Are agricultural productivity and environmental conservation two separate issues? While that is what the big agricultural industry would claim, Britain’s chief scientist, John Beddington, along with an international group of scientists, have in their article in Science this month asked climate negotiators to stop ignoring agriculture.
Agriculture has been hovering just on the margins of climate change policy. While it is a fact that precise measurement of the climate impact of many industrial farming practices remains difficult and controversial, the overriding factor is that the indutry chooses to ignore any such consideration in the pursuit of profit. The U.S in particular has resisted any attempts to formalize the agricultural sector’s obligation to climate mitigation.
It is an irony that farming will be most affected by exacerbated climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the frequency of extreme weather events will increase and have disastrous on agricultural yields. Yet, the effects of unsustainable agriculture on the weather remains ignored largely.
Greenhouse gases are released by land clearing, inappropriate fertilizer use, and other practices while agricultural run-off carries nitrogen which ends up in the atmosphere as potent nitrous oxide. When forest land is cleared for farming, land which earlier acted as a sponge during rains becomes a sluice, and floods rivers and surrounding areas! How often are practices to mitigate taken? Rarely.
Surely it is time to review farming practices?
Showing posts with label Sustainable farming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sustainable farming. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
A quarter of global land 'highly degraded'
A UN report released this week says that 25% of all land on earth is “highly degraded” making it unsuitable for agriculture.
The implications of this finding are enormous; the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that farm output must increase by 70% by 2050 to accommodate the food needs of an estimated 9 billion humans.
That translates into another billion tons of grain foods and 200 million tons of livestock meat (note: as standards of living rise in developing nations, the demand for high-quality meat also rises).
Primitive or unsustainable farming practices like over-tilling can lead to soil erosion, loss of surface water and loss of biodiversity.
Consequently, the UN report, ‘State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture’ calls for “sustainable intensification” of agricultural productivity on existing farmland. To meet world water and food needs by 2050, the report recommends more efficient irrigation systems (most are currently below capacity), new farming practices (e.g., “integrated irrigation” and increased fish-farming [aquaculture] to meet protein demands), and more investment in agricultural development.
The implications of this finding are enormous; the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that farm output must increase by 70% by 2050 to accommodate the food needs of an estimated 9 billion humans.
That translates into another billion tons of grain foods and 200 million tons of livestock meat (note: as standards of living rise in developing nations, the demand for high-quality meat also rises).
Primitive or unsustainable farming practices like over-tilling can lead to soil erosion, loss of surface water and loss of biodiversity.
Consequently, the UN report, ‘State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture’ calls for “sustainable intensification” of agricultural productivity on existing farmland. To meet world water and food needs by 2050, the report recommends more efficient irrigation systems (most are currently below capacity), new farming practices (e.g., “integrated irrigation” and increased fish-farming [aquaculture] to meet protein demands), and more investment in agricultural development.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Save and grow
The present paradigm of intensive crop production cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium, says a new report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
In its "policymaker's guide" for developing-world agriculture called "Save and Grow" FAO begins thus: The Green Revolution in agriculture, which swept much of the developing world during the 1960s, saved an estimated one billion people from famine. Thanks to high-yielding crop varieties, irrigation, agrochemicals and modern management techniques, farmers in developing countries increased food production from 800 million tonnes to more than 2.2 billion tonnes between 1961 and 2000. Intensive crop production helped to reduce the number of undernourished, drive rural development and prevent the destruction of natural ecosystems to make way for extensive farming.
Those achievements came at a cost. In many countries, decades of intensive cropping have degraded fertile land and depleted groundwater, provoked pest upsurges, eroded biodiversity, and polluted air, soil and water. As the world population rises to a projected 9.2 billion in 2050, we have no option but to further intensify crop production.
But the yield growth rate of major cereals is declining, and farmers face a series of unprecedented, intersecting challenges: increasing competition for land and water, rising fuel and fertilizer prices, and the impact of climate change.
So what must farmers do? They must preserve the natural resources at their disposal in order to increase their productivity. Reduced tillage to save soil, crop rotations to save nutrients, and improved seeds to save water. And all this by traditional methods!
In opposition is the Global Harvest Initiative (GHI, a coalition of biotech and agribusiness companies that intends to fight against the agro-ecological techniques recommended by the FAO; it seems to think the FAO's approach is anti-technological. GHI believes the answers we need are beyond the knowledge of today's farmers and scientists.
Given the degradation wrought by industrial agriculture which saw use of chemicals and lavish irrigation, it perhaps seems a wise choice to save what little is left in our soils and groundwater. Sometimes, technology can have adverse effects. Can we afford to try another experiment on our soild and diversity? Not necessary a return to the cattle and plough but a minimum use of external inputs may be the answer.
