In the News this week… Agriculture responding to Climate Change

It seems like the changes in climate are being felt quite painfully this year in the agricultural industry.

This article just came out in the BBC this week:

"Extreme weather: 'Turbulent times ahead' for UK"

This year the harvest of grapes was so poor in terms of quality that many wine producers are completely unable to produce wine. In the video, Cherry Spriggs of Nyetimber laments that even if they change the crop for next year according to the weather conditions of this year, then "by murphy's law it'll be completely wrong for next year".

Unforgtunately, by murphy's law or not, it seems that global warming, for the UK at least, doesn’t mean a 'gradual heating up' but instead weather extremes of "erratic excursions" due to the nature of how the UK is affected by a highly fluctuating jet streams. Tim Palmer, expert in climate physics explains this in the article. Wow, what a worrying thought for farmers indeed! Not being able to know if the next year's harvest would yield anything….

But this isn't really news to experts… its just that it seems like the effects of climate change would soon be felt by normal unassuming people like us, not only in terms of storms and droughts but also in terms of our food choices.

Another article that came out this year: 

"Bananas could replace potatoes in warming world"

Its not just grapes that will be affected. Experts predict that the three most important staples- maize, rice and wheat- would decline with weather changes- important crops like the potatoes would not be able to survive warmer and more erratic weather. Such erratic weather with warming includes a shift in vegetation zones, quantity and distribution of rainfall and inundation of coasts with rising sea levels (Rosenweig & Hillel 1998).

Don't know about you, but to me this really does epitomize how climate change will affect our everyday lifestyles. The thing is, there is much uncertainty and there remain many questions to answer to ensure the food security in erratic weather. The cause and effect of feedback effects and rate/amount/timing of global warming are still difficult to tease out to enable us to model these changes at such a fine scale.  And it doesn't help that we are starting to react to these changes on a not-so-good foot: a generally homogeneous crop gene pool. With the Green Revolution, many corporations controlled seed inputs through establishing their infrastructure and the implementation of "Plant Breeders Rights" which encouraged companies to produce uniform varieties (Paalberg, 2010).

Crops consumed throughout history have fallen from 1500 species during the hunter-gatherer age, to 30 in pre-industrial times. Today, 75% of the worlds food crops come from just 8 types..! (Mooney 1980) This historical perspective really does give us a better sense of the extent of genetic erosion in the global food supply.

In response, and fortunately perhaps, there have been people taking precautions in the form of seed banks.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/cary_fowler_one_seed_at_a_time_protecting_the_future_of_food.html

(Very interesting and worth watching video)

A case in point would be the efforts by Fowler et al. together with the Global Crop Diversity Trust in creating a seed bank an extremely cold and isolated hole-in-the-ground in Norway. Traditionally, variability in crops was maintained purposely to protect against weather, disease, mutating pests and it might be appropriate to keep some of that, at least in the form of a seed bank.

I think these quotes from the Ted talk sum up the importance of preserving crop diversity well:

"Crop diversity is the biological foundation of agriculture. It's the raw material, the stuff of evolution in our agricultural crops, not a trivial matter…

that foundation was crumbling- a mass extinction was underway. And this mass extinction was taking place with very few people noticing or caring…

Think of diversity as giving us options and options are exactly what we need in the era of climate change "

Perhaps some might recommend genetically modifying foods to be more resilient to different weathers instead. While it is true that GMOs can indeed help us face up to climate change, I honestly think maybe in addition to that, such seed banks are really a small price to pay for a possibly life-saving food security precautionary measure.

And I think this last quote from the talk sums it up well:

"I can't look you in the eye and tell you that I have a solution for climate change, for the water crisis… But I can look you in the eyes and tell you that we can't solve any of those problems if we don't have crop diversity. Because I challenge you to think of an effective, efficient, sustainable solution if we don't have crop diversity."

Why sacrifice the wealthy resource that evolution has provided us with? :)

(If interested, Marci's blog (she's doing her PhD in Biology & Society  at the  Arizona State Uni ) touches on the issues of  Seed Banks.In short, seed banks should ideally be set up with the interest of free-access-to-all (or at least somewhere near that) instead of restricting access to genetic diversity through patenting).

AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL IN ADVANCE!

May this year be a blessed one for you :) 

See y'all next year!

Polycropping

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE! Hope everyone had a good time :) I sure did, spent some time admiring the natural wonders of Slovenia! Explains the hiatus for the past few weeks heh...

Anyway back to the topic!

