Sustainable Farming Receiving Recognition!

Sustainable Farming Receiving Recognition!

I’ve talked a lot about the prospects and the problems facing sustainable agriculture in the 21st century, but how well are they being received around the world and is their recognition being awarded?

I came across an articled on Eco-Business, published on the 17th December 2015 - so a recent publication, which is reporting that four traditional farming systems in Bangladesh and Japan have been rewarded by the FAO as ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems’. But what does this mean? Is this important in the sustainable agricultural revolution that seems to be taking over the world?

The sites were designated during a meeting of the Scientific Committee at FAO’s Rome headquarters, and now bring the total of GIAHS systems to 36 sites located in 15 countries. GIAHS offer real solutions to food security, the conservation of natural resources and sustainable rural development, and as part of an FAO Coorporate Programme, should be entitled to ‘adequate policy guidance as well as investment’, the FAO Deputy Director-General Helena Semedo claims.

But what are these recent four traditional farms that have been rewarded as a GIAHS?

Japan - Ayu of the Nagara River System - One of cleanest rivers in Japan. Ayu fish benefit from clean waters mainted by upstream management.

Japan - Minabe-Tanabe Ume System - Allows for high-quality production of Ume and various kinds of fruit. System ensures stable livelihoods and makes communites more resilient to disasters.

Japan - Takachihogo-Shiibayama Mountainous Agriculture and Forestry System - Balances timber production with diverse farming activities.

Bangladesh - Floating garden Agricultural Practices - unique hydroponics system in which plants can be grown on the water on floating organic bed of water hyacinth, algae and other plant residues.

But what about other developing nations? How is West African farming being supported? There is no doub that the population growth in sub-Saharan Africa has spurred an increase in demand for agricultural and food products [Pretty, Toulmin, and Williams 2011], but Herrero [2010] believes that a better integration between crop and livestock activities at a farm level is a possible solution towards sustainability of these systems. Such integration involves the transfers between crop and livestock systems, but despite such scientific knowledge of sustainable agricultural alternatives, crop-livestock integration (CLI) remains limited due to the low transfers between crop and livestock components within mixed farms [Herrero 2010]. Sempore et al [2016] argues that through a particapatory approach, farmers’ knowledge and awareness of CLI evolved. This method, which in some of my previous blogs has been mentioned, relies on education and training, and according to Sempore et al [2016] proved to allow farmers to design and assess scenarios which ultimately increase transferable animal and plant biomasses in mixed crop-livestock production.

Through helping farmers in developing nations on an interactive level, farmers can assess the most feasible options in the short term and allows them to calculate changes in practices following cropping season. Despite this, there is always the burden of financial backing to support such measures, and without it can lead to limited impacts from this sustainable improvement.

What are consumer preferences when it comes to local farming?

What are consumer preferences when it comes to local farming?

Within the past ten years, the demand for food has increased massively in the US, and with the demand to reduce carbon emissions, the growth of local farming has been quite substantial, growing 111% from 1994 to 2004 [Darby et al 2008]. Adams et al [2010], however, argues that there has been a consumer shift in preference from organic farming to local farming, which ultimately has implications for the environment and society.

An interesting point I believe to begin with is augmented by Darby, who raises the point - what do consumers define as local? The perception of locally grown foods is not quite well understood, and if the distance between production and the consumer is the predominant driving factor, then national firms have difficulty in regarding their produce as ‘local’, especially with many consumers being influenced by ‘anti-corporate’ images that locally produced foods show [Darby et al 2008].

Adams et al [2010] believes that consumers have turned to local food from organic food as a more holistic alternative, as he emphasises a point made by Iles [2005], where consumers are now actually more interested in knowing food miles instead of reading the organic labels, as a general consensus that organic farming has become somewhat industrialised, and this ‘turn’ apparently - according to Adams - began in the 1990s as a result of interesting results from surveys, with one including 9% of respondents saying that their concern for the environment was their primary reason for buying organic produce. This was exacerbated by results found by Wolf [1997], which suggested that consumers in California indicate that locally grown produce are an important part of their shopping at farmers’ markets, whereas organic produce was less desirable. But why? Wolfe’s study also found that consumers perceived local food as fresher, better quality and cheaper. This is reinforced by some statistics produced in an article published in the same year as Wolfe’s study, with Gallons et al [1997] finding that local food is very important (49%) or somewhat important (31.5%), whereas organic food was considered at 15% very important and 19.9% somewhat important.

