Categories
Agriculture Anti-Monsanto GMO crops Organic Gardening Real Food vs. Fake Food

Can organic crops compete with industrial agriculture?

organicharvest

A systematic overview of more than 100 studies comparing organic and conventional farming finds that the crop yields of organic agriculture are higher than previously thought. The study, conducted by UC Berkeley researchers, also found that certain practices could further shrink the productivity gap between organic crops and conventional farming.

 

The study, to be published online Wednesday, Dec. 10, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, tackles the lingering perception that organic farming, while offering an environmentally sustainable alternative to chemically intensive agriculture, cannot produce enough food to satisfy the world’s appetite.

“In terms of comparing productivity among the two techniques, this paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said the study’s senior author, Claire Kremen, professor of environmental science, policy and management and co-director of the Berkeley Food Institute. “With global food needs predicted to greatly increase in the next 50 years, it’s critical to look more closely at organic farming, because aside from the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, the ability of synthetic fertilizers to increase crop yields has been declining.”

The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies — a dataset three times greater than previously published work — comparing organic and conventional agriculture. They found that organic yields are about 19.2 percent lower than conventional ones, a smaller difference than in previous estimates.

The researchers pointed out that the available studies comparing farming methods were often biased in favor of conventional agriculture, so this estimate of the yield gap is likely overestimated. They also found that taking into account methods that optimize the productivity of organic agriculture could minimize the yield gap. They specifically highlighted two agricultural practices, multi-cropping (growing several crops together on the same field) and crop rotation, that would substantially reduce the organic-to-conventional yield gap to 9 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

The yields also depended upon the type of crop grown, the researchers found. There were no significant differences in organic and conventional yields for leguminous crops, such as beans, peas and lentils, for instance.

Continue reading at UC Berkeley.

 

Categories
Activism Agriculture Animal Rights Nature pestecide

A New Purdue University Study Reconfirms: Pesticides Kill Bees!

A new USDA funded study performed by Purdue University verifies what many environmentalists have long alleged and several groups of scientists have proven. The massive beehive die-offs known as Colony Collapse Disorder are linked to factory farms and pesticides. In particular, researchers are pointing to a category of pesticides sold by the German company Bayer.

 

The Perfect Specicide System For Bees (brought to you by Bayer©)

According to this study  , the bee deaths are connected to neonicotinoid  class of pesticides, which use a synthetic derivative of nicotine. These chemicals are applied as a glaze to corn and soybean seeds prior to planting. They are then absorbed by the plant’s vascular system and the appear in pollen and nectar. Factory farms have planted MILLIONS of acres of farmland with neonicotinoid treated seeds since 2003, and this is not the first time danger has been shown. On July 23, 2010, Dutch toxicologist, Dr Henk Tennekes had a scientific paper published in the journal, Toxicology (online) titled, “Druckrey-Küpfmüller Equation For Risk Assessment” He then authored and published a book in regards to his research called “A Disaster in the Making”. The book explores the impact of neonicotinoids on the immune system of bees.

The newer Purdue study shows that Bayer’s products are far more poisonous to bees than the company wants the Government and people to think. The researchers found that “maize pollen was frequently collected by foraging honey bees while it was available: maize pollen comprised over 50% of the pollen collected by bees, by volume, in 10 of 20 samples.”
Bayer denies its pesticide has contributed to bee die-offs. (Bayer also continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS, as reported in the NY Times 22 May 2003, but thats another story of this evil and old company). The company says that bees do not seek corn and therefore only trace amounts of neonicotinoid containing pollen will return to hives. And to date, the EPA has propped up Bayer’s claims.

There are also some unanticipated means by which bees are exposed to the pesticides, largely caused by hefty sized commercial “factory farmers”. The highly automated world of automatic monoculture uses giant mechanical seed planters. The seeders need a powder  applied to prevent the polymers used to bond the chemicals to the seeds from clogging up seed coating machine and the seed planters. This powder, along with small amount of pesticides collect in and on the seed bins. As the tractor does its rounds these bins shed a powdery waste of pure poison. This waste is dangerous to bees. The powder can contain up to 700,000 times the bee’s lethal dosage of neonicotinoid, and so of course any bees that come into make contact with it are killed. These initial population losses begin to weaken the hives.