I came across this rather interesting slide from a lecture by Plant Pathologist Dr Nelson (University of Hawaii) on "Poly- & Monocultures"

It shows the evolutionary pathway of  aspects of agriculture- most of which has been covered in my previous posts except: 3) Intercropping/Multicropping/Polycropping

The Green Revolution (i.e. Conventional Agriculture) resulted in widespread adoption of monocropping techniques.  As mentioned, the adoption of these techniques, while they seem to lead to short-term employment and profits, are unsustainable from an ecological point of view. In  contrast to monocropping is the method of polyculture (agroforestry is a form of it).

What is polyculture?

It is the planting of more than 1 species of crops which also involves the rotation of crops (and in some cases livestock) on a piece of land (UNESCO glossary)

What are the benefits of polyculture?

Here are 2 big benefits:

1. Higher Genetic Resilience to Epidemics

In fact, it has been observed that  certain diseases do not occur amongst plants such as the papaya until monocropping techniques were applied. There are two reasons for this:

• A lack of genetic diversity results in the wiping out of entire crops with a single pathogen
• Proximity of plant stands results in higher transmissions of pathogens

Such biological caveats play out clearly in economic and social consequences: In Hawaii, many lands were abandoned due to epidemics such as the papaya ringspot which caused the destruction of whole plantations. In contrast, typical polyculture (and in this case in the form of agroforestry- see my previous post for more on this) which consists of papaya being planted with other fruits result in lower pest pressure (Nelson, 2006). This has also been evident in eggplants which when grown together with buffelgrass produce over 100% yields compared to conventional treatments due to the lowered mite infestations and lower weed densities (Learyet al. 2006). 

2. Higher Yields

With more in-depth studies comparing mono VS polycropping in recent years, experts are now questioning the fact that in the longer term and taking a bigger-view of things (i.e. taking into account water-use, transport, fertilizer-use), polyculture is the more economically-viable form of agriculture (Roslin,2008) (and, yay!, this fulfils our principled approach of both caring for the environment and ensuring food security). For example, there is substantial evidence supporting this: intercropping in Africa resulted in lower interspecies competition and so higher yields (Harrison, 1987). In a long-term review of integrated croppings systems, Chavas et al. (2008) showed that rotational systems outperformed farms with conventional practices. 

3. Lower environmental costs (even environmental benefit)

In terms of how to replenish the soil,the use of practices such as living plant mulch by multiple-cropping creates  lots of benefits to the system (E.g. increasing yield 4-fold,  filtration, water-holding,erosion-resistance (Harrison, 1987)). Also, many of these systems use animal slurry which instead of becoming a form of waste that needs to be rid off (coupled with the possibility of polluting downstream ecosystems), it is now used as fertilizer without the problem of transportation (transporting manure the way we transport chemical fertilizer would be absolutely inefficient as i mentioned previously in this post). In fact, it has been shown that adjacent uncultivated land left untouched would render higher yields than if it were to be cultivated because of positive biodiversity effects of pollinators (Figure below). For example, canola yields are highest when 30% of the land is left uncultivated/left to go fallow- this goes against conventional thinking which assumes a direct correlation between land and yield (Moradin et al 2006).

But, how feasible is polyculture?

So it might be true that polyculture has proven itself to be ecologically superior. But are the societal conditions ready to make it happen?

I quote from an FAOpublication:

"It is now commonly argued that monocrop systems based on off-farm inputs cannot be sustained and that there should be a shift to low external input mixed farming systems which would be more appropriate for resource-poor farmers. While this is a laudable objective from both an ecological and an equity point of view, it is unrealistic for many situations at the present time from both economic and humanitarian standpoints because food availability would decline and food prices would rise"

Herein, there seems to be a conflict of interest. However, interestingly, the author of this publication argues that the "unrealistic" actually only refers to a lack of political will which is really just up to us to rectify. In essence, because of the efficiency of such systems, "food prices won’t rise" he argues.

And so, I would like to end this post with an example/case study which I am personally very inspired about. You might have heard of Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm.  It is probably quite justified to say that he is a master of polyculture and I respect his philosophy very much. Interestingly, Joel is strong organic-critic, in particular, industrial organic. I think anyone in this field should take consider this way of thinking because it works.  And looking at the results… my does it really work!

This video sums it up well (HIGHLY WORTH WATCHING!)

"40,000 lbs beef

30,000 lbs pork

10,000 broilers

1,200 turkeys

1,000 rabbits

35,000 doz. eggs

All Off 100 acres

and at the end of the year

there is more biodiversity, not less

there is more fertility, not less

there is more soil, not less.

