as soon as the rains stop, in order to trap the moisture in the soil by creating a “dust mulch.” The word “dust” is really a misnomer, as true dust is undesirable and would just blow away. The goal is a 3-4” blanket of dry, even soil that prevents the moisture from escaping. Some growers emphasize the importance of disking the entire vineyard in a one-week window after the rains stop, which might limit the scale of any one enterprise. Others have achieved success mowing a permanent cover that was cultivated about every 6 years. one grower cultivates alternate rows for 3 years and then switches the cultivated and permanent cover rows, subsoiling the rows that were in permanent cover.
  • • Vineyards are usually cultivated during the season in order to bring moisture to the plants, or rather to allow the plants to absorb the moisture and nutrients from the soil. Most farmers utilize a harrow. Though now controversial among soil scientists, this is almost a religious belief among dry farmers, and beyond the initial working of the vineyard to trap the moisture, the number of cultivations can range from once a season to once a week depending on the age of the vines, the variety, and the soil. Frank Leeds—who cultivates his mature vineyards every month—recommends the following fable from Aesop:

The Farmer and His Sons
A father, being on the point of death, wished to be sure that his sons would give the same attention to his farm as he himself had given it. He called them to his bedside and said, “My sons, there is a great treasure hid in one of my vineyards.” The sons, after his death, took their spades and mattocks and carefully dug over every portion of their land. They found no treasure, but the vines repaid their labor by an extraordinary and superabundant crop.

Obstacles

Because dry farming in California used to be a widespread practice, we know that its expansion is feasible. When planting a new vineyard or orchard in an area with sufficient rainfall, it is always an option. However, in the case of permanent crops, there are a number of obstacles to converting back, as described below.

  • • In many cases, vineyards or orchards are planted too close together to simply stop irrigating them. Dry-farmed vineyards require a minimum of 50 square feet spacing for the vines, and probably more on hillsides. Wider spacing of plants is required on almost all crops grown this way.
  • • Vineyards planted on riparian rootstock and shallowly irrigated with drip systems for years may have such shallow root systems that it would be difficult or impossible to convert. However, Frank Leeds of Frog’s Leap Winery says he has done just that in several cases in Napa.
  • • Yield loss in dry farmed crops can be significant. Dry farmed red grapes farmed in the traditional manner with 9’x9’ or 10’x10’ spacing may yield as little as 1-3 tons per acre, although this is often on hillsides with shallow soils. However, in the Napa Valley, Frank Leeds says that he has to thin his more intensively dry farmed grapes back to 4 tons per acre, a normal yield for high-end wine. A number of growers report that dry-farmed white wine grapes planted in river bottom land produce very vigorous vines and high yields.
  • • Quality of product and market conditions may not allow an economic return to the lower yields in many cases. In Napa, if a dry-farmed Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard gets $4,000 a ton, that is a very different outcome than the less than $500 a ton that the grapes might typically fetch in Lodi. While dry farming is physically feasible in Lodi, the market forces may not make it worthwhile unless dry-farmed Lodi grapes commanded a much higher price.
  • • The same economic problem exists with dry-farmed fruit. Although such fruit is sweeter, denser, and stores better, it is also smaller, and the commercial fruit industry has spent many decades developing standards for large, blemish-free fruit that depend on significant application of chemicals, fertilizers, and water. Supermarkets demand large fruit because they sell it by the pound and they want to force the customer to buy as much as possible. It would take a significant marketing effort to create a price premium for dry-farmed fruit that could balance out the yield loss.
  • • Dry-farmed orchards and vineyards come into production more slowly. It may take as long as five years for a dry-farmed vineyard to start producing.
  • • Farming on hillsides always presents the problem of soil erosion. Dry farming techniques usually involve a significant amount of cultivation, often in the spring when erosion could be exacerbated. The repeated cultivation used in most dry farmed vineyards will cause nitrous oxide to be emitted if chemical fertilizers are used. Nitrous oxide is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The use of compost and other organic fertilizers appears to reduce this problem.
  • • Finally, many agricultural areas of California are home to desert conditions with insufficient rainfall to pursue dry farming techniques. This is particularly true of the southern San Joaquin Valley. A place like Bakersfield averages only 6” of rain a year.