All in all, what determines a consumer’s preference between the two depends on various drivers, such as concern about industrialisation of organic agriculture and how fresh particular produce are. But according to Adams et al [2010], whether or not a change from organic to local food preference will have an effect on broader aspects of the food system, but still it provokes some interesting thoughts about agriculture and how society bases itself on information - even if its an image on a product!

Newsflash: What Is The Potential Of Seaweed Farming Regarding Ocean Restoration And Climate change?

What Is The Potential Of Seaweed Farming Regarding Ocean Restoration And Climate change?

What if there was a way to grow restorative species that make oceans cleaner, healthier and more habitable, but also help in reducing carbon emissions? Well, Bren Smith, director of Thimble Island Oyster Co., believes that his ‘3D ocean farms’ provide this solution that utilises the entire water column.

According to Mr. Smith, “A 3D ocean farm is designed to restore rather than deplete our oceans. We use our new farming methods to meet the growing need for sustainable seafood, while restoring ecosystems, mitigating climate change and building a new blue-green economy”. But why is using seaweed an option? According to FastCoExist, seaweed farms help clean the water from the pollution of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The kelp that these farms also grow absorb five times more carbon than land-based plants. Mr. Smith’s seaweed farming was considered so innovative that his project, GreenWave, was awarded $100,000 from the Fuller Challenge Prize, who augment how the infrastructure is simple but helps to provide vibrant ecosystems.

To me, there is no disbelief as to why Mr. Smith’s GreenWave project has received such an honourable award, as his project of 3D Ocean farms seems like one of the most innovative systems I have come across whilst studying sustainable farming, whilst the project also doesn’t remove people from work but instead creates employment, something developing nations could utilise? Whilst absorbing carbon at a fast rate, the farms also supposedly act as a storm surge protector, reducing the impact of storms on shoreline communities. Furthermore, the system also acts as an artificial reef, attracting 150 species that after a decade of what was once a barren patch of ocean, has now become a thriving ecosystem.  

Is Renewable Energy The Solution For Modern Agriculture?

Is Renewable Energy The Solution For Modern Agriculture?

It is well-known that agriculture is heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels, but as we know that this is a finite resource, it is surely not only sensible but mandatory to consider whether renewable energy could pose a possible alternative to our use of fossil fuels within the agricultural industry and would this alternative make agriculture sustainable. Agriculture contributed to nearly 14% of world greenhouse gas emissions in 1994 and in 2009 the US agriculture was responsible for emitting 6.3% of US greenhouse gas emissions [Camargo 2013]. Alongside our depleting amount of fossil fuels, there will eventually be a forced reduction of our usage of fossil fuels - paving the way for seeking these alternatives.

Solomon et al [2007] proposes a more conservative approach of resources as well as more effective cultivation techniques, yet this would not make us independent from fossil fuels. Bardi et al [2013] responds to this and against the idea of a truly ‘organic’ farm as these farms would be incredibly labour-intensive - which would take the level of agriculture back centuries. But if farms were to remain fully dependent on fossil fuels without seeking/utilising sustainable alternatives, they can become, as mentioned, victim to the global fluctuation of fossil fuel prices, as Haggard and Noland [2009] use North Korea as a prime case study. North Korea’s agricultural system depends heavily on the usage of fossil fuels and as a consequence of price fluctuation of fossil fuels, North Korea has been subject to famines, leading to farmers reducing fertiliser input thus reducing agricultural yields.

When discussing the effectiveness of renewable energy solutions, a good measurement of comparison is the energy return for energy invested (EROI). Until recently, the EROI of fossil fuels was much greater than that of renewable technologies, but with progressing technology, an EROI efficiency level high enough to compete with fossil fuels is being achieved. These high EROIs are also creating lower monetary costs, but very slowly - due to the high costs of investment, but the gap is closing due to the greater efficiency of renewable technologies such as wind and photovoltaics [Bardi et al 2013].