The significance of this is that, it is NOT a zero-sum system!"

Here's how it looks like in real-life:

From another video interview, about how this might work, I glean several traits of his philosophy in showing that with the right implementation, polyculture isn't "unrealistic":

1. It is "profitable"
   This is really the primary concern of farmers' & feasibility in the modernized society. What is not profitable won't work in the real world. Through direct-marketing and word of mouth coupled to rewards, small farms practicing polyculture can survive.
2. It learns from nature's "healing relationships"Joel's polyfacefarm aims to understand the symbiosis between species, by "massaging close-relationships between animals". "I'm a grass farmer" says Joel- because grass is the mediator for building these healthy relationships.

3. It benefits "human health"A strong example would be that grass-fed beefs have consistently showed greater benefits in health compared to  grain-fed beef (Daley et al. 2010) 

4. It maximizes the appropriate use of science technology that lowers costsUnlike anti-technology methods (like some organic farms perhaps?), his farm uses state of the art technology but not those which are resource-intensive such as electric fences/paddock to herd up and section the area required for fertilization of animals.  Then, through understanding the lifecycle of pests and predators and timing the feeding cycles accordingly, another animal's waste becomes another's food i.e. no wastage. For example, chickens feed off the maggots in the cow dung while their faeces fertilizers the ground with more bio-available nutrients and ducks are fed during snail control (video below)

(If interested, here are videos of other farms applying similar philosophies to much success)

(Cute-factor alert! Seriously, look how happy the ducks are haha :p)

"Husband and wife team, farmers Mike Guebert and Linda Bangs live on 10 acres of land, raising and tending to a variety of livestock. Currently, they have 2 Jersey cows, and 40 goats that provide raw milk; about 250 laying chicken hens for eggs, and 800 chickens for (meat) broilers; and 5 turkeys: 4 hens, and one happy tom. Oh yes, and not to forget, 2 heritage breed pigs, and just the day before we arrived this spring (2012), they picked up 14 wiener pigs."- Video description

But how far can such individual case-studies go?

This is a very valid question to ask, and one which we probably don’t currently

have answers to. However, in his reasoning, Michael Pollen also holds the same respect I do for this method of farming, says this "Models are very important, we need good models. You can ask me if this farm can be scaled up… But the fact that it exists, I think can help us define what we mean by this word 'sustainable' "

Localized conditions would require tailoring of these methods and I doubt Joel would advocate wholesale adoptions of his methods worldwide. Also, this degree of understanding nuance in life-cycle coordination would require small-scale farms rather than large-scale mechanized ones without the ability to respond as quickly to variabilities of our environment. Perhaps then what is needed is a mindset change that small-farms can work and are not necessarily inferior in efficiency to large ones.

In conclusion...

I think what Joel Salatin has shown can be summed up in a sentence: Do to the environment what you would have it do to you. (slightly cheesy I know.. haha). It seems from the above that this way forward, you can't go very wrong… and in fact you can reap more rewards!

Biodynamic Farming

This video gives a short & personal intro in the form of a farmers' experience with biodynamic farming. I quote:

"The most important piece of it is to try to create a farm that is self-sustaining. Most modern organic farming is kinda conventional farming with organic inputs. So it's really trying to close that circle … The goal is either to have the animals or cover crop whatever fertility you use on the farm and you use that fertility to grow your produce… you need to diversify and can't monocrop… creating an ecological/gardening eden"

- Sebastian Aguilar, farmer.

Sounds good? Let's explore!

What is Biodynamic farming?

It is often said that biodynamic agriculture has its roots in the anthroposophical teachings of Rudolph Steiner where the farm is treated as closed system/organismal unit whereby all process within it facilitate the self-sustenance of the farm (i.e. little or no external input, not even 'natural' external fertilizers). It has been known for its positive ecological impacts including:

1. Increasing biodiversity

2. Increasing soil fertility (naturally)

3. Creating a cycle of energy and matter and hence efficiency (i.e. no wastage of plant & animal produce)  (Acevic & Lazic 2012) 

What are the processes that gives rise to these benefits? How are these ecological benefits played out?

