Why biodynamic gardening makes sense

UK Telegraph
Tom Petherick
Thursday, September 17, 2009

Last week, eight of us spent a morning filling a 3ft-deep, brick-lined hole in my garden with fresh cow manure. We treated it with seven specially fermented compost preparations and covered it with a wet sack and a wooden board to keep the weather out.

We had just made the biodynamic preparation known as Cow Pat Pit. In three months, no more than a pinch of this power-packed composted manure will be added to a 75-litre drum of water, stirred for an hour, then sprayed on the garden as an autumnal elixir.

Welcome to the world of biodynamics that has engrossed me after a lifetime of organic gardening. It does not mean that I have deserted the organic camp: on the contrary, it is not possible to garden biodynamically without having proper organic husbandry as a base, but it does mean that as a biodynamic practitioner I am incorporating an extra dimension that is not normally taken into account when gardening organically.

This extra dimension is best understood if we look at the word “biodynamic” and see that, derived from the Greek, bio means life and dynamic means force.

Biodynamics sets out to work with the influence of the invisible energies and forces that exist, as well as those we can see around us. And the purpose of biodynamics, as laid out by the Austrian Rudolf Steiner in his eight lectures on agriculture in 1924, is to deepen our understanding of the life forces that underlie nature’s processes in order to produce food of the highest quality.

On a practical level, Steiner’s intention was that farmers should try to work towards allowing soil and plant life to become more receptive to such energies by the use of certain compost preparations and field sprays.

Steiner had his reasons for this – he foresaw the waning vitality of the earth and predicted a time when it would become increasingly difficult for us to grow food (both of which are fairly evident to us today if we take chronic world soil erosion and global warming as examples). The use of the biodynamic preparations would, in his view, strengthen the connection between the cosmic and the terrestrial, that is, the heavenly and the earthly – the stars and the soil.

There is no doubt that organic gardening and farming, which depend on building and maintaining soil fertility and managing land ecologically, are systems that have restored our understanding of the importance of soil health and its relation to human health. The organic approach sets out to achieve and hold the balance just as it is found in nature. We mimic this in organic gardening by growing a diverse range of plants and feeding the soil, and therefore the plants, with compost and other organic matter. The difference is that the practice of biodynamics acknowledges the existence of, and sets out to work with, realms that lie beyond the visible.

Three years ago I started gardening with biodynamic methods. I entered Demeter, the biodynamic certification scheme, and began using the preparations, such as Cow Pat Pit, which are requirements of that scheme. I also began to use the biodynamic planting calendar, the second element of biodynamics, which has to do with the cosmic timing of activities in the garden and which has evolved since Steiner’s time. The calendar has recently come into public awareness since Tesco and Marks & Spencer revealed that they use it to decide when to invite critics to taste their wine ranges.

Interestingly, much of the timing for work to be carried out according to the biodynamic system is to do with the movement of the moon. This is another reason why biodynamic methods are beginning to reach a wider audience. We all know of the moon’s influence on the tides. When I began working with biodynamics and carrying out tasks when the moon was moving through particular constellations, it quickly became apparent that there was more going on than I had first thought.

Changes became noticeable immediately: root systems were different, with many more fibrous feeder roots on certain plants, particularly brassicas, extended seasons of growth before going to seed, improved germination, stronger flavour, deeper flower colour, higher water content… I could go on.

But more than all of this, and this is the hardest thing of all to convey, the feel of the garden changed. It became more alive, as I began to allow for the fact that the forces of nature are active on many levels and that many of them have a direct effect on plants. I may not be able to see them all, but they have influence and they are part of the miracle that is life in our universe. Full article here…

Organic movement sprouts new crop of farmers

Fresno Bee
Joan Obra
Saturday, July 25, 2009

In the Valley and across the country, there is a new force in agriculture: environmentally minded young farmers.

Some are urbanites cultivating small fields. Others grew up on farms and are returning home. And among college students or recent graduates who are passionate about food, interning on a farm is a rite of passage.

John Teixeira, a Firebaugh farmer who maintains an organic ranch for interns, says he has received more than 50 inquiries this year. “We’ve had tremendous interest,” he says. “They want to grow their own food. That’s the craze.”

Questions about food production lead these youngsters to the fields. Some read “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” author Michael Pollan’s critique of industrial agriculture. They buy food from small farms, both to support local businesses and preserve farmland. They’re concerned about chemicals in their diets.