With the world’s total energy consumption in 2012 being 513 EJ, agriculture contributed to 6% of the world’s fossil fuel consumption. According to Pfeiffer [2004], renewable energy provided 8.2 EJ of primary energy worldwide, and Bardi et al [2013] believes that expanding this to cover the 30 EJ used by agriculture would be possible by expanding the use of PV and wind. Bardi et al [2013] interestingly argues for this expansion, claiming that the land requirements would be minimal, but fails to identify the cost requirements of this expansion as well as the investment costs, which he previously noted as being high when discussing the EROI comparisons.

Whilst electricity currently plays a minor role in modern agriculture, if farming were to adapt agricultural processes to the direct use of electricity, the high EROI of modern renewables could be exploited. In particular, electricity could be utilised for the production of nitrogen-based fertilisers and power irrigation, therefore substituting the need for fossil fuels for both of these tasks. Furthermore, electricity could also power agricultural machinery, again reducing the greenhouse emissions that modern agriculture strongly contribute to.

Why aren’t there more sustainable farms in the 21st century? Why don’t some farmers go organic?

Why aren’t there more sustainable farms in the 21st century? Why don’t some farmers go organic?

After browsing through my timeline on Twitter (@feedingourearth), I came across an article written by Cara Parks of Refinery29.uk - a fashion website - a strange place to come across an article focusing on a possible oncoming end to organic & sustainable farming - and it prompted me to think: is organic farming failing? Why isn’t every farmer taking up more sustainable agricultural practices? Why isn’t sustainable farming fashionable?

Small-scale farmers are always preoccupied with the economic aspects of their business - so the long-term economic benefits of sustainable agriculture might not be so obvious to small-scale farmers who are struggling to balance their production with their debts. In conventional farms, the extensive use of highly specialised & expensive equipment adds to a farmer’s debt, so why would they switch to practices that generally (especially in developing countries) produces lower output yields?

Another interesting aspect as to why some farmers avoid sustainable agriculture according to Reganold [1990] is the controlling of prices by states for particular crops. For example, corn and other feed grains receive three fourths of all crop subsidies and account for 2/3rds of cropland use. As there is a lack of financial backing for other crops, farmers are discouraged from diversifying their crop types, therefore resulting in monoculture to maximise production output in the aim to benefit their struggling debts.

According to Cara Parks, however, the main issue for sustainable and organic farmers is the gap between small-scale farmers and consumers, an ever-appearing theme in sustainable agriculture! One does notice, however, the very cheap prices large supermarkets are using when in competition with one another on produce, which therefore steers consumers towards the lower price - ultimately ignoring the small-scale farm produce leaving the small-scale farmers in limbo. From the article, Michelle Hughes of National Young Farmer’s Coalition continues to paint a negative tone on sustainable farming prospects, proclaiming that it will never reach the levels conventional farming has reached/is currently at. She believes that in order for smaller-scale farms to flourish, there needs to be changes in the marketing and distribution infrastructure - but I have to ask: if small-scale farms don’t reach the levels of conventional farms (in terms of produce and economic outcome), who would alter an infrastructure in favour of a lower achieving business?

In light of all this pessimistic future of sustainable farming, Japanese farming is aiming to close that ever-appearing producer-consumer ‘gap’. Daichi wo Mamoru Kai is an association who ‘want to build a nation where people can live free of hunger in a sustainable mode’, and receive produce from 2,500 organic farms to which they then deliver to the doors of a quarter of a million green consumers in Tokyo.

The NY1 News article argues that it’s partnerships such as Daichi wo Mamoru Kai that allow small-scale farmers to have a steady income - but surely a more legislative change would allow small-scale farmers to reap the benefits of their passionate sustainable work? Reganold [1990] thinks so, but augments that back in 1990 that funding for sustainable agriculture was only .5% of the total USDA research and education budget. However, switching to sustainable methods would require more than just legislative changes - but also changes to education and research regarding young farmers. But surely consumers also have to be educated as well so they would then choose small-scale farm produce over large-scale supermarket produce? These factors have to be considered.

Daichi wo Mamoru Kai Radiation Check on Vegetables

If sustainable farming is successful, not only farmers but societies would benefit, and natural resources would become protected - it requires in my opinion both legislative change regarding farming taxation on fertilisers and other agricultural requirements, and also heavier teachings for both young farmers and consumers in order to encourage sustainable farming.