As the pesticide cloud comes to rest on plants in close proximity to the fields and into the soil and water, there is lasting danger to bees as the pesticides are persistent in the foodchain. An dif these chemicals hurt bees, you can be sure humans, plants and other animals in the area are at risk. Any flowers or even your own home garden near treated crop fields can harbor the poison. Bees gather nectar and pollen from the flowers and other plants and will bring the neonicotinoids back to the hive. Although these small levels of the pesticide do not kill the bees, their immune systems become compromised, leaving hives vulnerable to other pressures. Also, newly developing larvae are affected by exposure to pesticides through the stored pollen, bees only source of protein. The cascading effects of these small but continuous doses can potentially devastate an entire hive. Scientists found neonicotinoid pesticides in every sample of dead and dying bees as well as in pollen the bees collected and brought back to the hives, not only in this study, but in several studies now.

The Human Hive Mind

US regulatory agencies follow a policy of relying on manufacturer funded and provided data to conclude the safety of pesticides and herbicides. Although a leaked document in 2010 revealed that EPA scientists found Bayer’s research on its neonic pesticides to be suspect, the agency has not acted to stop the sale or use of these products.

Bayer has profited over one billion dollars from its two neonic products imidacloprid and clothianidin. Given Bayer’s immense wealth and power, it seems unlikely the EPA will take action, particularly in a presidential election year. This means Colony Collapse Disorder is likely to continue to devastate bee populations, leaving reverberating effects on the environment for generations to come. Honeybees are responsible for 80 per cent of all pollination as they collect nectar for the hive, t The mortality rate is the highest in living memory

This type of insecticide was banned in France, Slovenia and Germany after this step the bee populations began to rise again.

 

Tell the EPA and the US President to take action BAN neonic products like imidacloprid and clothianidin.

 

 
Sources:

http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/01/purdue-study-implicates-bayer-insecticide-bee-die-offs

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2012/120111KrupkeBees.html

http://www.panna.org/blog/banner-week-bee-science-zombie-flies-poisonous-planter-exhaust

 

Categories
Agriculture Environmentalism Self-Reliability Sustainability

Farmland as a Commodity

     Farmland being treated like a stock-market bid, on which savvy businessmen hope to make as much money as possible.

     I am often inspired by my local paper, but this article has been haunting me ever since I read it a week ago. To me, it represents so much of what has gone wrong in our agricultural system. Farmland being treated like a stock-market bid, on which savvy businessmen hope to make as much money as possible, just strikes me as fundamentally screwed up. We are talking about land, of which the planet only has so much, that has the power to grow food and feed everyone. This land is being regarded as a means to an end–profit, and profit only. This disturbing article fits into the bigger picture of our farmland being used to grow primarily corn and soybeans–which in turn fits into the whole industrialized food system. Perhaps, as the article states, the idea of businessmen–often with absolutely no knowledge or interest in actually tending the land and growing food–coming in to take over farmland is nothing new. But, I am seeing these kinds of stories with new eyes, and a new discomfort.

 

 

 

Investors up on the farm as property values soar

 

Bernard Condon | Associated Press

 

Braden Janowski has never planted seeds or brought in a harvest. Yet when 430 acres of Michigan cornfields were auctioned last summer, it was Janowski, a brash, 33-year-old software executive, who made the winning bid.

 

It was so high – $4 million, 25 percent above the next-highest – that some farmers stood, shook their heads and walked out. But Janowski figures he got the land cheap.

 

“Corn back then was around $4,” he says from his office in Tulsa, Okla., stealing a glance at prices per bushel on his computer.

 

Prices rose to almost $8 a bushel in June but are now closer to $7.