And they’re recruiting more farmers. In December, 170 young farmers from around the country attended a conference at the Stone Barns Center For Food & Agriculture in New York — far more than expected, organizers say. They’re even documenting their movement in “The Greenhorns,” an upcoming film.

The trend helps offset a problem in agriculture: the aging of the nation’s farmers. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average age of all farmers is 57, up from 55 in 2002.

Young farmers such as Nikiko Masumoto, 23, exemplify the trend.

“By going to U.C. Berkeley, I was able to look at what my family has done through different perspectives,” says Masumoto, the daughter of Del Rey author and organic peach-and-raisin farmer David Mas Masumoto. “Those perspectives allowed me to realize that I could practice my passions for social justice and environmental sustainability through our farm.”

Her peers have similar interests. “It’s just hilarious, all of these friends deciding to work on organic farms,” she says. “It’s like their domestic Peace Corp experience.”

Not all young farmers distrust conventional agriculture. In the central San Joaquin Valley, the nation’s capital of food production, it’s common for children to follow in the footsteps of their farmer parents.

“It’s almost expected,” says Michelle Shackelford of Robert Johnson Farms, a 450-acre conventional farm in Madera that grows raisins and table grapes.

After working in San Francisco as a Goldman Sachs analyst and a buyer at Williams-Sonoma corporate headquarters, Shackelford returned home about five years ago.

The reason was simple: “I think what my family does is a very noble business and I wanted to keep that going,” says Shackelford, now 33.

In the world of agriculture, so-called greenhorns still are a niche movement, says Dave Goorahoo, a Fresno State soil scientist who sits on the transitional steering council of the Sustainable Agriculture Education Association. But they help fill consumer demand for sustainable and organic food, which “are the fastest growing trends in agriculture right now,” he adds.

Organic food played a role in Bryce Loewen’s journey back to Blossom Bluff Orchards in Parlier. Loewen, 31, spent a decade in the Bay Area, where he became a strict vegan for three or four years.

“I think that definitely affected my perceptions of organic agriculture,” he says.

After abandoning plans for a career in digital animation, Loewen worked the farmers markets, selling his parents’ organic stone fruit.

“I left the area because I wasn’t interested in farming, and then found out along the way that I was interested,” says Loewen, who returned to the Valley in January. Full article here…

New S.F. Food Policy Boosts Local Farms

GreenBiz.com
Tilde Herrera
Friday, July 10, 2009

San Francisco has adopted what may be the country’s first county food policy that aims to improve access to healthy food while supporting local agriculture and reducing shipping-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive directive Wednesday ordering all departments to survey the land under their control in order to create an inventory of land that can support community gardens. All city-purchased food for city meetings, schools, jails or homeless shelters must be grown locally with sustainable farming practices. Food vendors with city permits must also meet these requirements.

“The stark reality is that hunger, food insecurity, and poor nutrition are pressing health issues, even in a city as rich and vibrant as San Francisco,” said Mayor Newsom in a prepared statement Wednesday. “From the alleviation of hunger, to the need to support local and sustainable agricultural practices, these recommendations form a comprehensive and strategic approach to addressing pressing needs in all sectors of the food system.”

The policy must be put in place within six months, and only applies to city departments, not citizens or businesses, according to Joe Arellano, a spokesman from the mayor’s office.

The policy has its roots in the recommendations of the San Francisco Urban-Rural Roundtable, a group of stakeholders who worked to create what they call a “sustainable food shed” plan for the region.

When asked how the cash-strapped city would pay for higher-quality organic food, which may carry a price premium, Arellano said the potential savings are two-fold. Food purchased locally saves money through reduced shipping distances and costs, which also trims greenhouse gas emissions. Healthier food may also save the city money on healthcare in the long run: “The city spends a lot of money treating people for diabetes, obesity, heart disease,” Arellano said. By promoting healthier food and better eating habits, “we can reduce costs on the back end.”

A study released today from the California Center for Public Health Advocacy pegged the economic cost of obesity due to health care costs and lost productivity in San Francisco at more than $1 billion. Obesity costs the state an estimated $41 billion annually.