While dry farming is not for every grower or every region of California, it is a promising system of crop management that offers greater crop security in times of uncertain water supply and can offer a higher-quality product.

Water Savings

There is a lack of quantitative research documenting the extent of dry farming in California and its associated water savings. However, growers employing dry farming report significant water savings, not surprising given that irrigation is typically eliminated altogether.

As noted in the Frog’s Leap case study below, Frank Leeds estimates that his dry-farmed vineyards save a minimum of 16,000 gallons/acre compared to growers who irrigate lightly in Napa. Some vineyards use significantly more water. on Leeds’ 200 acres, he is saving a total of 10 acre-feet. If applied to 40,000 acres of vineyards in Napa, the water savings would translate to at least 2,000 acre-feet.

Jim Leap, when he was at the UC Santa Cruz student farm, calculated that he saved one acre-foot of water on each acre of dry farmed tomatoes compared to normal production in that region.

The UC Davis cost of production studies of typical California crops project the following volumes of irrigation water applied to the crop during a growing season:

  • • 2-3 feet (2-3 acre-feet per acre) for olives in the Sacramento valley
  • • 2 feet for potatoes in the Klamath basin
  • • 3 feet for bearing apples in the Sierra Foothills
  • • 30” for bearing pears in Lake/Mendocino area
  • • 3 feet for mature green fresh market tomatoes in the San Joaquin Valley

As we face water cutbacks in the future, these generous estimates may become a thing of the past. Obviously growers work to maximize yields to the extent possible in their given conditions, but the current and future constraints growers in many regions of the state are facing where water supply is concerned may be sufficient motivation to explore alternate paths such as dry farming.

Applications

In addition to grapes, we have found that tomatoes, pumpkins, watermelons, cantaloupes, winter squash, olives, garbanzos, apricots, apples, various grains, and potatoes are all crops that are successfully dry farmed in California. For example, apples were traditionally dry farmed in western Sonoma County. While the fruit size was smaller, the yields were good and most of the fruit went for processing where size is unimportant. There are probably many more such examples. See the case studies section below for some examples of growers that dry farm such crops in California.

There are a variety of traditional vineyards and orchards along the California coast and in the Sierra foothills that have never been irrigated. “Old vine zinfandel” often refers to a dry-farmed vineyard that may be more than 75 years old. For example, Benito Duce has dry farmed in Paso Robles since 1925, with his Zinfandel mostly going to Ridge Vineyards. Bogle Zinfandel uses old-vine dry-farmed fruit from Lodi and Amador County. Fetzer and their Bonterra label use some dry-farmed fruit in Mendocino. Dr. Steve Gliessman (Condor’s Hope)—and a professor of agroecology at UC Santa Cruz—dry farms his vines and olives in Santa Barbara. The Bucklin Old Hill vineyard in Sonoma Valley is more than 125 years old, with the fruit going to Ravenswood and Bucklin wines. Kunde in the same area has a “century” vineyard.

A number of farmers in the premium wine-growing regions have developed and expanded the practice, including Frog’s Leap and Turley in Napa. Many practitioners of dry farming maintain that all premium vineyards in the coastal valleys could be converted back to the practice.

Sufficient rainfall is required, probably in the range of 15-20” per year, although Steve Gliessman believes that it can be done with as little as 10-12”. Even this smaller amount would exclude most of the southern San Joaquin Valley between Fresno (11”) and Bakersfield (6”).

Dry-farming requires not only sufficient rainfall but also soils capable of retaining moisture, so sandy soils or heavily fractured soils are inappropriate, many of the same considerations as with siting a pond.

Additional Benefits

  • • The “dust mulch” (i.e., the dry layer of soil that is cultivated to trap moisture) is dry enough that few weeds grow, so herbicides are unnecessary, or, for organic farmers, little weeding is required.
  • • Less water used on crops will have positive impacts on water quality and in-stream flows.
  • • The energy used to transport and pump irrigation water is eliminated.
  • • Establishment and maintenance of drip irrigation systems are eliminated.
  • • Better tasting, more densely nutritious products.