This is a form of organic but goes far beyond organic practices. In this video, it shows the 'preparatory stages' of biodynamics. To be honest, I was really surprised at what goes on behind some of the practices. Biodynamic in its bid to be "self-sustaining, balanced and harmonious environment"  is done such that any plant/animal waste/produce is turned into 'nutrients/fertility' for the next crop… But it goes even further: and sometimes includes a 'Spiritual' aspect: talking to the plants with dousing rods and preparations such as watering the ground with ground up quartz stones, composting plant matter in animal organs (like sausages), following astronomical calendar/ cycles.

This video shows an experience biodynamic farmer and some processes involved.  

Customers of this biodynamic farm express the same curiosity and perplexity at these practices., but one thing they do all say: "it works!" -the food produced is of superior quality (which is something I can personally/subjectively attest to having eaten the best apples ever from a biodynamic farm at the Bloomsbury farmers market every Thursday next to the University of London Union). Or perhaps it is a 'placebo' effect?

And so naturally when I came across these curious practices, I looked to find some logical explanation for the processes but there is a real lack of literature on it and perhaps the nature of its philosophy is something that biodynamic advocates may say that science cannot discover (leading some to call it a 'pseudoscience'). Anyhow, here's what I've found...

Biodynamic farming  through its incorporation of organic practices such as multicropping does give rise to the benefits of less fallow land and reduced till (Foley et al 2011). Chalker-Scott argues that the benefits reaped in biodynamic farming is not due to the special preparations themselves but that it is conflated with organic practices e.g. no till and the like and these are the ones that have a scientific basis for investigation.

However, from the few studies  I could gather, biodynamic farming does show evidence-based positive effects, giving some benefit of a doubt to the usefulness of these preparations (which are applied not only in the west but also in India). Jayasree & George (2006) showed that a biodynamic treatment + organic manure increased the shelf life & vitamin C in chilli as in comparison to plots with no treatment. In a long-term study of farmyard manure treated with biodynamic preparations showed a more active soil earthworm abundance and faster decomposition rates which allow greater amounts of labile C to be incorporated for growth (Zaller & Kopke, 2004) . In fact  higher yields (when compared to organic and conventional systems) were obtained when conditions were less favourable (Goldstein et al.). Perhaps what gives us a clue of the viability of this system is that it really has the potential to operate in a self-sustaining way- it was shown that no N-fertilization (alongside the organic system) was needed to achieve these high levels of yield, unlike the conventional system. It is postulated that these 'treatment's have 'hormone-like' effects that enhance soil and rooting quality and creates resilience.

In conclusion…

I find it especially difficult to conclude this post. Have I chanced upon the 'homoeopathy' of agriculture or is it just that we can't explain the mechanisms behind the observed positive responses? There has been some evidence to show that it does have superior results, but I think the nature of how it is is that it will always remain an 'occult' practice outside of 'science-based' policy decisions. Nevertheless, it would be interesting (and maybe some use might come out of it?) to investigate the actual biochemical/ physiological mechanisms which these practices affect. As far as it goes for me, the benefits of biodynamic farming  presents itself as a fair alternative, especially when one includes the added incentive of really recycling all the nutrients and enhancing sustainability in the process. It seems to me as a farming method that does really try to adhere to the ecological principles of 'cycles'  which many other methods fail to recognize.

Agroforestry- Integration and Diversification

This video gives a quick overview of

1. What silvopasture is (a form of special form of agroforestry which includes livestock on the land)

2. Experiences/ Benefits of farmers

3. Considerations to take into account

Constantly repeated phrases/ concepts in this video include:

"Full Economic Potential"… "Compatibility"… "Management"… "Local"…. "Understanding"… "Single Integrated Practice" … "Diverse products"… "Reduced Economic Risk" … "Production and Conservation Benefits"...

Hmmm, "Production and Conservation Benefits"…!That seems to fit well into the principles laid out last week about having to attain both of these aims. Unlike mindless back to basics/anti-technology approaches, the above key words show us that it exploits the creativity and know-how of humans with less intensive resource consumption (cf green revolution which was very resource intensive).

What is agroforestry?

It is a "method of food production combining tree and shrub plantations and the farming of low-lying herbaceous plants. Agro-forestry is often recommended to enhance the biodiversity of agricultural ecosystems and improve production while reducing land degradation" (UNESCO glossary)

We have seen how agriculture has resulted in unfavourable landuse change in the form of deforestation. Although this approach does not entail complete conservation of forests, it allows reforestation by allowing forests to be integrated into current agricultural land and with added benefits.