San Francisco launched a pilot program last July that created the Victory Garden near City Hall to test the feasibility of turning unused space into an organic food production zone, Arellano said, noting that First Ladies Michelle Obama and Maria Shriver have embraced the concept. Before that, the city funded gardening projects at local schools to incorporate these learnings into curricula. Arellano suspects the city’s Parks and Recreation Department will take a lead role in future community garden projects, along with local nonprofits, which have in the past entered into contracts to take over gardening responsibilities.

Other aspects of the new San Francisco food policy include augmenting food stamp purchasing power with philanthropic funds. The city began working with farmers’ markets in 2002 to allow the use of food stamps; an ordinance passed in 2007 requires food stamp acceptance. The program has been a success: Food stamp sales have increased more than 20 percent annually since 2003, while April and May sales have grown by between 70 percent and 75 percent compared to the year before.

There is also a trade mission aspect to help local restaurants and food vendors find farms from which they can buy produce directly, which Arellano sees as a way of creating awareness among local restaurants. Already the city’s composting program, which just became mandatory in June, sends tons of food scraps to local farms and wineries, which in turn produce famous wines and high-quality food sold and consumed in the San Francisco Bay Area.

How to create a drought-friendly garden

UK Guardian
Andy Hamilton
Tuesday, July 2, 2009

I always water in the evenings rather than the mornings, mainly because I don’t like getting up at 5am, but also because much of the water can be lost to evaporation. I also mulch with straw to keep the moisture in, and lawn clippings can be put to good use as a water-retaining mulch. Mulching also keeps at bay the weeds, which will compete with your plants for water.

You may have your guttering all connected up to water butts and are smugly reading this, or perhaps you don’t want to fork out for a butt. In either case, a very simple method of collecting rainwater is to leave buckets, old dustbins or old barrels outside. These should be covered in dry weather to reduce evaporation and to discourage mosquitoes.

It is the container gardener that really suffers during drought as pots can dry out quickly. These should be moved into the shade on particularly hot days or if you are going on holiday. The parts of your garden that get the most sun will also need more water, therefore you should aim to plant more drought-tolerant plants in these areas.

It is doubtful that the UK will say goodbye to rain altogether, so good practice will be to mimic the Mediterranean rather than the Sahara. This means many of the herbs that we already love can still be grown. Lavender is a good example – some strains are grown in the Balearics, such as Lavandula pinnata. Rosemary also is heat resistant and drought tolerant and can be pruned to fit into even the most manicured garden.

Vegetables would not be the first on the list of the drought gardener, yet we don’t have to do away with all edible plants. Consider beet spinach instead of normal spinach, try growing Jerusalem artichokes, and if you’re in the south-east of Britain, chickpeas.

If it is beauty you are after then sea holly (Eryngium maritimum) is a sound bet. It is an ingenious plant well adapted to drought conditions: sea holly grows to about 30cm tall but its roots can spread over a metre downwards to look for water. It’s a member of the carrot family, so its roots smell of carrots and can be eaten. Full article here…

Europe refuses to get soil on its hands

UK Guardian
David Cronin
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The other evening I had an experience of mundane magic. At the early age of 38, I ate the first vegetable that I had grown all by myself. It was a humble scallion yet on my tongue it had a tang of pride and achievement.

How many of the EU’s environment ministers who will gather in Luxembourg this Thursday produce their own food? I’m not asking that question because I think that my success story with organic scallions suddenly gives me greener credentials than the political masters of this continent. I ask it because I doubt that many of them feel any emotional connection to soil, judging by the cavalier way they disregard it.

Three years ago, the European commission proposed a legal framework for soil protection. Three years later, it is at risk of being consigned to the compost heap as a small but powerful group of EU governments are refusing to approve it. Britain, France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands are all opposed to the plan, claiming either that implementing it would be too onerous or that soil is a matter best left for national administrations.

The reasons cited for rejecting the blueprint are spurious. Far from being too onerous, the proposal does not go far enough in obliging governments to protect a resource that none of us can live without. Politicians or civil servants from regions with poor soil quality have no reason to fear that Brussels bureaucrats will ambush them with subpoenas. Instead of urgent action, the law would simply require governments to identify areas afflicted by such problems as soil erosion and salinisation (the accumulation of salt) and to compile an inventory of contaminated sites, along with plans to rehabilitate such land.