Resources

Videos

A Return to Dry Farming, a video by Kate Wilson of Russian Riverkeeper

Dry Farming on the Cirone Farm, by Working for Green
Mike Cirone has not irrigated a single one of the fruit trees on the Cirone Farm for about fifteen years! So how is it that returning customers are still flocking to his stand at the local farmer’s market? Well, for the outstanding quality and flavor of his fruits of course! The Cirone’s Pink Lady apples, Fuji apples, sapotes, peaches and apricots are all products of the sustainable “dry farming” technique.

Books

Dryland Farming: Crops and Techniques For Arid Regions, by Randy Creswell and Dr. Franklin W. Martin
A concise overview of farming in arid regions. Includes a detailed description of dry farming techniques and practices.

Dry-Farming: Its Principles and Practice, by William MacDonald
This is a fascinating 1909 text about dry farming including information on the history of dry farming, conservation of soil moisture, rainfall and evaporation, tillage and crops. This free online version of the book (155 MB) is from The Internet Archive digital library.

Arid Agriculture: A Handbook for the Western Farmer and Stockman, by Burt C. Buffum
This is a 1909 text about farming in an arid climate with information about dry farming and moisture conservation and management techniques.
This free online version of the book (47 MB) is from The Internet Archive digital library.

Dry-Farming: A System of Agriculture for Countries Under a Low Rainfall, by John A. Widtsoe
This is a 1911 text about dry farming including information on dry farming conditions, soils, root systems, soil water storage, evaporation & transpiration, crops, and cultivation implements. This free online version of the book (53 mb) is from The Internet Archive digital library.

Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, Second Edition, by Steven R. Gliessman 
Covers dry farming and important information about the farm water environment. Available from Amazon for $63.89 as of Dec. 2011.

Articles

Turning water into wine: to water grapevines or not—the roots of the wine industry’s next great controversy, by Alice Feiring
A June 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article on irrigating wine grapes.

Taming the Tap, by Matthew E. Green
A March 2009 San Francisco Chronicle article on dry farming in California.

Back to the Future: dry farming, by Glenn T. McGourty
A February 2010 Wines and Vines article on dry farming wine grapes, by a Mendocino County farm advisor.

In Napa, a new path to using less water, by Jon Bonne.
A March 2010 San Francisco Chronicle article on dry farmed grapes in Napa by the newspaper’s wine editor.

Dry Farming: Old Techniques for a Sustainable Future, by Rachel Raphael
A Summer 2010 Edible Marin and Wine Country article. Includes discussions with John Williams and David Little.

How Dry I Am, by Alastair Bland
A May 2011 article in The Bohemian on dry farmed vineyards and more in Sonoma County.

A Field Guide to Sustainable and Delicious Dry Farmed Wines, by Alastair Bland
A June 2011 San Francisco Weekly article.

Dry Farming Vines, by Terry Harrison.
Prepared for the Eco-Winegrowing Symposium in Hopland, CA on July 20, 2011. Harrison, a former grape grower in Healdsburg, CA, discusses what he learned from CAFF’s dry farming field days with Frank Leeds, John Williams, Paul Bernier, Joe Votek, and Will Bucklin.

Case Studies on Dry Farmed Vineyards

Frog’s Leap Winery, Rutherford, CA

Frank Leeds’ and John Williams’ successful dry farmed vineyards in the Napa Valley.

The Poor Ranch, Hopland, CA

The Poor Ranch, run by John and Susan Poor in the hills above Hopland in Mendocino County, was homesteaded by the Poor family in 1888, and has expanded to over 1,000 acres. The Poors have 90 acres of wine grapes—80 are organic—including Zinfandel, Petite Syrah, Carignane, and Grenache. The Poors have always dry-farmed their grapes.

Case Studies on Other Dry Farmed Crops

Molino Creek Farm, Davenport, CA

Dry-farmed tomatoes were popularized by the Molino Creek Farm on the Santa Cruz coast at Davenport. As described on their website: “Critical to producing our best-tasting tomatoes is our method of dryland farming. We were pioneers in working out the means of growing tomatoes that are not irrigated at all. They survive by rooting themselves as deeply as possible into our rich clay soil and searching for moisture retained from the winter rains. Located on the Central Coast of California, we enjoy moderate summers in a microclimate of both sun and summer fog. With the combination of deep fertile soil and temperate weather, our tomatoes can produce the sweetest and most intense flavors.”