 

The return of the gentleman farmer is shaking up the American heartland. In the past, investors with few or no ties to farming have been called sidewalk farmers, suitcase farmers or absentee landlords.

 

Lured by high crop prices, they wager big on a patch of earth – betting that it’s a smart investment because food will only get more expensive around the world.

 

They’re buying wheat fields in Kansas, rows of Iowa corn and acres of soybeans in Indiana. And though farmers still fill most of the seats at auctions, the newcomers are growing in number and variety – a Seattle computer executive, a Kansas City lawyer, a publishing executive from Chicago, a Boston money manager.

 

The value of Iowa farmland has almost doubled in six years. In Nebraska and Kansas, it’s up more than 50 percent.

 

“I never thought prices would get this high,” says Robert Huber, 73, who just sold his 500-acre corn and soybean farm in Carmel for $3.8 million, or $7,600 an acre, triple what he paid for it a decade ago.

 

“At the price we got, it’s going to take a long time for him to pay it off – and that’s if crop prices stay high.”

 

Buyers say soaring farm values simply reflect fundamentals. Crop prices have risen because demand for food is growing around the world while the supply of arable land is shrinking.

 

At the same time, farmers are shifting more of their land to the crops with the fastest-rising prices, which could cause those prices to fall – and take the value of farms with them.

 

And even if crop prices hold up, land values could fall if another key prop disappears: low interest rates.

 

When the Federal Reserve cut its benchmark rate to a record low in December 2008, yields on CDs and money market funds and other conservative investments plunged, too. To many Wall Street experts, the hunt for alternatives explains the rapid rise in gold, art, oil – and farms.

 

Those who favor farms point out that, unlike gold, art and oil, you can collect income while you own a farm. You can sell what you grow or hand the fields over to a farmer and collect rent.

 

In Iowa, investors pocket annual rent equivalent to 4 percent of the price of land. That’s a 60-year low but almost 2.5 percentage points more than average yield on five-year CDs at banks.

 

But that advantage could disappear quickly. If the Fed starts raising rates, farmland won’t look nearly as appealing.

 

As with stocks, U.S. farms can swing wildly in value along with the economy. Despite the fragile recovery, though, farm prices are nearing records now, capping a decade of some of the fastest annual price jumps in 40 years. In Iowa, farm prices rose 160 percent in the decade through last year to an average $5,064 per acre, according to Iowa State University.

 

Thomas Hoenig, head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, oversaw dozens of bank failures when a farm boom turned bust 30 years ago. Today, he suggests prices may be in an “unsustainable bubble.”

 

Veteran bond trader Perry Vieth doesn’t think so. Vieth, formerly with Pan Agora Asset Management in Boston, started buying farms with his own money five years ago, when buyers with no farming experience were rare.

 

Now he’s buying for 71 wealthy investors. Ceres Partners, his private investment fund, owns 65 farms, almost half bought since November. He says he’s returned 15 percent annually to his investors overall.

 

Though Vieth says prices in some places have climbed too high – he won’t buy in Iowa, for instance – he says the price of farms elsewhere will rise as big money managers start seeing them as just another tradable asset like stocks or bonds and start buying.

 

“When Goldman Sachs shows up to an auction, then I’ll know it’s time to get out,” he says.

 

 

Locally

Outsiders’ interest in farms nothing new

Ritter Cox, an agent with Schrader Real Estate & Auction Co., said last October his Columbia City company sold a 5,000-acre Kansas farm to a Wall Street hedge fund.

“They turn around and rent it out and get the income from it,” Cox said. “It’s an excellent investment and better return than a lot of other” ways.

Randy Hardy grows corn, soybeans and wheat in Allen and Huntington counties. He and his brother work four farms. Hardy said city slickers scooping up farmland is nothing new.

“In the ’70s, you had quite a few doctors that were buying farmland,” Hardy said. “We are aware of it, but it’s hard for us to do anything about it. It’s been going on for quite a while.”