The soil protection saga is a troubling testament to how the EU’s approach to the environment suffers from compartmentalised thinking. Whereas binding laws have been introduced on air and water, the union lacks similar rules on soil. Any clever child would be able to tell you that all these things are intimately connected. But allegedly well-educated officials and politicians can’t grasp that it’s foolish to try to protect one while neglecting the others.

Britain’s reluctance to endorse the plan offers yet another example of how hollow the rhetoric of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments on climate change has been. Cared for properly, soil can act as a carbon “sink”, absorbing about one-fifth of all man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. When soil is damaged, however, the pattern is reversed and rather than soaking up CO2, it releases it. Each year British soil loses about 0.6% of its organic matter and the resulting increase in CO2 emissions would be roughly equivalent to putting an extra five million cars on the road. This problem has been acute for several decades: between 1980 and 1995 British soil lost 18% of its organic matter. In 2004, the Environment Agency stated that the degradation caused to soil in England and Wales due to such factors as intensive agriculture and mismanagement of forests (during road construction and harvesting) was unsustainable.

Across the EU, thousands of sites have been polluted because of reckless industrial practices; nobody is sure of the full extent of this damage as there is a paucity of data about soil. The commission, meanwhile, reckons that soil degradation deprives the EU economy of €38bn per annum and that’s probably a conservative estimate.

Soil cannot be shielded from further deterioration by token gestures. A comprehensive and effective strategy would have to grapple with reforms of agricultural and industrial policy and a more sensible attitude to waste management (as I’ve learned from my limited experiments in the garden, composting can be of vital importance in keeping soil fertile). Not only does that strategy seem distant, though, our governments also can’t even agree on minimal rules. It is difficult not to despair.

Farm gives hope to UK flora and fauna

UK Guardian
Steven Morris
Friday, June 12, 2009

Rare wildlife thriving at Cornish farm thanks to 30 years of ecologically sensitive management, National Trust survey shows.

An optimistic vision for the future of the British countryside has been revealed by the National Trust today, after a study on a Cornish farm, 30 years after the first biosurvey was conducted there.

The number of varieties of plants, insects and birds, many of them extremely rare, has increased threefold or more on the farm that is being seen as a model of how agricultural land can be managed in an environmentally sensitive way.

Thirty years ago Lower Predannack Farm, on the Lizard peninsula, was the first site where the National Trust carried out a survey to find out what sort of flora and fauna was there.

Then, a modest six or seven types of plants were recorded in a typical square metre of the clifftop farm. The cliffs were covered in scrub and the arable fields were intensively farmed.

Yesterday the National Trust said that thanks to careful management, 20, 30 or even 40 types of plant were found on a typical square metre of Lower Predannack when a biosurvey team returned this week, together with many types of rare bugs, bees, butterflies, and moths.

The National Trust regards the success at Lower Predannack as proof that rare flora and fauna can thrive across the country if farmland is managed well.

Andy Foster, leader of the biological survey team for the charity, said: “It’s great to see the variety of flora and fauna on this site. You look at a few square centimetres of land and find that it’s heaving with life.”

Foster was particularly pleased to find one of the UK’s most endangered bees, the brown banded carder bee – the first time it had been spotted here. He was also delighted that the red-legged crow the chough had reappeared on the cliffs at Lower Predannack after disappearing from Cornwall in the seventies.

However, it is not all good news. The trust is worried at the encroachment of foreign invaders such as the hottentot fig, a rampant South African plant that is taking hold on the Lizard, possibly because of global warming.

And there is a lack of frogs this summer because in January the cold snap claimed a generation of tadpoles. It is normally so balmy on the peninsula that tadpoles appear much earlier than in the rest of the country – but the icy weather killed most of them this year.

The trust is warning that some species of plants and animals that thrive in the warmer climate of south Cornwall could struggle if the weather continues to be violently unpredictable.

There also continues to be tension in some parts between farmers manage their land as they want to – and do not like to be thought of as park keepers – and conservationists.

David Bullock, the head of nature conservation at the National Trust, said: “The last 30 years has been a period of continual change, with farming becoming more focused on encouraging wildlife and the changes in our climate which will see wildlife winners and losers.”

But at Lower Predannack Farm this week the mood was optimistic. Andy Foster was sucking up clifftop vegetation with an adapted garden leaf blower and then combing the leaf debris for creepy-crawlies. One of his best finds was a thyme lacebug. “It’s a cute little bug with lacework wings, a sweet little thing,” he said.