UC Santa Cruz Farm, Santa Cruz, CA

Jim Leap, the former farm manager at the UC Santa Cruz farm, had been teaching dry farming techniques that he learned from Molino Creek to his students for 20 years. He grows tomatoes, winter squash, dry beans, apples, and apricots. He transplants tomatoes in May after earlier trapping the moisture by tilling. Again, generous spacing is required, just as with perennial crops. He warns against heavily irrigating after transplanting, because you want the plant to drive its roots down into the soil

Little Organic Farm, Petaluma, CA

David Little dry farms potatoes, tomatoes, winter squash, onions, garlic, and other vegetables in Petaluma. He sells them to restaurants and at farmers markets. Potatoes have been dry farmed in Marin and Sonoma since the 1850s. Little says that he struggles with low yields (he estimates his yields at 25% of his competition) and the lack of a price premium for dry farmed crops.

Flatland Flower Farm, Sebastopol, CA

Dan Lehrer dry farms apples in Sebastopol, which he started doing by accident when his drip irrigation system broke down. He reports richer, crisper apples that ripen later and store longer.

Oh! Tommy Boy’s Organic Farm and Coastal Fog Organic Farm, Petaluma, CA

Oh! Tommy Boy and Coastal Fog dry farm 30 varieties of potatoes in Petaluma. They sell them at their farm stand, farmers’ markets, and to some stores and restaurants. The ranch has dry farmed potatoes since 1926, and their relatives have dry farmed potatoes since 1853 in the town of Bloomfield. Click here for a feature on Jim Morris and clan in Ag Alert.

Casey Hoppin, Knights Landing, CA

Casey Hoppin dry farms melons in Knights Landing, Yolo County. He says you have to have the right soil to make it work.



http://agwaterstewards.org/index.php/practices/dry_farming/#savings


728x90
728x90

Farmers plough the land near Ploiesti, Romania, using traditional methods. Photograph: Vadim Ghirda/AP

Time in Romania seems to fold with the landscape. Where the hills of Transylvania rise from the Hungarian plains, life carries on as it has for centuries; farmers cultivate their small plots of land by hand while pigs, chickens and children roam unpaved village streets.

However, where the land drops and the horizon opens up, history closes in and the reforms of the past 75 years, first under communism and then capitalism, become evident.

Around villages sealed off by concrete blocks built under Ceausescu, the land stretches out in huge fields carrying single crops, occasionally punctuated by the slow crawl of a €500,000 combine harvester. With uncapped EU subsidies rewarding growth and productivity over all else, these farms are growing exponentially, swallowing all in their way. This, it seems, is the future of Romanian agriculture. Yet, where this model of farming might have worked in other countries, Romania, like many of its Balkan neighbours, is a different story.

Despite the best efforts of Ceausescu to throw them off the land and the draw of new markets and employment opportunities since, around 30% of Romania's 19 million population continues to live off their subsistence and semi-subsistence farms. However, both Romanian government and policy makers in Brussels refuse to acknowledge that these are the people who prop up the Romanian economy, keep the culture alive and the environment diverse.

Instead, officials are systematically undermining the infrastructure that the country relies on. By applying the widely condemned one size fits all' policy central to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the vast majority of Romania's farmers are being cast to the sidelines. At present 51% of the €6bn yearly subsidies coming into Romania go to just 0.9% of farms, while a total of 70% of Romanian farms are considered ineligible for subsidies of any kind.

The networks of trade that peasant farmers have traditionally relied on are being eroded on both ends. With the seed market largely monopolised by multinationals who drive the price up for seeds that won't reproduce and must be bought anew each year, farmers are often forced into spending unnecessarily. At the other end, local markets are dying under competition from foreign superstores, selling food at low prices that are only made affordable by subsidies and technology that the peasant farmers don't have.

Today, an annual agribusiness conference is being held in Bucharest. It is the first such meeting under the new minister of agriculture, Daniel Consantin, the third person to hold the position this year. Smallholder farmers tentatively placed their hopes on Constantin, as he marks a break from the previous ministers, Valeriu Tabără and Stelian Fuia, both of whom had previously worked for controversial Biotech giant, Monsanto, and in favour both of further GMO cultivation and intensive farming.