Case Study: Organic Agriculture & Fair Trade: Black Pepper Farmers in India & Conventional vs Organic Farming

Case Study: Organic Agriculture & Fair Trade: Black Pepper Farmers in India & Conventional vs Organic Farming

In my last blog, I touched upon what methods are being introduced to help sustainable farmers increase their produce and ultimately benefit their livelihood. But one of the key questions surrounding this is whether organic farmers are actually benefiting from the recent global expansion of organic farming, and how are they comparing to conventional farmers? What are the welfare impacts dependent on?

In this blog, I comment on the findings of Parvathi (2015) who researched groups of smallholder farmers in comparison to the certified farmers. As mentioned in my previous blog and by Parvathi (2015), India has the highest number of organic farmers (650,000) and fair trade producers globally, so it is therefore reasonable to study such an area, as lessons could be replicated/improved for other developing nations.

What is an Organic & Fair Trade Certification?

It is important to distinguish between the two, as organic systems are predominantly related to health and environmental concerns, compared to the motivation of fair trade systems to reduce poverty among the smallholder producers in developing countries. Certification costs also vary, with organic costs depending on the size of farm, with larger ones paying more. With fair trade, the size of the cooperative determines the certification cost, as with more members, the cost per head of certification is lower.

What is Black Pepper Farming In India?

According to the FAO (2010), India was once a leading global pepper producer, by having 76,000 metric tons in 1999, but this fell to 51,000 by 2010. Despite having 50% of the world’s black pepper area, India only contributes a quarter to the global production and has since become an importer. With price risks present alongside this unstable farming, smallholder farmers have become economically restricted when black pepper production is considered.

Is organic production of black pepper the solution some may wonder? How does this influence the welfare of smallholder farmers in comparison to conventional farmers? For conventional black pepper farmers, the minimum fair trade price does not exist - which is designed to offer benefits and protect farmers against risk - yet it only applies to organic farmers against price shocks.

Parvathi (2015) collected data from 300 smallholder pepper farmers in India to evaluate the welfare impacts and how they differ between certified and conventional farmers. Parvathi’s findings showed that certified farmers earn more per capita than conventional farmers and have a higher disposable income. Privathi also found that adding fair trade certification will increase the asset level of organic pepper farmers. Also, by having a fair trade certificate, organic pepper farmers seem to have better business opportunities as a result of improved infrastructure via the Fair Trade Organisation. Privathi’s study, I find, augments the issues surrounding integration of different organisations when it comes to certifications of farmers and how the assets instead of income is a better indicator of fair trade actions, as the benefits of fair trade are not instant, but materialise in the long term.

Duram (2005) suggests that organic methods of farming can now produce yields similar to conventional methods, and with greater research and funding, the yields could be even greater. I also find that Duram raises another important point regarding this issue, that regardless of how much of a crop is produced, organic farmers are more likely to be profitable due to their lack of agrichemical expenditure. Even if organic farmers do not produce the same amount of yield as a conventional farmer, they can still be profitable without entering agricultural industrial production. This is important, as no matter how much yield is produced, a farm can only exist if it is economically viable.

In a more recent study, however, John P. Reganold (2012) argues that on a global scale, a study from 316 yield comparisons in 66 studies show that organic farming in developed countries produce yields that are 20% lower than in conventional farms, rising to 25% when developing nation studies are introduced. Achieving a high crop yield requires a well-adapted plant variety, sufficient sunshine, water and nutrients. Reganold therefore believes that the agricultural world has to accept that various types of agriculture can have a part in feeding the world, the type just depends on the prerequisites mentioned.

Ultimately, gaps remain in both conventional and organic farming when it comes down to yield and input-efficiency, and these gaps need to be closed in order to meet high profitability, environmental, sustainability and social standards. As Reganold (2012) puts it in a way in which I agree with and augment, comparing the two farming systems will not enhance our understanding of the requirement for a higher yield, but well-informed experimental research at scales relative to the production level may be the key answer.

In The News - How Can Sustainable Agriculture Benefit Through Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)? - India

In The News - How Can Sustainable Agriculture Benefit Through Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)? - India

In one of my previous blogs, I focused on how the Central Ohio Regional Council is pushing for sustainable agriculture through various methods, which has since then prompted me to search for similar scenarios but in different parts of the world where different circumstances are faced. In this blog I focus on the situation the Indian agriculture is facing regarding sustainability and what is being done to raise sustainability awareness.