Katherine Hearn, a member of the original survey team and now a National Trust nature conservation adviser, described how in 1979 the clifftop was swamped by scrub and tall rank grass full of thistles.

Farmers had stopped grazing cattle on the cliffs, worried that the animals would not thrive on the scrub or might plunge to their deaths. A conservation clause was added to the farm’s tenancy agreement, and since then the scrub has been munched away by hardy cattle and ponies – highland and dexter cattle graze there – and hacked away by conservationists.

Hearn pointed out the many varieties of plants growing on the clifftops now, from kidney vetch with its lovely yellow flowers to dropwort, a creamy relative of meadowsweet and wild chives. Rare clovers, included long-headed clover, upright clover and twin-headed clover – all popular with the bees that nest in the cliffs – are also doing well.

“The way we manage the land has such a big impact on wildlife. We can see that 30 years of positive change has made a real difference. There are up to 30 or 40 types of plants in a square metre now. The change is huge.”

Swishing his sweep net before him, invertebrate ecologist Pete Brash was thrilled at the sight of small pearl bordered fritillary butterflies. He did not even mind when a vivid green chafer beetle he had just caught began nibbling his finger. “It hasn’t drawn blood. I don’t care – it’s just fantastic to find brilliant creatures like this here now.”

U.N.: Nature Best at Handling Climate Change

FoxNews.com

Saturday, June 6, 2009

AMSTERDAM — Nature’s way is best for controlling the gases responsible for climate change, the U.N. Environment Program said in a report Friday.

The report said better management of forests, more careful agricultural practices and the restoration of peatlands could soak up significant amounts of carbon dioxide, the most common of the gases blamed for global warming.

“We need to move toward a comprehensive policy framework for addressing ecosystems,” said co-author Barney Dickson, releasing the report at the U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany.

The event was Webcast worldwide.

Millions of dollars are being invested in research on capturing and burying carbon emissions from power stations, but investing in ecosystems could achieve cheaper results, the report said.

It also would have the added effects of preserving biodiversity, improving water supplies and boosting livelihoods.

Halving deforestation by mid-century and maintaining that lower rate for another 50 years would save the equivalent of five years of carbon emissions at the current level, said Dickson, the agency’s head of climate change and biodiversity.

The loss of peatlands, mainly drained for palm oil and pulp wood plantations in Southeast Asia, contributes 8 percent of global carbon emissions. China could capture about 5 percent of its carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels by returning straw to croplands, it said.

Agriculture has the largest potential for storing carbon if farmers use better techniques, such as avoiding turning over the soil and using natural compost and manure rather than chemical fertilizers, it said.

Report: Agriculture holds the key to solving global warming

Green Right Now
Barbara Kessler
Wednesday, 3 June, 2009

Agriculture, so often cited as a factor in global decline – for claiming natural grasslands that store carbon, soil erosion and pesticide runoff – could become a big part of the solution to global warming, according to a hopeful report by Worldwatch Institute released today.

Innovations in food production and land use that are ready to be put to work could reduce greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to roughly 25 percent of global fossil fuel emissions and be managed to reduce carbon already in the atmosphere as well, according to WWI and Ecoagriculture Partners.

Carbon capture technology remains unproven and will take a decade at least to put into operation. By contrast, agricultural and land use management practices that are ready today could be employed to sequester carbon through photosynthesis by growing and sustaining more plants.

To understand how and why the agricultural approach to climate change must be a part of the solution, the public first needs to recognize that the world must “go negative” with carbon emissions – producing fewer than it churns out to reach the necessary reductions by 2050, said Sara Scherr, co-author with Sajal Sthapit of the report, Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use.

Policymakers must go beyond improving energy efficiency and scaling up renewables and add ways to pull down emissions from forestry and agriculture operations.

More than 30 percent of all human-caused greenhouse gases are linked to agriculture and land use, notes the report, which rivals the combined emissions of the transportation and industry sectors.

The report outlines five ways to reduce and sequester carbon using farming strategies:

* Enriching soil carbon. Soil, the third largest carbon pool on Earth’s surface, can be managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing tillage, cutting use of nitrogen fertilizers, and preventing erosion. Soils can store a vast amount of additional carbon by building up organic matter and by burying carbon in the form of biochar (biomass burned in a low-oxygen environment).