However, the conference, sponsored by Monsanto, Pioneer and DuPont, and attended by some of the country's largest landowners, promises to continue in the old vein, leaving power in the hands of private investors. Even the secretary of state for agriculture, Achim Irimescu, was unable to deny that the sponsors and attendants had political motives for funding the event, saying "usually (these companies) have an interest in sponsoring these events for some kind of lobby purposes".

If the conference turns out as expected, it will be a demoralising sign for farmers and environmental NGOs who have been fighting for changes in the ministry of agriculture in the lead up to the CAP reforms in 2013. In order to both support its citizens and compete internationally on the food market, Romania needs to start to view its poor farmers as the building blocks on which it can create its future, rather than a persistent problem that needs to be phased out. Small farms are able to produce as much or more food as their large competitors, yet they are being killed off under the false promise of increasing yields and economic development. Until Romania focuses funds towards rural development and sustainable agriculture, it threatens its own culture, environment and the largest part of its population.


728x90
728x90

6월 9일 모내기를 마친 논. 모내기를 마친 지 18일 정도 지났다. 

이제 뿌리는 완전히 내리고 따가운 햇살을 받으며 무섭게 생장하는 시점.

전통농법을 활용하여 1~2포기씩 28X28cm 정도의 간격으로 심었다.




벌써 가지를 꽤 쳤다. 1~2포기를 심었는데 그 2배로 벌어진 듯하다. 

김매기를 위해 넣은 우렁이가 벼 줄기에 알을 깠다. 




아랫쪽 논에는 개구리밥이 잔뜩 끼었다. 




이곳은 더 반듯반듯하네. 




저 아랫쪽에 보이는 논은 기계로 모를 낸 논이다. 

논이 훨씬 더 꽉 찬 모습을 확인할 수 있다. 관행농에서는 보통 15X25cm 간격으로 1그루에 7~10포기의 모를 심는다.

좀 많이 빽빽하게 심는다고나 할까. 간격을 앞에 얘기한 것보다 더 좁게 잡는 곳도 허다하다. 

단위면적당 모의 수를 최대한으로 늘리려는 것인데, 너무 빽빽하여 서로 햇빛 경쟁만 심하게 할 뿐 튼실하게 자라지 못하는 단점도 있다.




아래의 논은 곧뿌림을 실험하는 논이다. 

옛날에는 빗물에 의지하는 논이 많았는데, 비가 오지 않을 경우 그냥 마른논에다 볍씨를 직접 심기도 했다. 

그걸 다시 한 번 재현해 보는 것이다. 어떠한 장단점이 있는지 확인하는 것이다.

확실히 벼의 자람새는 모를 낸 곳보다는 덜하다. 군데군데 풀도 꽤 많이 났다. 조만간 한 번 김매기를 해야 할 듯...




ㄴ자 관을 물꼬에 설치하여 적정 물높이 이상으로 올라가면 저절로 물이 빠지도록 했다.

이 관에도 우렁이들이 알을 깠다. 




더욱 반갑고 흥미로운 건 이 논에 제비와 백로들이 많이 찾아온다는 것이다.

제비는 이제 도시 지역에서는 거의 찾아볼 수가 없다. 서식 환경이 바뀌고 먹이가 부족해지면서 자연스레 찾아오지 않는 것이다.

그건 농촌이라고 해서 다르지 않다. 농촌의 주거환경이 많이 바뀌었고, 또 논에는 농약을 치면서 먹잇감이 많이 사라졌다.

그래서 농촌에도 제비가 찾아오지 않는 곳이 수두룩하다. 

그런데 이곳에 제비가 찾아온 것이다! 이곳은 경기도 군포시 속달마을...



728x90

'농담 > 텃밭농사' 카테고리의 다른 글

  (0) 2012.07.01
꾸지뽕 열매  (0) 2012.07.01
밀과 보리  (0) 2012.06.26
곧뿌림 배추  (0) 2012.06.26
먹이를 잡는 거미  (0) 2012.06.26

+ Recent posts