In its "policymaker's guide" for developing-world agriculture called "Save and Grow" FAO begins thus: The Green Revolution in agriculture, which swept much of the developing world during the 1960s, saved an estimated one billion people from famine. Thanks to high-yielding crop varieties, irrigation, agrochemicals and modern management techniques, farmers in developing countries increased food production from 800 million tonnes to more than 2.2 billion tonnes between 1961 and 2000. Intensive crop production helped to reduce the number of undernourished, drive rural development and prevent the destruction of natural ecosystems to make way for extensive farming.
Those achievements came at a cost. In many countries, decades of intensive cropping have degraded fertile land and depleted groundwater, provoked pest upsurges, eroded biodiversity, and polluted air, soil and water. As the world population rises to a projected 9.2 billion in 2050, we have no option but to further intensify crop production.
But the yield growth rate of major cereals is declining, and farmers face a series of unprecedented, intersecting challenges: increasing competition for land and water, rising fuel and fertilizer prices, and the impact of climate change.
So what must farmers do? They must preserve the natural resources at their disposal in order to increase their productivity. Reduced tillage to save soil, crop rotations to save nutrients, and improved seeds to save water. And all this by traditional methods!
In opposition is the Global Harvest Initiative (GHI, a coalition of biotech and agribusiness companies that intends to fight against the agro-ecological techniques recommended by the FAO; it seems to think the FAO's approach is anti-technological. GHI believes the answers we need are beyond the knowledge of today's farmers and scientists.
Given the degradation wrought by industrial agriculture which saw use of chemicals and lavish irrigation, it perhaps seems a wise choice to save what little is left in our soils and groundwater. Sometimes, technology can have adverse effects. Can we afford to try another experiment on our soild and diversity? Not necessary a return to the cattle and plough but a minimum use of external inputs may be the answer.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Soiled soils
The planet's soils are under greater threat than ever before, at a time when we need to draw on their vital role to support life more than ever, warns an expert from the University of Sheffield in the journal Nature.
In some parts of the world, losses due to erosion are greatly outstripping the natural rate of soil formation; and the intensity of human activity is impacting the ability of soil to produce food, store carbon from the atmosphere, filter contamination from water supplies and maintain necessary biodiversity.
Because of growing demand for food, intensification of agriculture alone will put a huge strain on soils over the next few decades, and climate change adds to the challenge. Not only are nutrients being stripped away, but chemicals ocntinue to be added vigorously.
It becomes evident that what we need are rigorous forecasting methods to quantify and best utilise soil's natural capital, to assess options for maintaining or extending it, and to determine how the declines can be reversed. And we need these things well within a decade, as the team says.
Makes one wonder is there any part of the eco-system we 'wise wise humans' (homo sapiens sapiens) have left intact!
In some parts of the world, losses due to erosion are greatly outstripping the natural rate of soil formation; and the intensity of human activity is impacting the ability of soil to produce food, store carbon from the atmosphere, filter contamination from water supplies and maintain necessary biodiversity.
Because of growing demand for food, intensification of agriculture alone will put a huge strain on soils over the next few decades, and climate change adds to the challenge. Not only are nutrients being stripped away, but chemicals ocntinue to be added vigorously.
It becomes evident that what we need are rigorous forecasting methods to quantify and best utilise soil's natural capital, to assess options for maintaining or extending it, and to determine how the declines can be reversed. And we need these things well within a decade, as the team says.
Makes one wonder is there any part of the eco-system we 'wise wise humans' (homo sapiens sapiens) have left intact!
Monday, June 6, 2011
Mother Earth in a fix...
Here's another sombre thought: as world population goes north, the immediate need will be for more food. Which means agriculture. Which brings with it associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Humans are cultivating almost 40 percent of the land surface of the earth, and nearly a third of all the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet comes from agriculture and forestry. Not all of this is due to the transport factor.
Nitrogen fertilizer, is one large source of emissions, and not only because it requires natural gas to produce. After it is spread on fields, a portion of it turns into a potent greenhouse gas, N2O that escapes into the atmosphere. Part of the nitrogen is also washed down to our rivers.
But by far the biggest contribution from agriculture is owing ot the forests replaced as land is cleared for farming. Recent changes in land use have accounted for some 25 percent of the carbon dioxide being emitted on the planet, and the bulk of those changes are driven by agriculture.