* Farming with perennials. Two-thirds of all arable land is used to grow annual grains, but there is large potential to substitute these with perennial trees, shrubs, palms, and grasses that produce food, livestock feed, and fuel. These perennials maintain and develop their roots and branches over many years, storing carbon in the vegetation and soil.

* Climate-friendly livestock production. Livestock accounts for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and land use. Innovations such as rotational grazing, manure management, methane capture for biogas production, and improved feeds and feed additives can reduce livestock-related emissions.

* Protecting natural habitat. Deforestation, land clearing, and forest and grassland fires are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives are needed to encourage farmers, ranchers, and foresters to maintain natural forest and grassland habitats through product certification, payments for climate services, securing tenure rights, and community fire control.

* Restoring degraded watersheds and range lands. Restoring vegetation on vast areas of degraded land can reduce greenhouse gas emissions while making land productive again, protecting critical watersheds, and alleviating rural poverty.

In India, Bucking The ‘Revolution’ By Going Organic

NPR
Daniel Zwerdling
Monday, June 1, 2009

Indian farmer Amarjit Sharma grows wheat and other crops on five acres in the heart of the region known as “the breadbasket of India,” the fertile fields of Punjab.

Until four years ago, he was the kind of farmer whom government leaders and agricultural scientists hailed as a model in the developing world.

But now, he has gone organic and is part of a quiet but growing rebellion, which could affect the world’s food crisis.

Decades ago, when the modern, chemical-reliant system of farming — the so-called Green Revolution of the 1960s and ’70s — swept across his region, Sharma became one of its biggest boosters. He abandoned traditional methods and embraced synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and modern, high-yield seeds, much like any farmer in Iowa.

And for about 20 years, Sharma says, the Green Revolution worked wonders. His crop yields and his income soared. But then, things unraveled.

“The Punjabi farmer’s problems had reached such levels, he wasn’t making any profit,” Sharma says, through an interpreter, as he walks through rows of his waist-high wheat crop.

Kicking The Chemical Habit

Sharma’s soil was deteriorating, so he had to buy more and more fertilizer every year to grow the same amount of crops. No matter how much pesticide he sprayed, insects still destroyed large portions of his crops. Sharma says he “realized the vicious circle in which we were stuck.”

In 2005, Sharma kicked the chemical habit.

Environmental groups in India estimate that more than 300,000 farmers like Sharma have switched to organic growing methods in recent years, or have started the transition from conventional to organic farming. Comparisons between India and the U.S. are difficult because their economies and cultures are so different. But consider this: India has about three times the population of the U.S., but 30 times more organic farmers than the U.S.

Sharma’s story symbolizes the dilemma that developing countries are facing around the world: What’s the most sustainable way to grow enough food? The answers will eventually affect people from India to Indiana, because the world’s population is booming — and if fast-growing countries like India can’t feed themselves, it could trigger more global instability.

Agribusiness leaders and many government officials are convinced that genetic engineering will help prevent a world food crisis. Firms like Monsanto Co. have been inserting genes from animals and bacteria into plants so they can grow faster with less water and resist insects.

Monsanto’s India spokesman, Christopher Samuel, says the company’s advances will double the yields of major crops over the next 20 years, while reducing the amount of land, water, fertilizer and pesticides needed — in the process “protecting the environment and its natural resources,” he says.

But activists in India are trying to block Monsanto and other companies from introducing genetically engineered food crops. They point out that it took decades to raise the alarm about serious, long-term side effects of the Green Revolution. They also say that, so far, there are not good studies examining whether biotech food crops could cause long-term problems.

Organic Farming Spreads In India

So a network of environmental groups has been traveling from village to village, preaching that organic farming is the only way that farmers can survive.

Sharma heard their sermon and became a believer.

He argues that organic means much more than simply not spraying synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. It requires farming in a more thoughtful way, he says.

For example, government policies under the Green Revolution have rewarded farmers for growing “monocultures” — vast areas of a single crop, such as wheat or rice. That can help boost yields, but studies show it has leached crucial nutrients from Punjab’s soil, requiring farmers to use five to 10 times as much fertilizer as they used to about two decades ago.

Organic farmers like Sharma grow a mixture of crops in the same fields as their wheat or rice, including types of beans that replenish the soil — so they don’t have to buy fertilizer. By growing a variety of crops, they also attract beneficial insects, which take the place of synthetic pesticides.

