Tag Archives: Food

Climate pioneers: how small farmers could be leading the way towards sustainable agriculture


Small farmers in Maza village, Morogoro, Tanzania. US government/Flickr

Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Anglia Ruskin University

Agriculture is a leading cause of climate change, but it is also undeniably affected by it. Farming must therefore change in order to keep up with global demands, while reducing its environmental impact. Without these necessary changes, it’s estimated that by 2030, the impacts of climate change will be even worse, causing yields to decline so much that we will cancel out any progress we have made towards eliminating global hunger.

Some of those worst affected by climate change are small farmers (those working on land under two hectares). There are around 475m small farms around the world, cultivating around 12% of the world’s farmed land. Small farmers in the tropics and poorer agricultural communities will be particularly severely affected by climate change.

However, many of these small farmers are increasingly using innovative ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. They are the true pioneers of climate-smart agriculture, using practices that maintain productivity while decreasing emissions. They are also producing a range of other benefits such as poverty alleviation, better nutrition and biodiversity conservation.

Sustainable but healthy yields

In the 20th century, farmers boosted yields by intensifying production: using more water, land, energy, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers. This model tended to assume that you couldn’t have high yields as well as environmental protection. Now, we understand that this is a false choice, and that sustainable intensification – producing healthy yields and higher incomes while building ecosystems on and around the farm – is possible. And it looks like small farmers are leading the way in implementing such sustainable intensification around the world.

There are three steps towards sustainable intensification. These are increased efficiency (doing more with less), substitution (replacing ineffective or harmful products) and redesign (changing the whole farm to be more sustainable). These steps are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

For example, rice plants are typically planted close together in flooded nurseries. But they can also be grown in nutrient-rich nurseries that aren’t flooded – something that saves around 40% of the water used compared to conventional production methods. However, the system is about more than simple resource efficiency – it actually involves a fundamental redesign of the whole system of rice production.

Rice farmer in Punjab, India. Neil Palmer (CIAT)/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Substitution involves replacing less efficient or harmful inputs such as synthetic pesticides, which can be harmful for wildlife, with better alternatives. You can also replace old crop varieties with new ones that can withstand sudden changes, or which need less water – important for climate resilience. New varieties may also be able to help reduce agricultural emissions. For example, plants with greater root mass could help sequester an estimated 50 to 100 tonnes of carbon per hectare.

Radical approaches

Radical redesign of farms involves techniques such as conservation agriculture – practices that minimise the disruption of the soil’s structure and biodiversity. Integrated pest management, which involves strategies to deal with pests without posing risks to the environment, and agroforestry, using trees in agriculture, are also good examples. A recent assessment estimated that around 163m farms worldwide (29% of the global total) practice some form of redesign.

The evidence shows that these methods are already helping small farmers achieve healthy yields while delivering a range of other benefits, including carbon sequestration, using less energy and synthetic inputs and climate resilience.

One example is the “push-pull integrated pest management”. Push-pull is a method of pest control that was developed in East Africa to help farmers deal with stemborers and striga weeds, which attack crops such as maize. Instead of relying exclusively on synthetic pesticides, farmers grow pest-repelling plants such as desmodium (which push the pests away) in among the main crop. They also plant borders around their fields of other crops such as such as Napier grass, which attracts pests (pull).

This keeps pests away from the main cereal crops, reducing losses. In recent years, push-pull systems have been adapted to include plants such as Brachiaria, which can tolerate hotter and drier climates. Such systems are used across 69,000 small farms across Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia.

Other methods of redesign are also being practised at scale by small farmers in other places. In India, 140,000 farmers in Andhra Pradesh and an estimated 100,000 in Karnataka practice “zero budget natural farming”. This is an initiative which promotes the natural growth of crops without adding any synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. In Africa, small farmers in Burkina Faso and Niger have taken up agroforestry and soil and water conservation, and transformed the landscape of around 500,000 hectares of degraded land.

The redesign of agriculture offers the best chances for achieving lower carbon, climate-proof agriculture in the 21st century. But, it requires new partnerships between farmers, development agencies, governments and researchers. Farming is knowledge intensive, and will be increasingly so in a changing world. Sustainable intensification initiatives that have spread to scale have all involved new initiatives to support collaboration and learning. Farmer field schools, training programmes for local farmers, are key to this. So are plant breeding programmes in which participating farmers get opportunities to make decisions at different stages during the process.

Ultimately, climate proofing is best achieved by improving the sustainability of existing systems. Small farmers already know what works. The challenge remains to help them spearhead the global spread of redesigned agriculture.

Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Senior Research fellow, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Climate crisis: the countryside could be our greatest ally – if we can reform farming


The Yorkshire Dales, England. Jakob Cotton/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

Ian Boyd, University of St Andrews

Around 20% of the UK’s farms account for 80% of the country’s total food production, and they do this on about half of all the farmed land there is. At least 80% of farms in the UK don’t produce very much at all.

In England, just 7% of farms produce over half of the country’s agricultural output – on 30% of its farmland. A little under half (42%) of England’s farms produce a meagre 2% of the total agricultural output, working just 8% of the country’s total land.

In an average year, mixed farming, livestock grazing and cereal farms make a financial loss on what they produce, and much of the income on these farms comes from government subsidy. In all these cases, this subsidy forms the majority of income. Livestock farming is the least profitable sector of all while some of the most profitable sectors like horticulture – producing everything from vegetables to soft fruit and tomatoes – receive very little subsidy.

Land is precious, and there are trade offs between designating enough to grow food and reserving it for other vital functions, like natural wilderness for biodiversity, recreation and carbon storage. This is as true in the UK as it is in the rest of the world.

Some farmers argue that they are the custodians of the land and the wildlife that live on it, but much of the evidence suggests that this role is neglected in the UK. Much farmed soil has been drained of its natural nutrients and now relies on artificial inputs like fertiliser. Rather than offering a haven for struggling bird species, it seems little progress has been made in halting declines in wildlife abundance on farmland.

A grey partridge – this species lives on farmland but has declined by more than 80% in the UK since 1970. Marek Szczepanek/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

Agriculture is also a major emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for about 10% of total UK emissions. Some estimates suggest that ten “calories” of fossil fuel energy is needed to produce a single calorie of protein.

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy protected the right of people to farm unproductive land for the sake of countryside prosperity. But farming contributes only about 4% to the rural economy of England. Overall, UK agricultural production has stagnated in absolute terms since the late 1980s. This has meant unprofitable and environmentally damaging agriculture is maintained through subsidy. It’s time that a new policy shifted the balance.

Rewild, restore and reopen

Agriculture in the UK uses a vast amount of resources – energy, pesticides, water and mineral fertilisers – compared to the amount of goods it produces. For the productivity of agriculture to match other developed sectors of the economy like construction, agriculture would need to produce five to ten times more from the land it consumes.

Much of this inefficiency is caused by the energy used to produce fertilisers and livestock production. Only about 10-20% of vegetable matter fed to livestock is converted into meat for people to eat. Animals are often fed plant-based food produced on land which could also produce human food. Around 75% of the calories fed to livestock in the UK comes from these sources. As much as ten plant-based meals could be produced for the same material cost as it takes to produce one meat-based meal.

So what’s the alternative? If the UK wants to play its part in feeding the world, keeping people healthy and conserving the environment, there is a very simple way forward. Converting the 50% of land that’s mainly used for agriculture – but which only produces 20% of the UK’s total agricultural output – to other functions, including recreation, storing carbon and enhancing biodiversity.

This could be possible over ten years. It would give enough time for people involved in farming relatively unproductive land to adapt. Some of these people will still be paid from public funds but they could be tasked with rewilding their land to forest or other habitats that can lock away CO₂ and expand wildlife habitat. Some will also be rewarded for opening their land for public access. This will be especially important for land near urban areas as access to nature has serious benefits for human health.

Spending just two hours a week in nature has been shown to benefit a person’s health and mental wellbeing. Lukasz Szmigiel/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

Growing food in different ways could also make farming more efficient and it would be needed to make up for the small shortfall in production. Vertical farming, hydroponics and aeroponics are all techniques where food is grown according to the principles of manufacturing. This means it’s produced close to where it’s consumed, no pesticides are needed and all nutrients are closely controlled, reducing pollution.

Mobilising British agriculture to help the UK reach net zero emissions would be an incredibly valuable use of the UK’s landscape. But the main challenge to this is convincing the people who currently farm the relatively unproductive land that they need to be a part of this vision. The National Farmers Union – who represent many of these particular farmers – have done much to try and sustain the status quo, especially for livestock agriculture. Overcoming this social inertia will be hard work, but vital.


Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.

Ian Boyd, Professor of Biology, University of St Andrews

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Three ways farms of the future can feed the planet and heal it too


Nature and technology can combine to help farms of the future nourish the earth and its inhabitants. SimplyDay/Shutterstock

Karen Rial-Lovera, Nottingham Trent University

Intensive agriculture may be nourishing most of the Earth’s inhabitants, but it’s doing the opposite to earth itself. Its dependence on singular crops, heavy ploughing machinery, fossil-fuel based fertilisers and pesticides is degrading our soils wildlife and nutrient cycles, and contributing a quarter of the planet’s unwanted extra heat.

But we’re not powerless to change the future of food. Nature and technological innovation are tackling these problems head on – and if the solutions they’re offering are incorporated on a large scale and used together, a new agricultural revolution could be on its way. Here are three of the most exciting developments that can help farms not just feed the planet, but heal it too.

Crops, trees and livestock in harmony

Several UN reports have highlighted agroecology – farming that mimics the interactions and cycles of plants, animals and nutrients in the natural world – as a path to sustainable food.

The approach uses a wide variety of practices. For example, instead of artificial fertilisers, it improves soil quality by planting nutrient-fixing “cover crops” in between harvest crops, rotating crops across fields each season and composting organic waste. It supports wildlife, stores carbon, and conserves water through the planting of trees and wildflower banks.

It also integrates livestock with crops. This may seem counter-intuitive given their inefficient land use and high emissions. But having a small number of animals grazing land doesn’t have to accelerate global heating.

Grassland captures carbon dioxide. Animals eat the grass, and then return that carbon to the soil as excrement. The nutrients in the excrement and the continuous grazing of grass both help new grass roots to grow, increasing the capacity of the land to capture carbon.

Carefully managed grazing can help the environment, not harm it. Millie Olsen/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

Keep too many grazing animals in one place for too long and they eat too much grass and produce too much excrement for the soil to take on, meaning carbon is lost to the atmosphere. But if small numbers are constantly rotated into different fields, the soil can store enough extra carbon to counterbalance the extra methane emitted by livestock’s digestive rumblings.

While this doesn’t make them a carbon sink, livestock bring other benefits to the land. They keep soil naturally fertilised, and can also improve biodiversity by eating more aggressive plants, allowing others to grow. And if local breeds are adopted, they generally don’t require expensive feed and veterinary care, as they’re adapted to local conditions.

Pesticides no more

Pests, diseases and weeds cause almost 40% of crop losses globally – and without care, the figure could rise dramatically. Climate change is shifting where pests and diseases thrive, making it harder for farmers to stay resilient.

Many commonly used herbicides, pesticides and fungicides are now also under pressure to be banned because of their negative effects on the health of humans and wildlife. Even if they’re not, growing resistance to their action is making controlling weeds, pests and diseases increasingly challenging.

Nature is again providing answers here. Farmers are starting to use pesticides derived from plants, which tend to be much less toxic to the surrounding environment.

They’re also using natural enemies to keep threats at bay. Some may act as repellents, “pushing” pests away. For example, peppermint disgusts the flea beetle, a scourge to oilseed rape farmers. Others are “pulls”, attracting pests away from valuable crops. Plants that are attractive for egg-laying but that don’t support the survival of insect larvae are commonly used for this purpose.

Nasturtiums are pest magnets – and they’re edible too. Shutova Elena/Shutterstock

Technology is also offering solutions on this front. Some farmers are already using apps to monitor, warn and predict when pest and diseases will attack crops. Driverless tractors and intelligent sprayers that can target specific weeds or nutritional needs have recently entered the market. Agritech companies are now also developing robots that can scan fields, identify specific plants, and decide whether to use pesticide or to remove a plant mechanically.

In combination, these methods can dramatically reduce agriculture’s reliance on herbicides and pesticides without lowering crop yields. This is important, since the world’s population is set to rise by a quarter in the next three decades.

Small tech, big difference

Soon, technology at an almost impossibly small scale could make a big difference to the way we grow our food. Companies have designed nanoparticles 100,000 times smaller then the width of a human hair that release fertiliser and pesticides slowly but steadily, to minimise their use and maximise crop yields.

New gene-editing techniques will also increasingly use nanomaterials to transfer DNA to plants. These techniques can be used to detect the presence of pests and nutrient deficiencies, or simply improve their resistance to extreme weather and pests. Given that increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events due to global heating are putting the very functioning of the global food system at risk, these advancements could be vital for preventing agricultural collapse.

Nanotechnologies aren’t cheap yet and researchers have yet to conduct rigorous tests of how toxic nanomaterials are to humans and plants, and how durable they are. But should they pass these tests, agriculture will surely follow the path of other industries in adopting the technology on a large scale.

Save for nanotechnology and advanced robots, the above solutions are already in use in many small-scale and commercial farms – just not in combination. Imagine them working in synchrony and suddenly a vision of sustainable agriculture doesn’t seem so far away anymore.


Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.

Karen Rial-Lovera, Senior Lecturer in Agriculture, Nottingham Trent University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We should take care of our brothers and sisters.


Hands of Homeless Man Receiving Bowl of Soup --- Image by © Royalty-Free/Corbis  So many going hungry, starving and malnourished across our globe and there is plenty of food to go around. Many of the nations across our planet have a large surplus of food and a good bit of it will go to spoil, yet there are many people who are going hungry. So much food waste in restaurants, grocery stores and even in our homes that could have been a meal for a less fortunate person. Luckily some grocery stores do donate close dated food to local food banks and organizations. More businesses need to focus on using their near dated food as donations to food banks and charity organizations. Almost all of the religions on our planet support the idea of feeding the hungry and helping the less fortunate. We need to get beyond our religious differences and work together to help our fellow humans survive.

MP910221024 The welfare of our fellow humans is our responsibility as a species, we should take care of our brothers and sisters. If more of us were to volunteer to help food drives, food banks, soup kitchens or one of the many other efforts in aiding fellow humans there would be far less hunger, homelessness and suffering in the world. Helping the less fortunate is a pure form of compassion and is the way we should be. Regardless of your political, religious or philosophical view, the welfare of our brothers and sisters should be one of your high priorities. For one day you may be one of those unfortunate, homeless, hungry brothers or sisters in need of help.

We can go from fortunate to unfortunate in a matter of one day, so we should always have compassion for those in need and do what is within our abilities to aid our fellow humans.
Ray Barbier

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution By license.

Most of us are only one or two paychecks away from being homeless


015  Now that winter time is here it is time to start to think about those who are at high risk during cold and severe winter weather. Neighbors, relatives and friends that may be up in age that need to looked after during snowstorms. Simple things as getting them groceries and making sure they have adequate blankets as well as water. There is also the homeless that need warm clothing, food and blankets if not help finding a local shelter. The local shelters also need supplies including food to take care of those in need. Even if you have very little to give or you have a busy schedule you can afford to give a few minutes of your time or a few pieces of clothing you no longer need or want. You can always get your church or organization to start a food drive or campaign to aid those in need. The least one can do is drop off a donation at a local church or non profit to help. Just remember most of us are only one or two paychecks away from being homeless so with that in mind help those that are.

 

May god bless you in This new year of 2012 and may you share the blessings with others.

Raymond Barbier

Come up with some real proven facts.


Most meats such as chicken contain all the ess...Ok here we go again with another flip-flop on the health news front. Now they are claiming that salt is now good for you and that being fat is also good. The once believed fact that cholesterol in food elevates your serum cholesterol in your bloodstream is now been revised to say it is not the cholesterol it is only the fat. Well at least so far they have not wavered on the saturated fat issue as of yet. I really wish they would get their theories behind them and come up with some real proven facts. This zigzag technique of informing the public has caused more worry and harm than good in the long run. I am beginning to think they best policy is to just eat a well-balanced diet and keep active and pay less to what you eat but how much of it you consume.

I also am convinced it’s the quality of the food we consume now days. It seems the nutritional value of most foods bought in supermarkets have lower nutritional values than what our grandparents had back in their day. Plus we have so many chemicals added to food along with the food being processed to death before we even cook it. And we can not forget all the pesticides and herbicides that are used in farming now days along with how much food contamination is happening lately. Food safety and quality should be one of our biggest concerns along with water quality. We are what we eat and if we eat junk we get bodies that run like junk. All in the name of progress and cheaper production costs. The food quality crisis also heavily influences our healthcare problems.

Hopefully they will get real accurate facts about what food is or isn’t or bad for you to eat as well as finding the best way to raise the food quality and safety. Until they do, they should keep the theories and unproven facts to themselves to avoid confusion as well as unnecessary stress on the public.

Well that’s my thoughts on the matter.
Peace to all
Raymond Barbier

Nutritional Value Of A Free Range Egg VS. Caged Hen Eggs


Eggs laid by free-range chickens, who found a ...Just an interesting study on chicken eggs, they state the cholesterol in free range is like 1/2 of that of caged. The free range lives on a diet of grasses and insects vs the caged being fed corn and hormones etc..

check link below for more info

Nutritional Value Of A Free Range Egg VS. Caged Hen Eggs