Blame it on population or blame it on the Green revolution, we have a big problem. The Green Revolution varieties were 'ecological weaklings', as an expert puts it. They had shallow roots, short stems and couldn’t compete with the weeds and needed lots of care. What is now needed is to develop varieties with deeper root systems that can survive on less water and fertilizer. Either conventional breeding or the newer genetic engineering may help, but everything comes with its own uncertainties!
This will be the biggest challenge of the coming decades - how to provide food sustainably, without damaging the environment or running out of resources? All else comes after food.
Humans are cultivating almost 40 percent of the land surface of the earth, and nearly a third of all the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet comes from agriculture and forestry. Not all of this is due to the transport factor.
Nitrogen fertilizer, is one large source of emissions, and not only because it requires natural gas to produce. After it is spread on fields, a portion of it turns into a potent greenhouse gas, N2O that escapes into the atmosphere. Part of the nitrogen is also washed down to our rivers.
But by far the biggest contribution from agriculture is owing ot the forests replaced as land is cleared for farming. Recent changes in land use have accounted for some 25 percent of the carbon dioxide being emitted on the planet, and the bulk of those changes are driven by agriculture.
Blame it on population or blame it on the Green revolution, we have a big problem. The Green Revolution varieties were 'ecological weaklings', as an expert puts it. They had shallow roots, short stems and couldn’t compete with the weeds and needed lots of care. What is now needed is to develop varieties with deeper root systems that can survive on less water and fertilizer. Either conventional breeding or the newer genetic engineering may help, but everything comes with its own uncertainties!
This will be the biggest challenge of the coming decades - how to provide food sustainably, without damaging the environment or running out of resources? All else comes after food.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Fertiliser runoff degrading fresh water
Writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters, Stephen Carpenter of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Elena Bennett of McGill University report that the human use of phosphorous, primarily in the industrialized world, is causing the widespread eutrophication of fresh surface water. Equally important, the minable global stocks of phosphorous are concentrated in just a few countries and are in decline, posing the risk of global shortages within the next 20 years.
Phosphorous is an essential element for life. Living organisms, including humans, have small amounts and the element is crucial for driving the energetic processes of cells. In agriculture, phosphorous mined from ancient marine deposits is widely used to boost crop yields. The element also has other industrial uses.
But, excess phosphorous from fertilizer that washes from farm fields and suburban lawns into lakes and streams is the primary cause of the algae blooms that throw freshwater ecosystems out of kilter and degrade water quality. Carpenter and Bennett write that the "planetary boundary for freshwater eutrophication has been crossed while potential boundaries for ocean anoxic events and depletion of phosphate rock reserves loom in the future."
Excess phosphorous in the environment is a problem primarily in the industrialized world, mainly Europe, North America and parts of Asia. In other parts of the world, notably Africa and Australia, soils are phosphorous poor, creating a stark imbalance.
Yet another planetary boundary crossed!
Phosphorous is an essential element for life. Living organisms, including humans, have small amounts and the element is crucial for driving the energetic processes of cells. In agriculture, phosphorous mined from ancient marine deposits is widely used to boost crop yields. The element also has other industrial uses.
But, excess phosphorous from fertilizer that washes from farm fields and suburban lawns into lakes and streams is the primary cause of the algae blooms that throw freshwater ecosystems out of kilter and degrade water quality. Carpenter and Bennett write that the "planetary boundary for freshwater eutrophication has been crossed while potential boundaries for ocean anoxic events and depletion of phosphate rock reserves loom in the future."
Excess phosphorous in the environment is a problem primarily in the industrialized world, mainly Europe, North America and parts of Asia. In other parts of the world, notably Africa and Australia, soils are phosphorous poor, creating a stark imbalance.
Yet another planetary boundary crossed!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Evergreen agri
Doubling food production by mid-century, particularly in Africa and Asia, will require non-conventional approaches, particularly since so many of the continent's soils are depleted, and farmers are faced with a changing climate. Experts feel the urgent need to reinvent agriculture in a sustainable and affordable way, so that it can reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases and be adapted to climate.
The world has to develop a concrete action plan for linking agriculture-related investments, policies, and measures to transition agriculture to lower carbon-emitting, climate-resilient growth. Step in Evergreen Agriculture.
Fertilizer trees draw nitrogen from the air and transfer it to the soil through their roots and leaf litter, replenishing exhausted soils with rich sources of organic nutrients. The trees bolster nutrient supply, increase food crop yields, and enhance the production of fodder, fuel and timber.
These systems also provide additional income to farmers from tree products, while at the same time storing much greater amounts of carbon than other agricultural systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already noted that transforming degraded agricultural lands into agroforestry has far greater potential to store carbon than any other managed land use change.