With a population of 1.2 billion, India has fast become an influencing power in global economics, and by 2025 will be the 5th largest consumer economy in the world. With the rate of urbanization expected to rise rapidly in this time, alongside food consumption with population growth, a corresponding increase in agricultural production will eventually drive an increase in demand for crop nutrients (Agrium 2015). But as the government regulates both fertiliser and crop prices, how can Indian agriculture become sustainable?

Livemint.com recently featured an article covering the issue, and argues that PPPs are a ‘major game changer’ in the agricultural sector - reporting that PPPs tie together the influencing figures in the agricultural system - from the government through to research and development. The aim, of course, is to transform the sector at all levels. According to Parvathi (2015), India has the highest number of organic producers in the world, with 650,000 farmers, and also has the third highest number of fair trade producers globally, so it is understandable as to why Chaudhry of Livemint.com focuses on India’s sustainable agriculture prosperity - but recognises and augments how infrastructure and harvest losses makes India experience some of the highest food losses in the world - hence why PPPs have become a popular possible solution.

There are three key parts to the PPP model. The first of these is investing in smarter value chains. For example, The extension of farm services can be provided by the advancement of the processing industry, who with support from investments from the government can enhance price realization and ultimately improve the agricultural supply chain. Catalysing private sector investments is also another smarter chain move, as it would lead to a reduction in waste and greater value addition.

The second key part to the PPP model is improving access to credit, technology and markets for organic farmers. According to Agrium 2015, from 2014 to 2018, India’s compound annual growth rate is estimated to be 2.5% annually for consumption of nitrogen, phosphate and potash, but through PPPs, information technology and biotechnology can raise production levels and outputs alongside correct and suitable guidance of these fertilisers, with the aim to reduce their environmental effects.

The third and final part of the PPP model is building farmer resilience to environmental shock. Due to India’s geographical location, the country is quite commonly subject to adverse weather conditions - ultimately taking its toll on arable land and industries. PPPs aim to insure farmers and their land and help the agricultural sector deal with weather shocks. PPPIAD is a successful PPP enterprise and is developing integrated value chains for selected crops through PPP and co-investment, and now has 33 value-chain programmes with more than 60 participating countries. PPPs as such are examples that need to be followed for rejuvenating sustainable agriculture. An upcoming blog of mine will focus on a case study organic farming and fair trade in India to see what is successful and what ultimately benefits farmers - stay tuned!

Importance of soil health in sustainable agriculture

Importance of soil health in sustainable agriculture

“Agriculture must, literally, return to its roots by rediscovering the importance of healthy soil” 

It has been quite widely recognised since the birth of sustainable agricultural recognition, that the quality of soil is a vital link between the strategies of conservation management practices proposed and the actual achievement in sustainability targets. There has been no question, that centuries of cultivation has depleted soil fertility to the extent that a negative balance of nutrient availability occurs - resulting in nutrient deficiency - humans have withdrawn more than they can return. Displacement of soil and loss of soil by erosion increases the amount of sediments entering river systems along with chemicals drawn off farmlands (pesticides, fertilizers),  so not only would maintenance of soil improve the quality of soil, but also reduce the associated environmental effects (Lynch et al 2002). But how?

The biological component of the soil system has a high dependence on the chemical and physical soil components and hence tends to be a sensitive indicator to degradation processes (Wollongbar Agricultural Institute 2001), so the maintenance of of ‘holding’ soil together has its origins in organic matter. For example, fungal hyphae binds soil particles together into small aggregates, backed by supporting plant roots. Organisms (most commonly the bacteria such as Bacillus & Pseudomonas) within the soil produce polysaccharides that ‘glues’ the soil and stabilises aggregates. Mycorrhizal fungi also contributes to soil aggregate formation and soil stability by tying mineral and organic debris in a network of external hyphae. When looking at maintaining soil stability, understanding the biological components of what holds the soil together is a key step in maintaining soil health and quality, therefore a step forward to sustainability. 