The difference between Sharma’s farm and his chemical-using neighbor’s is visible. The neighbor’s fields are like an endless green shag carpet. Sharma’s farm is like a busy quilt — a patchwork of wheat, beans and mustard plants exploding in bunches of bright yellow flowers.

Mixed Results, Hope For The Future

In the courtyard of his house in the village of Chaina, Sharma reviews his balance sheets.

“Our rice yields under the organic system are almost as good as before,” he says, as his wife scoops up cow manure with her hands and pats it into disks to fuel the cooking fire. “And we’re spending much less money on inputs, since we’re not buying pesticides and fertilizer — although labor costs have increased.”

On the downside, Sharma concedes that since he went organic, his wheat yields have fallen in half.

But he is optimistic. “I’ve been farming organically only for four years now. My land is still recovering from the Green Revolution. So I’m sure my yields will increase,” he says.

Imagine how much organic farmers might be able to produce, Sharma says, if India’s government spent even a fraction of the billions of dollars it has spent promoting chemical farming.

“We are not worried about how much yield we will get,” he says. “We are worried about our families, and our children. We want them to be healthy. We will never sell or eat poison.”

India’s organic movement is getting some support from influential voices in the agriculture industry. Late last year, the Punjab State Farmers Commission, which advises the agriculture department, published a report that angered organic activists by concluding that if all farmers across India went organic — including in Punjab, the most intensively cultivated region — food production would drop and “seriously jeopardize the national food security.”

But the commission’s chairman, Gurcharan Kalkat, says the researchers reached another conclusion: “For 70 percent of the area in the country (outside Punjab), farmers must go for organic farming,” he says, because organic methods will replenish the soil and improve their productivity. As for Punjab, the report concluded that 20 percent of its farmers could go organic and remain productive, too.

And the report says government scientists should begin to help them now.

“They should collect all the new [organic] techniques,” Kalkat says, “so that over the next two years we are in a position to say, ‘If you want to do organic farming, this is the way to do it.’”

Farm in the sky could feed our booming population!

Xavier Dune
Organic Vida
Monday, May 25, 2009

A dramatic vertical greenhouse shaped like the wings of a dragonfly could revolutionize farming in cities across the globe, according to its architect.

The amazing looking 650yd tall building was designed by Belgian designer Vincent Callebaut and would be constructed on Roosevelt Island in New York.

Spanning 132 floors it would provide urban farming space with enough room to raise cattle and poultry and 28 different types of crops, within a controlled environment.

There would also be space for housing and offices with walls and ceilings used to grow kitchen gardens. Each level would be cultivated by the permanent residents.

The Dragon Fly has two central towers arranged around a huge greenhouse that are linked together via two wings made from glass and steel.

It would be heated using solar energy in winter, which would harness the warm air between the wings. In summer it would be kept cool using natural ventilation and evapo-perspiration from the plants.

Exterior vertical gardens would filter rain water that would then be mixed with domestic liquid waste. After organic treatment it would be recirculated for farm use.

Self contained paradise? Residents of the 132-floor building would grow crops and cultivate kitchen gardens

Floor by floor, the tower superposes not only stock farming ensuring the production of meat, milk, poultry and eggs but also farming grounds, true biological reactors continuously regenerated with organic humus. It diversifies the cultivated varieties to avoid the washing of stratums of soft substratum. Thus, the cultures succeed one another vertically according to their agronomical ability to provide some elements of the ground between the essences that are sowed and harvested. The tower, true living organism, becomes thus metabolic and self-sufficient in water, energy, and bio-fertilizing. Nothing is lost; everything is recyclable to a continuous auto-feeding!

Mr Callebaut is known for his eccentric designs. A 2008 plan of his featured a self-sufficient floating city in the shape of a huge lilypad.

While the lilypad city was designed as a solution to rising sea levels in the future, the Dragonfly was designed to deal with a world food shortage as the human population continues to increase.

‘The worldwide urban population will go from 3.1 inhabitants in 2009 up to 5.5billion inhabitants by 2025,’ Mr Callebaut explained.

‘The ecological city aims to reintegrate the farming function on the urban scale in the use and reuse of natural resources and biodegradable waste.’

The revolutionary farm would completely change the New York’s skyline. Read more about the design here…