Nair et al review agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration: 

ARGUMENTS FOR:

Here are some of the Environmental/Food production benefits summarized from the review:

• Integrating pastureland with trees allows higher biological efficiency resulting in greater direct (conversion into metal carbonates) and indirect (Soil Organic Carbon) sequestration in the soil, vegetation and biomass products (it is estimated that 30-50% of above ground production constitutes carbon!).
• Greater diversity results in tighter cycling of nutrients and more stability and resilience
• Decreased bare fallow allowing for more efficient use of precipitation and more productive use of the land by lengthening the growing season

How can these benefits be achieved?

• Clean Development Mechanism whereby developed countries buy C credits (C sequestered at a lower cost than if carried out in their home country) to offset their emissions
• Substituting energy intensive construction materials with wood
• Planting favourable species such as those with higher lignocellulose contents, trees with greater growth potential before nutrient limitation sets in, mixed plantings to provide greater resistance and decreased competition for nutrients (Conant, 2011).

How feasible is Agroforestry as a solution?

In terms of  the scientific/ecological plausibility  (carbon sequestration potential, CSP) and food production objectives, it does have much potential, especially as a intermittent measure to remove elevated CO2 before more drastic societal/lifestyle changes can occur. It also a very efficient way of reducing emissions because transport is not necessary and small communities from remote areas who are in dire need of income can be helped immediately. That being said, there are still many social, economic and political barriers to be crossed as synthesized by Conant (2011), which I will summarize below:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

1. Lack of attention given to forestry projects under CDM hence there are relatively few real life examples now
2. Lack of proper accounting procedures for Landuse Change and Forestry (LUCF) carbon sinks due to the difficulty in dismantling drivers causing changes in carbon stock leading to difficulty in quantification and valuation
3. Undervaluation of carbon leading to no or lower comparative advantage as compared to conventional methods
4. Lack of a low-cost method for ground-level documentation of  sequestration resulting in high costs which then conflicts with poverty alleviation
5. Lack of a simple, flexible procedure that reduces entry barriers for small farmers

All these result in a lack of developmental benefits which ultimately lead to farmers' unwillingness to participate in such schemes- which Nair et al (2009) feel is the ultimate barrier. Perhaps it is most crucial that these barriers be crossed in the tropics where not only do tree species growing there have greater CSP but deforestation in the tropics is so high that it exceeds all transport emissions. And we can take heart that organizations and governments are implemented small measures showing great success :)

Clinton Global Initiative

Save the Children & the Thai government

(This is a clear case-study where environmental/biodiversity objectives being achieved together with food security and human development, as compared to conventional systems :))

On a side note, the issues faced by agroforestry in the developing world aren't too different from that faced by REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). If you would like to know more, check out Jessica's blog (especially this post on the desirability of REDD to indigenous peoples where she emphasizes that it is important for the local people to secure resource rights so that they can in reality receive the benefits they were meant to enjoy).  

My first encounter with the rather mind-blowing extent to which agriculture accounts for landuse change was when I watched this TED talk by Jonathan Foley  some time last year.

In the video, he shows through satellite & ground-base data the presence of agriculture (- agriculture uses 40% of terrestrial land. However if we include neighbouring, "partially-used" land affected by agriculture, the number rises to a whopping 75%. Hence, agriculture has a huge influence on habitat structure,biodiversity and the water cycle.

The root cause of that was in effect was sparked by the Green Revolution, a revolution driven with the aim of producing food for an ever-growing population. It was probably the most major change the sector has seen. However, some like Bayliss-Smith say that the paradigms like this we have seen thus far are in fact not revolutionary enough to tackle the problems of today. 

In this post I will attempt to incorporate lessons learnt from the Green Revolution while merging together recommendations laid out by Foley et al (2011)  in a very succinct and comprehensive reviewespousing the aims of  the agriculture ofthe future. 

Problem #1: Wholesale adoption of technology without adaptation to localized environments

An analysis by Griffin 1974 compared pre (1955-65)- and post (1965-75)- green revolution production levels and found that in fact, when averaged, there was no overall acceleration in production. Instead, it saw large increases in small areas (E.g. rice in Africa and wheat in the Far East) while others benefit less (E.g. Latin America). Why didn't the green revolution give the worldwide-good it promised? It was partly because the only way 1st world-originating High-Yielding Varieties could yield high yields was with the prerequisite of 1st world mechanics and technologies of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation (Paarlberg, 2010).

Principle #1: Much care has to be taken when touting a "global or cure-all" solution, and many good solutions still have to be tailored to local conditions.