One of the major areas regarding combating soil degradation is assessment. Assessment of soil health is required to identify problem production areas, make realistic estimates of food production and monitor changes in sustainability and environmental quality (Lynch et al 2002). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations published the Save and Grow (2011) article, augmenting the systematic approaches to agricultural land practices in the effort to sustain soil quality. Some of the approaches are summarised:

• Establishing national regulations for sound husbandry. FAO believe that governments should be prepared to regulate farming practices through policy frameworks, and especially focus on areas that pose serious threats.
• Monitor soil health. FAO has produced methods and tools that farmers of agricultural lands can use to assess and monitor soil quality. 
• Build capacity. Policymakers should make soil health management knowledge-intensive, which could be done through guidelines and greater research.
• Disseminate information and communicate benefits. Modern information and communication technologies should be utilised so effective agricultural techniques can reach farmers. 

A notable case study regarding the management of soil quality has stemmed from the agricultural usage of of land in Latin America. The soils of Brazil’s Cerrado tropical savanna and Amazon rainforest regions are typically oxisols and ultisols - both which are poor in nutrients and acidic. Due to their location, their are subject to high rainfall and consequently erosion if the surface is not protected by vegetation cover. Management of these soils has been designed to conserve or increase organic matter by providing a permanent soil cover, ensuring minimal tillage of the soil. This is part of an SCPI approach, which has recently been adopted by many farmers in such regions in an effort control soil erosion. Through government and educational influence, this form of zero-till farming has now become widespread in Brazil, covering approximately 26 million hectares of oxisols and ultisols (Save and Grow 2011). 

Sustainable management of soil health requires a set criteria for the balance between food production and supporting soil conservation, water flow and quality, crop, livestock and human health. In addition to the proposal of the inclusion of organic matter, the maintenance of continuous vegetative cover and in particular rooting systems will also promote a healthy soil (Kibblewhite et al 2007)  Ultimately, sustainable solutions in regard to soil health depends on the willingness of society to pay for its maintenance. 

Newsflash! Regional Council Push For Sustainable Agriculture

The Central Ohio Regional Food Council Push For Sustainable Agriculture

As part of the global push for sustainable agriculture, regional councils are getting involved at every level to ensure sustainable agriculture provides local, fresh and nutritional food, whilst supporting the local economy. A council that has recently taken to the news in the wake of this push is the Central Ohio Regional Food Council (CORFC).

Foodtank.com took to agricultural specialist Brian Williams, who argued that the CORFC establishes a platform for county food councils in the region, ensuring that gaps in the local food supply chain are closed. Williams emphasises the importance of buying local goods from regional farmers and distributors, which will help increase capacity for independent meat processors.

Topics like this are interesting yet controversial within the agricultural industry, as councils such as the CORFC aim to deter consumers from products of industrial agriculture and to instead support local and smaller sustainable farms. But why? It is well known to the readers of this blog by now that industrial agriculture is a contributing factor to the degradation of soil, polluting of the air, accelerated reduction in biodiversity and the major consumption of fossil fuels and water resources, as also emphasised by Lawrence & Walker (2002). Almost every process on an industrial scale (from production to transportation of goods) is minimised on these smaller-scale, regional sustainable farms.

Furthermore, the production and processing of food on smaller sustainable farms reduces the possibilities of improper processing and handling of food. This also includes the lack of vast distance goods are transported to reach consumers, which increases the risks of contamination and reduction of food quality even further. Local farms reduce these distances and the food is naturally fresher.  By ‘closing the gaps’ in the local food supply chain, farmers also benefit entirely, so supporting local suppliers as the CORFC emphasises also supports the local economy (Martinez et al 2012).

This push for sustainable agriculture also ensures food security, with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations emphasising that food security only exists when “a population has sufficient physical, social and economic access to nutritious food”.  

It is therefore clear why organisations such as CORFC aim to persuade consumers in this modern climate to buy from local farms instead of from industrial agricultural backgrounds, which would ultimately ensure food security, local economic success and fresher produce.

Impacts of Industrial Agriculture

Impacts of Industrial Agriculture

What has suddenly spurred sustainable agriculture? Why has the agricultural world suddenly become so worried about our farming practices? Lawrence and Walker (2002) summarise the 4 major reasons as to why sustainable agriculture is becoming a favoured alternative:

• Monocultures are eroding biodiversity among both plants and animals
• Synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilisers are polluting soil, water and the atmosphere.
• Soil is degrading and eroding much faster than we can replenish it, reducing fertility and nutrients available.
• Water is being consumed at unsustainable rates in many agricultural areas.