– Paul Wyche, The Journal Gazette

 

link to original article

 

 

Categories
Activism Animal Rights Environmentalism

Agricultural Gag Bill Set To Be Passed In New York.

A New York Bill Targets Animal Activists And Protects Abusive Farm Practices By Large Factory Farmers.

pigs_591

     In 2009 a small group of animal activists called Mercy For Animals recorded a video at Willet Dairy in Locke, NY. I want everyone to see it, but I must warn you it is GRAPHIC, do not watch it if you are sensitive to torture or eating…seriously. It shows how a factory farm or Closed Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) really works. There is cruelty to animals, environmental destruction from manure in concentrated areas, and just an overall “production over quality” mentality. Groups such as Mercy For Animals do not let the animals go, they do not hurt the farmer physically, they do all of their work non-violently with a video camera, undercover, doing what the USDA should be doing. And yet  states such as Iowa, Florida and Minnesota, have tried to ban such whistleblowing, and now New York joins the fray.

     S5172-2011 is a bill introduced in the NY Senate to ban these undercover investigations by “unauthorized parties.” The reason that is given by the bills sponsor, Patty Ritchie, is that this bill is for food security and to fight the Drug War. The summary of the bill reads in part:

While working with the Departments of Homeland Security as well as local law enforcement,it has become clear from several recent instances of animal and facility tampering (the unlawful injection of cattle with antibiotics in Western New York, and the increasing theft of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, utilized by meth addicts to make illegal substances) that the tools for law enforcement and for farmers to help secure their premises are not always accurate.”

     I am not sure what they mean by saying the tools are not “accurate”, but in any case as you read the rest of the bill you find there is no other mention of anhydrous ammonia (a horrible nitrate based fertilizer and possible ingredient in crystal methamphetamine), and little mention of food security,in fact the bills author never actually uses the words food security again. This is in addition the overall attack on environmental and animal rights activists in the US.  So you may ask what is in bill S5172-2011?

      Well mostly lettered sections of legal definitions of the words A. farm animal, B. farm, C. release, D. person, E. notice etc. It is when you get to section F  that you find the actual purpose of the bill. It does not give a harsher sentence for persons posing as a farm employee to get meth ingredients, or special provisions against food terrorism, instead it bans:

“THE INJECTION OF ANY UNAUTHORIZED SUBSTANCE, THE RELEASE OF A FARM ANIMAL, THE UNAUTHORIZED FEEDING OR UNAUTHORIZED VIDEO, AUDIO RECORDING OR PHOTOGRAPHY DONE WITHOUT THE FARM OWNER’S WRITTEN CONSENT.”

     None of this has to do with food security, only corporate security. If the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Dept. Of Agriculture (USDA) do not do their jobs, you could actually get up to a year in jail, and a fine, not to mention legal fees (for both sides), and even the possibility of paying for the animal if you release it, IF you or your group decides to try to do an undercover report with a video camera. This law is obviously written to stem the efforts of groups like PETA, not to stop terrorists or illegal drug makers.

     On top of this Draconian laws provisions, are the lack of exemptions which are also telling. “Farm Animals” covered by this bill are “Any warm or cold blooded animal which is being used in the production of food or fiber for agricultural purposes.” First of all, I am not sure what “cold blooded animals” live on New York farms, and second, this means ANY farm animal you see being mistreated or abused, and then video record it for proof, could put you in legal limbo. Does a dog who works on a farm count here? If the dog is being used “in the production process”, such as a shepherd, recording its abuse, or attempting to save it, would land you in court and possibly jail. Trying to save ANY animal that lives on a farm becomes almost impossible. Its ridiculous, and it DOES NOT make food safer or stop drug proliferation.

     If you live in New York or Iowa, call your state rep, your Governor, even your local politicians and tell them you do not want to see S5172-2011 pass, if you live outside of New York or Iowa, call anyways, keep calling lets flood these animal haters with mail, phonecalls, anything to stop this attack on activists and the animals they protect!

*if you like this article I recommend Will Potters book, “Green Is The New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege.”