Problem #2: A Technocractic Approach

Perhaps then, learning from the sentiments of the past, accruing the technology isn't the whole picture.  Indeed, the Green Revolution with its bias toward big farms had caused many social problems and did not provide all farmers with the benefits it touted. Benefits were indeed seen for farmers in Asia where local conditions required less mechanical input (hence capital), but inequality was worsened in Latin America where expensive machinery etc. was required. (Paarlberg, 2010).

Principle #2: Socially-sensitive Change is required

This change is to be shaped in context of the social/political & economic fabric. The nature of how many of these agricultural societies function has been through small farms on which they depend on for subsistence. Implementing these large-scale solutions so quickly were not suitable for the social context (at least then). A solution needs to be one that can be adopted well by the citizens of  that country and where they would really benefit (not just corporations across the globe). This is necessary for a sustainable solution.

Problem #3: Perspectives have been to narrow- EITHER Ignoring the Environment OR  Dismissing Productivity

Stephen Stanford (Arenown specialist in African agriculture) said in the New Scientist on thegreen revolution in Africa: "Twenty years ago there was a very strong belief that many technical solutions were already known and that the real difficulty was getting them adopted. We thought that solutions were all in bottles in the shelf. Now we've come more and more to the feeling that we don't have that shelf-load of technology"

Foley et al. argue that most paradigms have either focused on

1. an increase in production that is detrimental to the environment

Even if technology could be adopted, the problem in fact lies with that technology. The idea of the green revolution did not take into account environmental costs related to fertilizer-over use, excessive freshwater extraction (irrigation is the largest use of freshwater, responsible for 70% global freshwater withdrawals), high energy consumption, risks associated with monocropping (lack of biodiversity and resilience through over-favoring of certain traits through GMO as HYVs were less resistant to floods) and transport emissions. (I just realised… all these aspects straddle many of the global environmental issues we see today!) In essence, what the green revolution did was shift the economic costs of production to environmental costs without minimizing costs i.e. it wasn't really that efficient. Higher production came at a cost that would eventually hurt ecosystems- for example, on farm degradation (depletion of nutrients without fertilizers) was turned into off-farm pollution (excessive nutrient runoff).

OR

2. conservation strategies that do not have production as a goal
• It is known that low-yielding traditional methods could lead to soil erosion and nutrient depletion resulting in potentially arable land lost. Unsustainable low-yield farming had led to ~70% deforestation. For example, the Dustbowl of the 1920s- America's most serious disaster then- included the destruction of arable land as big as Pennsylvania state resulting in the migration of 400,000 farmers. (Abraham, 1991). Conservation strategies like  organic farming have shown to have lower yields overall than conventional high-input systems (Seufert et al., 2012). Hence these back-to-basics models are also lacking...

Principle #3: An Ecologically sound approach taking into account the myriad of Environmental Goals in addition to Food Security

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7369/images/nature10452-f2.2.jpg

This figure (Foley et al., 2011) shows the need for a future solution to meet both goals of food security(with yields rising between 1985-2005 slower than before, the status quo seems to be unsatisfactory) and environmental goals. With regard to the latter, what is of bigger concern today is that agricultural land is still expanding despite its already large landuse, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and habitat destruction. Expansion takes place mainly in the tropics today with 80% of new croplands occupying land which was once forests. Not only does this have a massive impact on biodiversity & ecosystem services (which are so rich in that area), clearance also accounts for 12% of CO2 emissions i.e. main energy use within agriculture (30-35% of agricultural GHG). Also, another reason why it makes much sense to stop this expansion is because gains made through agriculture are mainly through intensification! Hence, the costs of expansion definitely outweigh the benefits today.

According to Foley et al., (2011) , such a solution of stopping land expansion and meeting water needs while ensuring food security would require "closing yield gaps" through "increasing agricultural resource efficiency". This would be done through:

• Better use of Genetic technology
• Taking advantage of past experiences through "reforming conventional agriculture and adopting lessons from organic systems and precision agriculture" .
• Organic practices have their performance benefits such as being shown to grow beter under drought conditions (i.e. higher resilience). Still, in developing countries, organic agriculture has significantly lesser yields (-40%). However, the disparity is less great in the developed nations and certain crop types especially with the implementation of better management  practices (-15%). For example, "organic yields are low in the first years after conversion and gradually increase over time owing to improvements in soil fertility and management skills" (Seufert et al., 2012). Hence there is a need to find out what these 'best management practices' are for various crops and conditions and implement them quickly.
• We could also maximize efficiency through tackling the high excesses of nutrients in small areas (E.g. China, USA, Western Europe) such as through proper management that prevents disproportionate fertilization to output, allowing us to increase nutrient efficiency without compromising on food yields. Organic systems are also known to be N-limited and do not perform as well under irrigated conditions(Seufert et al., 2012). Hence it would make sense for the issue of N-limitation to be addressed while reducing irrigation (reducing water needs). "Precision Agriculture" an evolution of conventional systems whereby GIS,  GPS and infrared technologies farmers enable them to understand the conditions of their environment and requirements of their crops better (e.g. measuring the depth of the soil etc.), allowing them to give fertilizer inputs only to the extent that they are being utilized. Positive results have come about with this method with this form of conventional agriculture now increasing yields by 5% while at minimizing impacts at the same time (Paalberg, 2010).

Principle #4: Remember, yields ¹ food!

Food accessibility is once again another way of ensuring better allocation of  limited resources. It could be achieved via 2 ways:

• Shift in dietary preferences
• Today, only 62% of crops is allocated to  human food  while 35% to livestock in the form of feed. Foley et al. put forth that there is a need to re-evaluate devoting such large amounts of crops to animal feed. While great reductions in meat consumption are likely to be difficult,  comparing "intrinsic food production" to "delivered food production" there is potential for a 49% increase (this is known as the "diet gap").

• Reduce Waste
• According to FAO, 1/3 to 1/2 of food is not consumed due to post-harvest losses great (40%). This takes the form of poor conditions of storage/ transport for developing countries and consumer waste in developed countries. It would be of special interest to reduce waste from high intensity produce e.g. dairy (Foley et al 2011).

In Conclusion...

Abraham (1991) argues that the Green Revolution, it has generally be driven by undemocratic financial motivations which have not solved world hunger and inequalities. There have been gains throughout but at environmental cost. However, this is not to say that 'conventional systems' are all bad as we have seen from the higher yields in some areas and has been the precursor to its more efficient birth-child of  'precision agriculture'. In the end, as Seufert et al. (2012) suggest, "there are many factors to consider in balancing the benefits of organic and conventional agriculture and there is no simple way to determine a clear 'winner' for all possible farming situations" instead, "we should evaluate the costs and benefits of different management options…. We will probably need many different techniques, including ..possible hybrid systems. "

Strictly speaking, all landuse change of natural environments by humans due to agriculture could be seen as 'damaging the natural environment'. The question to ask is perhaps to what extent has agriculture been or is going to be harmful or beneficial? Perhaps a helpful plumbline to guide us would be considering harm if the long-term costs to humans exceed the short-term food production gain and whether or not these agricultural methods can be part of the solution (instead of the problem) of various environmental issues.

Non-linked References:

Robert Paarlberg. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.  2010. Oxford University Press.

John Abraham. 1991.Food and Development: The political economy of hunger and the modern diet. WWF & Kogan Page Ltd.

Calls for change- The debate about GMOs

To start us off, here's an infographic produced in the debate about GMO labeling

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was in search of some principles which would be helpful as we explore alternatives or aim to tweak current practices. I came across this review "

Radically Rethinking Agriculture for the 21stCentury" in Science by Fedoroff et al (2010)

In it he lays out several principles including:

1. Implementing ecologically sound farming practices
2. Exploring genetic variability
3. Improving post-harvest mechanisms of transport and storage etc.
4. Preventing leakage and pollution by making sure one closes the loop of nutrient flows to (E.g. The relatively new system of Aquaponics- which allows nutrient re-use instead of wastage; see here for a very short but succinct introduction 
5. Improvement of crops via conventional and molecular methods (i.e. GMOs)

I was honestly surprised seeing 1),2) and 5) lumped together.

Going by the information I have come across in the past,  it seemed clear in my mind that GMOs were generally all about increasing yields without considering the environment and reducing biodiversity and are  essentially bad for the environment and health. If this were true, in effect point 5) contradicts 1) & 2).

Fedoroff et al put forth that "there is a critical need to get beyond popular biases against the use of agricultural biotechnology and develop forward-looking regulatory frameworks based on scientific evidence" and that

1. "They have also had environmental and health benefits, such as decreased use of pesticides and herbicides and increased use of no-till farming"  => ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT

2. "The first few GM crops that have been grown very widely… have increased agricultural productivity and farmers’ incomes." => SOCIAL/ ECONOMIC BENEFIT
3. "The world has consumed GM crops for 13 years without incident" => HEALTH BENEFIT

He says that in light of the impacts of future climate change crops will need to buffer against the stresses of heat, drought, flooding and salinity, and GMOs are our best defence against these as they allow us to manipulate corps and tailor-make them according to the future challenges we predict e.g. making plants with greater nitrogen use efficiency. All these sound fine and well, but is there any cost to GMOs? The support they give for GMOs is that there are already apparent benefits we experience from them.