Furthermore, the industrial agricultural processes are extremely resource-intensive and depend on expensive inputs from off the farm, generating waste that harm the environment due to the intensive use of fossil fuels. This is considered unsustainable as much of the consumption is of non-renewable resources, and the consumption of some renewable resources is occurring faster than the rate of generation.

There is certainly no doubt, however, that industrial agriculture has been beneficial in supporting our growing population, as it has increased crop yield through using high-yielding plant varieties, mechanisation and synthetic chemical inputs, but these come at a great cost.

But what have these intensive agricultural practices done to impact on our environment? Here I’ll discuss a few major topics concerning the industrial agricultural industry.

• The year 1998 saw approximately 137 million metric tons of chemical fertilisers used in agriculture, and the current year will oversee 231 million metric tons of fertiliser in demand which will grow to 253 million tons in 2018, according to the FAO's new world fertiliser report. The extensive use of fertilisers has become a growing concern, and Tilman (1998) suggests that only a third of nitrogen applied as chemical fertiliser is actually absorbed by crops. The remaining two-thirds run off to the environment, and leads to the well-known phenomenon of hypoxia - death of dissolved oxygen - which has been observed in the Mississippi River and its tributaries, forming a ‘dead zone’ (Rabalais et al 1996).  Furthermore, chemical fertilisers can increase the acidity of the soil impeding plant growth, therefore affecting biodiversity of ecosystems.
• Pesticides also have a major impact on biodiversity, as they can result in bird and beneficial insect populations, disrupting predator-prey balances. For example, Daily (1997) noted that honeybee colonies plummeted from 4.4 million in 1985 to 1.9 million in 1997.
• Soil degradation is one of the well-known worries of industrial agriculture and Oldeman et al (1991) suggested that since WWII, poor farming practices had damaged 550 million hectares - 38% of all farmland in use today! The impact on soil health as well should also be considered, as the use of machinery and animal grazing compacts the soil, resulting in soil structure damage and the killing of beneficial organisms in the soil food web . The illustration below taken from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations links to an interesting larger illustration of the issues regarding sustainable soil management:

• With regards to water consumption, agriculture affects water resources in two ways
  - Irrigating fields using surface waters or aquifers diverts water from other potential uses
  - Farming practices pollute surface waters and aquifers which reduces amount of water available for other uses.
  - 70% of pollution seen in US rivers and streams have been blamed by the US Environmental Protection Agency on current farming practices. The Agency also reports that run-off of chemicals, silt and animal waste from US farmland has polluted more than 173,000 miles of waterways (Lawrence & Walker 2002).
• And finally, biodiversity, of which agriculture is dependent on, as developing new varieties of plants that keep pace with ever evolving plant diseases is essential for agricultural practices. Industrial agriculture reduces biodiversity through supporting monoculture, which replaces diverse habitats. For example, in the Philippines, more than 80% of farmers now plant modern rice varieties, and this has overseen the extinction of 1,500 local rice varieties in just 15 years (WRI 1992).

But what does sustainable agriculture have to offer in response to industrial agriculture?

Sustainable agricultural systems are generally small-scale, profitable farms that require and use less off-farm inputs. Sustainable agricultural systems also integrate animal and plant production, and where appropriate maintain a higher biotic diversity and make an effort to use renewable forms of energy. Industrial agricultural industries aren't efficient at all - as the average US farm requires 3 kcal of fossil energy to produce 1 kcal of food energy (this also does not include the energy used in transportation!). In response to this, sustainable farms involve less reliance on chemical inputs and involves closer connections between producer and consumer. This is direct marketing on foods to local consumers, with less energy being used in transportation. Articles soon to come will feature present-day case studies of sustainable agricultural systems that have these mechanisms in action, and to note if they're actually beneficial in comparison to industrial agricultural industries.

A Short History of Agriculture

Prior to the modernisation of agriculture, the basic techniques of captivating animals & planting seeds for future usage goes as far back as to early humans, who would employ entrapment of animals - a temporary measure accompanying a 'feast or famine' lifestyle. These actions can be dated back to 9800BC where people of Shanidar Kudistan were domesticating sheep and planting wheat - actions which seem to reflect the initiation of intensive food gathering, which Brothwell (1975) notes that this arose mainly in the East during this period.