Evergreen agriculture has already provided benefits to several million farmers in Zambia, Malawi, Niger and Burkina Faso. For example, farmers in Malawi have increased their maize yields by up to 280 percent when the crop is grown under a canopy of one particular fertilizing tree, Faidherbia albida. Unlike most other trees, Faidherbia sheds its leaves during the early rainy season and remains dormant during the crop-growing period. This makes it highly compatible with food crops. In Niger, there are now more than 4.8 million hectares of millet and sorghum being grown in agroforests that have up to 160 Faidherbia trees on each hectare.
A word of caution: what fits Africa may not be best for Asia. There is already a lot of hype on endophyte (a micro-organism) based agriculture that helps do away with a large part of chemical inputs. However, one needs to be careful not to overdo it, and upset the ecosystem balance.
The world has to develop a concrete action plan for linking agriculture-related investments, policies, and measures to transition agriculture to lower carbon-emitting, climate-resilient growth. Step in Evergreen Agriculture.
Fertilizer trees draw nitrogen from the air and transfer it to the soil through their roots and leaf litter, replenishing exhausted soils with rich sources of organic nutrients. The trees bolster nutrient supply, increase food crop yields, and enhance the production of fodder, fuel and timber.
These systems also provide additional income to farmers from tree products, while at the same time storing much greater amounts of carbon than other agricultural systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already noted that transforming degraded agricultural lands into agroforestry has far greater potential to store carbon than any other managed land use change.
Evergreen agriculture has already provided benefits to several million farmers in Zambia, Malawi, Niger and Burkina Faso. For example, farmers in Malawi have increased their maize yields by up to 280 percent when the crop is grown under a canopy of one particular fertilizing tree, Faidherbia albida. Unlike most other trees, Faidherbia sheds its leaves during the early rainy season and remains dormant during the crop-growing period. This makes it highly compatible with food crops. In Niger, there are now more than 4.8 million hectares of millet and sorghum being grown in agroforests that have up to 160 Faidherbia trees on each hectare.
A word of caution: what fits Africa may not be best for Asia. There is already a lot of hype on endophyte (a micro-organism) based agriculture that helps do away with a large part of chemical inputs. However, one needs to be careful not to overdo it, and upset the ecosystem balance.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Too much carbon not good for plants
Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could reduce the protein content of crop plants by as much as 20 percent, according to a new study. Researchers at the University of California, Davis say high CO2 levels interfere with the ability of plants to convert nitrate into proteins, and thus reduce their quality as food.
The findings, the researchers say, suggest new fertilizers may be needed to counteract rising levels of atmospheric CO2 in the coming decades. The scientists tested how two major forms of soil nitrogen — nitrate and ammonium — affected wheat and the mustard plant, Arabidopsis, that were exposed to elevated CO2 levels. Those crops exposed to CO2 had a reduced ability to produce nitrogen-containing compounds, including proteins. Increased CO2 levels predicted for the next 20–50 years could reduce the amount of protein in crops by up to a fifth because of this phenomenon.
This study is alerting us about the need to develop new fertilisation techniques and to improve crops' nitrogen use efficiencies.
Perhaps organic farming is the solution. Kerala in India has officially announced a new farming policy which aims to covert all agriculture in the state to organic methods over the next ten years. Recently, the state of Sikkim, in the northeast part of the country, announced that it had converted 6,000 of its 70,000 hectares of agricultural land to organic agriculture, on way to converting it all by 2015.
Organic farming advocates also claim it reduces carbon emissions in farming. In the long run, dependence on fertilisers and chemical pesticides is a good thing for the soil.
The findings, the researchers say, suggest new fertilizers may be needed to counteract rising levels of atmospheric CO2 in the coming decades. The scientists tested how two major forms of soil nitrogen — nitrate and ammonium — affected wheat and the mustard plant, Arabidopsis, that were exposed to elevated CO2 levels. Those crops exposed to CO2 had a reduced ability to produce nitrogen-containing compounds, including proteins. Increased CO2 levels predicted for the next 20–50 years could reduce the amount of protein in crops by up to a fifth because of this phenomenon.
This study is alerting us about the need to develop new fertilisation techniques and to improve crops' nitrogen use efficiencies.
Perhaps organic farming is the solution. Kerala in India has officially announced a new farming policy which aims to covert all agriculture in the state to organic methods over the next ten years. Recently, the state of Sikkim, in the northeast part of the country, announced that it had converted 6,000 of its 70,000 hectares of agricultural land to organic agriculture, on way to converting it all by 2015.
Organic farming advocates also claim it reduces carbon emissions in farming. In the long run, dependence on fertilisers and chemical pesticides is a good thing for the soil.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Turning deserts green
Fuel security or food security, which will be more crucial in the days to come? Of course, we know the vital role plays today in our economy, food included. Without the fuel there is no fertilizer, nor irrigation. But, when it comes to what we can be without, what will the answer be?
No wonder, the Middle East is taking food security seriously. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait are in the midst of a massive project to re-landscape their deserts and transform them into fertile farmland, providing food security for their future. The countries are utilizing a mixture of microbes and soil — called mycorrhiza — that allows plants to absorb more nutrients than they can alone.
By researching areas that have significant amounts of water and soil fertility and harnessing mycorrhiza they have already been able to convert 4,000 square meters of “hyper-saline waste-land” into a vegetable and grain producing farm.
Abu Dhabi hopes to find enough arable land to increase their domestic food production up to 70% higher than current levels. The Gulf won’t be able to find enough land to support 100% of their food needs but no arguing that it is a better choice to grow local as against the growing practice of buying arable land in faraway US to produce food.
Will natural desert ecosystems take kindly to this intervention? Where will water come from? Like in the US southwestern region which is naturally desert and irrigation is slowly draining the Colorado River, will some such scheme be devised? In the short-term they may provide relief, but in the long-term it could end up a disaster. Should natural ecosystems be preserved or geo-engineered? What do you think?
No wonder, the Middle East is taking food security seriously. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait are in the midst of a massive project to re-landscape their deserts and transform them into fertile farmland, providing food security for their future. The countries are utilizing a mixture of microbes and soil — called mycorrhiza — that allows plants to absorb more nutrients than they can alone.
By researching areas that have significant amounts of water and soil fertility and harnessing mycorrhiza they have already been able to convert 4,000 square meters of “hyper-saline waste-land” into a vegetable and grain producing farm.
Abu Dhabi hopes to find enough arable land to increase their domestic food production up to 70% higher than current levels. The Gulf won’t be able to find enough land to support 100% of their food needs but no arguing that it is a better choice to grow local as against the growing practice of buying arable land in faraway US to produce food.
Will natural desert ecosystems take kindly to this intervention? Where will water come from? Like in the US southwestern region which is naturally desert and irrigation is slowly draining the Colorado River, will some such scheme be devised? In the short-term they may provide relief, but in the long-term it could end up a disaster. Should natural ecosystems be preserved or geo-engineered? What do you think?
Friday, November 20, 2009
Needed: new ways to farm
Coming after the International Energy Agency’s new World Energy Outlook published last week which expects the global demand for oil to rise from 85m barrels a day in 2008 to 105m in 2030, a paper published by the Uppsala University in Sweden in the journal Energy Policy, anticipates that maximum global production of all kinds of oil in 2030 will be 76m barrels per day.
As the UK Energy Research Centre noted, the date of peak oil will be determined not by the total size of the global resource but by the rate at which it can be exploited. New discoveries would have to be implausibly large to make a significant difference. A field the size of all the oil reserves ever struck in the USA can delay the date of peaking by only four years. Clearly, if we fail to replace oil before the supply peaks then crashes, the global economy is doomed.
A report commissioned by the US Department of Energy shows, an emergency programme to replace current energy supplies or equipment to anticipate peak oil would need about 20 years to take effect. Columnist George Monbiot is among those who sees no hope for world economy, “but at least we could save farming”.
According to farm scientists at Cornell University, cultivating one hectare of maize in the United States requires 40 litres of petrol and 75 litres of diesel. The amazing productivity of modern farm labour has been purchased at the cost of a dependency on oil, says Monbiot. “Unless farmers can change the way it’s grown, a permanent oil shock would price food out of the mouths of many of the world’s people.”
What are the solutions? He cites two possible options: either the mass replacement of farm machinery or the development of new farming systems, which don’t need much labour or energy.
Labour is of course not as much an issue as energy in the developing world.
How fast all this can be done depends on whether we and our policy makers believe the crash will happen, and soon.
Share your ideas on how to wean farming from energy and water.
As the UK Energy Research Centre noted, the date of peak oil will be determined not by the total size of the global resource but by the rate at which it can be exploited. New discoveries would have to be implausibly large to make a significant difference. A field the size of all the oil reserves ever struck in the USA can delay the date of peaking by only four years. Clearly, if we fail to replace oil before the supply peaks then crashes, the global economy is doomed.
A report commissioned by the US Department of Energy shows, an emergency programme to replace current energy supplies or equipment to anticipate peak oil would need about 20 years to take effect. Columnist George Monbiot is among those who sees no hope for world economy, “but at least we could save farming”.