Thinking that my preunderstanding might indeed be formed from bias information/popular thinking I have been influenced by, I decided to investigate further:

The evidence/citation(there's only 1 though) provided for all of this was , was from a report by two  economists, Brookes & Barfoot, 2009 asessing the "GlobalImpact of Biotech Crops: Environmental Effects, 1996-2008" 

Fedoroff strongly encourages the use of GMOs: he contends that there is "excellent safety and efficacy record of GM crops" and the support he gives stems from those in the paper by Brookes & Barfoot (2009) who say that GMOs result in:

1. Decreased  pesticides (-8.4%)
2. Decreased herbicide

3. Increased no-till practices which will allow greater efficiency (e.g. Carbon sequestration) leading to significant falls in GHG (equivalent of removing 6.9mil cars on the road)

A cursory reading of this article would indeed advocate an uninhibited promotion of GMOs as the solution to our food problems. However, I feel that much more caution has to be exercised.

Here are some issues I have with Brookes & Barfoot's article. The difference in pesticide & herbicide use are measured

• Comparisons against 'conventional' farming only
• My opinion:It was noted that there is also evidence that environmental impact of GMO-coupled herbicides is said to be lower than other traditional herbicides. Therefore, GMOs might give better benefits to conventional farming. However, given the possible (high) costs to thewidespread adoption & consumption of GMOs (this also brings into question point iii of the above), I think it better that we look into more 'ecologically sound' alternatives. For example, they state that the adoption of GM is an important contribution to adoption of no-tillage (NT) practices in conventional systems. Even if this is true in the area of conventional-tillage systems, it is not to say that there are no better alternatives. In addition, it must be noted that "the large-scale adoption of zero teillage started well before the introduction of GM crops, indicating that in many cases weeds can also be managed in a zero-tillage system with conventional soy".

(Bindraban et al 2009)

Hence there doesn't really look to be a very strong case here.

• Data obtained by private market-research possibly with special interests
• My opinion:Most of the tables given with regard to the values amount of herbicide used in GM crops VS Conventional crops are given by Monsanto, which not only is the monopoly behind GM crops, but also does not have a greatreputation when it comes to welfare of farmers, bringing to question the reliability of the data.  (this also brings into question point ii of the above)

• In fact, Bindraban et al 2009 state results that  their results contradict Brookes & Barfoot (2009) as they show higher impact of GMOs using the same method but with different data input. Thought it must be noted that the areas from which data was collected was different and so it is not directly comparable. They also note that GM herbicide use could increase in the future with increasing resistance. Their conclusion is more conservative: that there is currently no environmental benefit from using GMOs and the "herbicide application rate and the environmental impact from these herbicides was found to be higher in GM soy than in conventional soy" and this warrants more investigation.

With all these considered, it must be said that the intention behind Fedoroff et al's article seems well to me: "However, it is not at all a foregone conclusion that our current crops can be pushed to perform as well as they do now at much higher temperatures and with much less water and other agricultural inputs. It will take new approaches, new methods, new technology—indeed, perhaps even new crops and new agricultural systems. The issue I have is with the fervent, seemingly non-discriminatory support for GMOs while not exploring other equally 'smart' alternatives.

Though I'm not an expert on this, based on the above, its suffices me to conclude that while GMOs are not 'evil' in themselves, the risks tend to exceed the benefits mainly because as of today most of it is not inherently ecologically sound in its intentions. Perhaps GMOs will be viable and superior option in the future but this is not currently reflected the record of its use thus far.

Yep, so because of all these, I do not deny the possibility of GMOs doing good but have decided that I would not pursue, in this blog at least, to explore GMOs as a more 'ecologically desirable' alternative.

This was kind of a detour from my search for 'principles' and an attempt to look more critically into the assertions made by this particular paper. Next week I will go on to draw on the past experience of the green revolution to hopefully tease out some lessons ;)

For more information on GMOs, see this 'brochure' by respected experts in the field:

"GMO Myths and Truths " 

In very recent news, the bid to implement GMO-labeling  has been making the headlines in the US: