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.