The initial approaches were to remove seeds from before consumption, then plant the seeds in the same area. Fallow and irrigation fields soon followed due to the greater demand for fields with greater fertility, with irrigation being a result of some cultures being forced to try to farm normally arid areas, involving the trapping and storing of water that occurs in a short period of time. This coincided with the beginning of slash & burn, where fields were set on fire to produce ash to enrich the soil. However, it is from the 16th century onwards that saw the agricultural world take an important and scientific turn.

Europe was cut off from Asia and the Middle East due to Turkish control, and new economic measures influenced agriculture, as continued wars consumed capital and human resources. The first systematic attempts to control pests thrived in the 17th & 18th century, with the production of resistant plant varieties being cultivated. Fundamental improvements in transportation & technology (such as the James Watt’s steam engine) undoubtedly contributed to the growth of agriculture during this period, as greater roads, canals and the introduction of rail lines allowed farmers to reach suppliers and to market their produce over a greater area The 19th century saw the beginning of fertiliser usage, with the first fertiliser factory opening in 1843.

Post WWII saw the birth of the green revolution - spawning selective breeding of crops & intensive cultivation methods, both which contributed to the ‘baby boom’ and saw US agriculture, as described by John P. Reganold et al (1990), become the envy of the world. The Haber Bosch revolutionised the way man could obtain and use fertilisers, and nitrogen became extensively used post WWII (which as we’ll see later has some detrimental effects) to support the rapidly accelerating population. In the 20th Century, steam, gasoline, diesel and electric power came into wider use, which coincided with chemical fertilisers being manufactured in great quantities. This is reflected in a more recent publication, Asthana & Kumar 2008, who focus on how India, originally an agrarian economy, became self-sufficient - mainly due to the availability and accessibility of the Green Revolution Principles, which aimed for higher yields, adequate artificial fertilization and education of farmers. The 1980s onwards has seen the incorporation of high technology farming, compromising hybrids for wheat, rice and other grains. The continuous intensive use of fertilisers (mainly nitrogen & phosphate) has seen the production of more food per capita, which has allowed the global population to accelerate in growth - leading to greater urban populations & fossil fuel consumption, producing an increase in CO2 & N2O atmospheric concentrations (Steffen et al 2007).

However - despite these fundamental & required agricultural necessities that have taken place over the past few centuries to feed mankind, what are the detrimental & environmentally damaging effects of agriculture? How has feeding mankind also produced major concerns for the way of life for humanity but most importantly in this blog how has it led to the development of sustainable agriculture? The next post tells all...

Welcome to The Hunger Games Blog

Welcome to The Hunger Games Blog! Throughout this blog, I aim to bring to attention a wide range of themes, including the pressure that agricultural industries are facing with regards to responses in the earth's climate change, the ways agriculture has evolved over time (for good or for bad), whether agriculture can support the earth's growing population in a sustainable manner and the future of agriculture.

Before any further blogs are posted, it is only reasonable to raise the question of what is a sustainable agricultural industry? Dr. John E.Ikerd, Professor at the University of Missouri, I believe answers this in a short but perfectly sound manner:

"Sustainable agriculture must be ecologically sound, economically viable and socially responsible. Moreover, the three must be in harmony"

As an undergraduate student of Earth Sciences at UCL, producing this blog only complements my interests in understanding the mechanisms of the earth and how the presence of humans has facilitated changes in these natural mechanisms. This blog aims to inform and debate what is being done to combat the issues caused by mankind and to observe and estimate whether sustainable agricultural alternatives can really support a growing global population. However, I don't believe everything has to be too gloomy - which seems to be the case with most sustainability issues - so I will also regularly comment on issues which hopefully bring light to the situation in a different, but thought-provoking manner.

So before my next post I'll leave you with my Twitter and Instagram account for this topic, whereby both are regularly updated in sharing related news articles and images. For my next blog, I'll be focusing on a brief historical record of the origin of agriculture to modern agriculture, providing a sound base before I begin debating sustainable agricultural solutions and issues.

@feedingourearth - Twitter
@feedingourearth - Instagram

Here are some 'taster' images as to what's to come...

What's happening to the ground below us? (img source: Mother Earth News)

Are your pumpkin pies under threat? (img source: Climate Progress)