According to farm scientists at Cornell University, cultivating one hectare of maize in the United States requires 40 litres of petrol and 75 litres of diesel. The amazing productivity of modern farm labour has been purchased at the cost of a dependency on oil, says Monbiot. “Unless farmers can change the way it’s grown, a permanent oil shock would price food out of the mouths of many of the world’s people.”
What are the solutions? He cites two possible options: either the mass replacement of farm machinery or the development of new farming systems, which don’t need much labour or energy.
Labour is of course not as much an issue as energy in the developing world.
How fast all this can be done depends on whether we and our policy makers believe the crash will happen, and soon.
Share your ideas on how to wean farming from energy and water.
Friday, October 16, 2009
A thought for vanishing food
If there is one challenge bigger than that of climate change, it is that of poverty. The absolute number of poor people is still increasing (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa), and the projection is that 1 billion people will still be living below US$1.25 a day in 2015. To put it more vividly, every one in four lives in abject poverty. And when you talk poverty, the first requirement is that of food.
A recent FAO report talks of how declining aid and investment in agriculture has been increasing the number of undernourished people to a billion now.
Why has agriculture not been given priority? Global food output has to increase by 70 percent to feed projected population in 2050. What are we doing towards achieving that? Nothing. Merrily converting agricultural land to industrial purpose. Should the contribution of agriculture to GDP remain marginal? Can we not make investment in agriculture more attractive?
Equally important, how optimally can we use energy and water to increase food production? For as Michael Pollan notes, we have shifted from a food economy that yielded two calories of food for every one calorie of fossil fuel we burned to grow, harvest, process and distribute the food, to a food economy that yields one calorie of food for every ten calories of fossil fuel we put into obtaining it.
At the World Food Prize in Des Moines, Iowa recently, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded $120 million in nine new grants to organizations and research partners to work on the effort, focusing primarily on small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa.
In his speech Gates called for an end to the ideological division over the future of agriculture: “Productivity or sustainability — they say you have to choose. It’s a false choice,” he said. Rather, we need farming techniques that are both environmentally responsible and highly productive, and technology will help bridge the gap, he said.
Projects including distribution of legumes that fix nitrogen in the soil and pest-resistant sweet potatoes, help for women farmers in India to manage land and water resources sustainably and programs to deliver information to farmers via radio and mobile phones, all can avail the grant.
The Gates Foundation has committed billions already for agricultural development efforts — promoting techniques such as no-till farming (explained in the video clip below), rainwater harvesting and drip irrigation. Companies are working on smart water management, soil moisture sensors and wireless networks, etc. Web marketplaces are helping small farmers sell their produce.
This could well be the true green revolution, right? New ideas in food, energy and water coming together! Write in to us if you have heard of successful experiments.
A recent FAO report talks of how declining aid and investment in agriculture has been increasing the number of undernourished people to a billion now.
Why has agriculture not been given priority? Global food output has to increase by 70 percent to feed projected population in 2050. What are we doing towards achieving that? Nothing. Merrily converting agricultural land to industrial purpose. Should the contribution of agriculture to GDP remain marginal? Can we not make investment in agriculture more attractive?
Equally important, how optimally can we use energy and water to increase food production? For as Michael Pollan notes, we have shifted from a food economy that yielded two calories of food for every one calorie of fossil fuel we burned to grow, harvest, process and distribute the food, to a food economy that yields one calorie of food for every ten calories of fossil fuel we put into obtaining it.
At the World Food Prize in Des Moines, Iowa recently, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded $120 million in nine new grants to organizations and research partners to work on the effort, focusing primarily on small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa.
In his speech Gates called for an end to the ideological division over the future of agriculture: “Productivity or sustainability — they say you have to choose. It’s a false choice,” he said. Rather, we need farming techniques that are both environmentally responsible and highly productive, and technology will help bridge the gap, he said.
Projects including distribution of legumes that fix nitrogen in the soil and pest-resistant sweet potatoes, help for women farmers in India to manage land and water resources sustainably and programs to deliver information to farmers via radio and mobile phones, all can avail the grant.
The Gates Foundation has committed billions already for agricultural development efforts — promoting techniques such as no-till farming (explained in the video clip below), rainwater harvesting and drip irrigation. Companies are working on smart water management, soil moisture sensors and wireless networks, etc. Web marketplaces are helping small farmers sell their produce.
This could well be the true green revolution, right? New ideas in food, energy and water coming together! Write in to us if you have heard of successful experiments.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Energy on the farm
International Development Enterprises India, a non-profit NGO has developed human/gravity-powered irrigators, water storage systems and treadle pumps that consume no electrical power, use far less water than current irrigators and are simple, low-cost and user friendly.
80-85% of water utilisation in India is from agriculture, with irrigation also being the largest consumer of agricultural energy. Only 10 percent are big farmers. The rest have to often pool resources. Pumpsets, tractors and fertilisers account for the large energy intake.
Replacing large-scale fertiliser use with mixed crop farming and crop rotation, desisting from slash and burn practice, rainwater harvesting instead of over-exploitation on groundwater, are being advocated to reduce the carbon and water footprint of agriculture.
Will it mean a return to animal power on our farms? Is there any visible reduction in the use of fertiliser? If the nutrients have been removed from the soil, can natural farming address the situation?
80-85% of water utilisation in India is from agriculture, with irrigation also being the largest consumer of agricultural energy. Only 10 percent are big farmers. The rest have to often pool resources. Pumpsets, tractors and fertilisers account for the large energy intake.
Replacing large-scale fertiliser use with mixed crop farming and crop rotation, desisting from slash and burn practice, rainwater harvesting instead of over-exploitation on groundwater, are being advocated to reduce the carbon and water footprint of agriculture.
Will it mean a return to animal power on our farms? Is there any visible reduction in the use of fertiliser? If the nutrients have been removed from the soil, can natural farming address the situation?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Food will get scarce
Up to 25% of world food production could be lost to “environmental breakdowns” by 2050 unless action is taken. Cereal yields worldwide have stagnated, while one-third of these are used as feed for livestock. This figure is expected to rise to 50% by 2050, with environmental degradation and poverty rates increasing.
If you think the Rs 38 per kilo of rice is exorbitant, be ready for more. The 100 year long trend of falling food prices is likely over, with food price rises of 30-50% likely within next few decades. Those living in extreme poverty may end up spending 90% of their income on food.
The report, entitled 'The Environmental Food crises: Environment's role in averting future food crises', has been compiled by a wide group of experts from both within and outside UNEP.
Climate change emerges as one of the key factors that may undermine the chances of feeding over nine billion people by 2050. Increasing water scarcities and a rise and spread of invasive pests such as insects, diseases and weeds - may substantially depress yields in the future.
The melting and disappearing glaciers of the mighty Himalayas, linked to climate change, supply water for irrigation for near half of Asia's cereal production or a quarter of the world production.
Globally, water scarcity may reduce crop yields by up to 12 per cent.
Not to despair, the remedy is as simple as changing the ways in which food is produced, handled and disposed of across the globe- from farm to store and from fridge to landfill. When modified sustainably, this can both feed the world's rising population and help the environmental services that are the foundation of agricultural productivity in the first place, says the report.
A recent report by UNEP and the UN Conference on Trade and Development surveyed 114 small-scale farms in 24 African countries. Yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used, with the in yield jumping to 128 per cent in east Africa.
The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming and also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought.
If you think the Rs 38 per kilo of rice is exorbitant, be ready for more. The 100 year long trend of falling food prices is likely over, with food price rises of 30-50% likely within next few decades. Those living in extreme poverty may end up spending 90% of their income on food.
The report, entitled 'The Environmental Food crises: Environment's role in averting future food crises', has been compiled by a wide group of experts from both within and outside UNEP.
Climate change emerges as one of the key factors that may undermine the chances of feeding over nine billion people by 2050. Increasing water scarcities and a rise and spread of invasive pests such as insects, diseases and weeds - may substantially depress yields in the future.
The melting and disappearing glaciers of the mighty Himalayas, linked to climate change, supply water for irrigation for near half of Asia's cereal production or a quarter of the world production.
Globally, water scarcity may reduce crop yields by up to 12 per cent.
Not to despair, the remedy is as simple as changing the ways in which food is produced, handled and disposed of across the globe- from farm to store and from fridge to landfill. When modified sustainably, this can both feed the world's rising population and help the environmental services that are the foundation of agricultural productivity in the first place, says the report.
A recent report by UNEP and the UN Conference on Trade and Development surveyed 114 small-scale farms in 24 African countries. Yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used, with the in yield jumping to 128 per cent in east Africa.
The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming and also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Food for thought
A new diet, sustainable and equitable has been called for by food expert Professor Lang of UK’s newly formed Food Council. He has called for a new approach that addresses fundamentals like biodiversity, energy, water and urbanization.
Food production is dropping, and food is increasingly tied to an oil economy with much of what we eat traveling miles from where it is produced. Feeding a projected nine billion people by 2050 is going to be a big challenge when resources are from the same dwindling pool. To increase production, we have the knowledge and the technology required, but environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity threaten our ability to succeed.
Producing food and transporting consumes energy, water and time. In this context, experts believe the way forward is to encourage more people to grow food in their backyard. (Backyards are a luxury in Indian urban space!)
The Food Council in its advice to the British consumer calls for them to make a choice between an apple that is Chinese, French or English one! ‘They are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one. They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting.”
That is where exports will take a beating. Markets that made a killing once by growing exotic flowers or food, and depleting resources back home will have to rethink now.
Do we need a food council to do some thinking-ahead for us? Are we using optimum water and energy for our food production? Is anyone thinking of food production and food security in the second populous nation of the world? Why is it there is not the same emphasis on agriculture as on industry here? Any bright ideas?
Food production is dropping, and food is increasingly tied to an oil economy with much of what we eat traveling miles from where it is produced. Feeding a projected nine billion people by 2050 is going to be a big challenge when resources are from the same dwindling pool. To increase production, we have the knowledge and the technology required, but environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity threaten our ability to succeed.
Producing food and transporting consumes energy, water and time. In this context, experts believe the way forward is to encourage more people to grow food in their backyard. (Backyards are a luxury in Indian urban space!)
The Food Council in its advice to the British consumer calls for them to make a choice between an apple that is Chinese, French or English one! ‘They are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one. They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting.”
That is where exports will take a beating. Markets that made a killing once by growing exotic flowers or food, and depleting resources back home will have to rethink now.
Do we need a food council to do some thinking-ahead for us? Are we using optimum water and energy for our food production? Is anyone thinking of food production and food security in the second populous nation of the world? Why is it there is not the same emphasis on agriculture as on industry here? Any bright ideas?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Are YOU eating oil, spewing GHGs?
A sector that does not get mentioned often in climate change talks is the food sector. That is, besides its consumption of energy vis a vis pumpsets, and water usage. But this is one sector of the economy that guzzles fossil fuels most, coming second only after cars. While energy usage is at 19 percent, the greenhouse gas emitted by this sector is almost 37 percent.
An interesting article in the New York Times looks at ‘solar farming’ as a viable alternative to industrial farming. From clearing crops after harvest, to tilling, chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm machinery, modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food.
As Michael Pollan puts it in his open letter to the US President, when we consume industrially manufactured foods, we are ‘eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases’. But this cannot continue. As population touches the 9 billion in a few more years, demand will double and triple. But equally deterring will be the unavailability of energy. Cheap energy had ‘underwritten a globalised food economy’ where salmon caught in Alaska was shipped to China to be filleted and shipped back to California to be consumes!
Pollan goes on to lay simple guidelines for the American government to adopt. But as he says, change is required in the way food is grown in the field, processed, cooked and eaten!
Crop bio-diversity that removes dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, and is supported by subsidies given on the number of different crops the farmer grows; crop plants and animals must once again ‘be married on the farm’; focus on quality than quantity (yield); regionalizing food system; educating children on growing crops, kitchen gardens in schools, etc are some steps he advocates.
What is highly relevant for a ‘once-predominantly’ agricultural nation like India from such a ‘sun-based agriculture’ that Pollan proposes is that it is highly labour-intensive. It has the potential to generate ‘green’ jobs that will be at the forefront of the economy.
Rising prices and increasing imports are sure indications of the aggravating food crisis. Food security should come above any other securities. After all, without the daily ration of rice, what use would chips and cars be to anyone?
An interesting article in the New York Times looks at ‘solar farming’ as a viable alternative to industrial farming. From clearing crops after harvest, to tilling, chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm machinery, modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food.
As Michael Pollan puts it in his open letter to the US President, when we consume industrially manufactured foods, we are ‘eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases’. But this cannot continue. As population touches the 9 billion in a few more years, demand will double and triple. But equally deterring will be the unavailability of energy. Cheap energy had ‘underwritten a globalised food economy’ where salmon caught in Alaska was shipped to China to be filleted and shipped back to California to be consumes!
Pollan goes on to lay simple guidelines for the American government to adopt. But as he says, change is required in the way food is grown in the field, processed, cooked and eaten!
Crop bio-diversity that removes dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, and is supported by subsidies given on the number of different crops the farmer grows; crop plants and animals must once again ‘be married on the farm’; focus on quality than quantity (yield); regionalizing food system; educating children on growing crops, kitchen gardens in schools, etc are some steps he advocates.
What is highly relevant for a ‘once-predominantly’ agricultural nation like India from such a ‘sun-based agriculture’ that Pollan proposes is that it is highly labour-intensive. It has the potential to generate ‘green’ jobs that will be at the forefront of the economy.
Rising prices and increasing imports are sure indications of the aggravating food crisis. Food security should come above any other securities. After all, without the daily ration of rice, what use would chips and cars be to anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
