How Agroforestry Is Reshaping the Kenyan Countryside

/by

Author: Steve Zwick | Published: February 2, 2017

Prisca Mayende still remembers the lush, tree-covered countryside of her youth, when the farms in this part of Kenya, about 50 kilometers from the Ugandan border, yielded consistent harvests – year-in and year-out – of sorghum, white corn, and the dark green, kale-like sukuma wiki. Then came the sugar boom, and its bitter consequences.

“They destroyed all the trees to plant sugar,” she recalls. “And that is where the problems started.”

First came the floods, because the trees weren’t there to stop them; then came the dry spells, perhaps because the trees weren’t there to draw in the rain. Finally, the soil stopped producing – as it had in North America during the Dust Bowl, and as it’s doing across Africa today – because the trees weren’t there to replenish the earth.

But then, in 2010, Mayende’s neighbors told her about a man on a motorcycle.

“He was just moving around, looking for those farmers who were in groups,” she recalls. “So, when he [asked] some of the communities, they said, ‘Mama Prisca is one of the farmers who is interested in doing the agroforest.’”

As a leader of the Naikai Community Water Project, she’d been working to coordinate water-use and well-drilling, but the man on the motorcycle asked if members of her group would be interested in planting trees – lots of them – in their cornfields and cabbage patches. It was a tough sale – but not for her.

“People really feared that, maybe, when there are trees on the farm, the production cannot be good,” says Mayende, adding: “But me, I like trees.”

So she took the plunge, and within three years her farm was covered in trees – some fruit-bearing varieties like mango and banana, but mostly varieties like sesbania, albizia, and grevillea – which provide fodder for her cow.

Soon, the birds returned, and today her corn, cabbages, and potatoes are thriving – largely because the trees helped revive the soil – and she’s not alone. All across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, small farmers are replenishing soil by planting trees on formerly sunbaked row-farms; while consumer-facing giants like Danone and Mars are beginning to accelerate the process by investing in programs that support sustainable agriculture.

“We have all forgotten that food starts in soils,” said Danone CEO Emmanuel Faber at 2015’s Paris climate talks – sounding more like a soil scientist than a businessman. “We have disconnected the food chain.”

To fix that, Danone spearheaded the creation of two separate Livelihoods Funds, which “create mutual value for smallholder farmers, businesses and society as a whole.”

In 2014, Danone took a 40% stake in Kenyan dairy group Brookside, which had built a nationwide network of collection facilities that gathered milk from more than 130,000 farmers. As Brookside grew, however, they noticed something unusual: in some parts of their territory, farmers brought in three liters per cow on a good day. In other parts, they brought in seven or more, and consistently.

Driving this, they found was agroforestry: those farmers who embraced the practice ended up delivering more milk than those who didn’t. And there was another benefit as well: those who adopted agroforestry spent more time on their farms and less in the forests.

“Most of them used to cut trees,” says Takin Arnold, who runs the cooperative. “But because of the market that Brookside has created, those farmers have left the cutting of trees and embarked on selling to Brookside.”

KEEP READING ON THE HUFFINGTON POST

It’s… Alive?

/by

Author: Terri Gordon | Published: February 21, 2017

It is everywhere, from forest floors to ocean beaches. It is the stuff under our feet, our sidewalks, our roads. It is the stuff we dig in as kids, the stuff we bulldoze to build houses, and yes, the medium we use to grow flowers, trees, and food.

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “soil” as “ the upper layer of earth in which plants grow.”

Gardeners talk about “rich” or “good” soil, or loam, made up of humus, sand, and clay.

What those who study soil are realizing, however, is that soil is not just sand, clay, and water—it is also a complex matrix of fungi, bacteria, and a number of other microbes. It is a full-on microbiome all its own. In fact, the microbiome is what creates the soil carbon sponge that holds nutrients and water. Without the matrix of microbial life, rain doesn’t percolate; it simply runs off, and the soil lacks fertility. And when we stir up the earth’s microbiome, we destroy it. And we’ve been destroying it since the very dawn of agriculture. This is the message Didi Pershouse will bring to the Healthy Soils Symposium on Feb. 24 and 25 at Antioch College in Yellow Springs. In a pre-conference reading on Feb. 23, she will sign copies of her book, “The Ecology of Care: Medicine, Agriculture, Money, and the Quiet Power of Human and Microbial Communities” at Yellow Springs Library.

Pershouse hails from the state of Vermont, where she practices acupuncture and works, through her Center for Sustainable Medicine, with the Soil Carbon Coalition to study and educate others about those systems that govern human health and the health of Earth—especially where the health of the planet and the health of its inhabitants intersect—because, in truth, the health of one is tied inextricably to the health of the other.

Community Solutions in Yellow Springs, is sponsoring the symposium as part of its mission to “support small communities” and foster their resilience, their ability to weather storms—metaphorically and literally.

“The more we can grow our own food, in our own region, the more resilient we are,” explains Susan Jennings, executive director of Community Solutions. “The more we are able to keep our water clean, and where it belongs—as in, not running off, but really being absorbed into the soil—the more resilient we are. And healthy soils are at the center of that.

“The healthier our soils are, the healthier our food will be; and the more fertile the soil, the greater the output of food we’ll be able to have. And if we are able to cool the climate through carbon sequestration in the soil, then it makes, not just the region, but the planet itself more resilient.”

The symposium begins as a roundtable event on Friday with presenters and participants contributing questions and information in an informal effort to delineate the needs of and progress in the region, as well as a plan of response.

KEEP READING ON DAYTON CITY PAPER

Widely Accepted Vision for Agriculture May Be Inaccurate, Misleading

/by

Published: February 22, 2017

“Food production must double by 2050 to feed the world’s growing population.” This truism has been repeated so often in recent years that it has become widely accepted among academics, policymakers and farmers, but now researchers are challenging this assertion and suggesting a new vision for the future of agriculture.

Research published in Bioscience suggests that production likely will need to increase between 25 percent and 70 percent to meet 2050 food demand. The assertion that we need to double global crop and animal production by 2050 is not supported by the data, argues Mitch Hunter, doctoral student in agronomy, in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences. He says the analysis shows that production needs to keep increasing, but not as fast as many have claimed.

However, clarifying future food demand is only part of the story.

“In the coming decades, agriculture will be called upon to both feed people and ensure a healthy environment,” said Hunter. “Right now, the narrative in agriculture is really out of balance, with compelling goals for food production but no clear sense of the progress we need to make on the environment. To get the agriculture we want in 2050, we need quantitative targets for both food production and environmental impacts.”

Specifying quantitative targets, the researchers contend, will clarify the scope of the challenges that agriculture must face in the coming decades, focusing research and policy on achieving specific outcomes.

“Food production and environmental protection must be treated as equal parts of agriculture’s grand challenge,” says study co-author David Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology, Penn State.

These new findings have important implications for farmers. Lower demand projections may suggest that prices will not rise as much as expected in coming decades. However, the authors note that economic forecasting models already are based on up-to-date quantitative projections, so price forecasts may not be affected greatly by this new analysis.

At the same time, farmers will need to ramp up efforts to hold nutrients on their fields, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve soil health.

This analysis builds on the two most commonly cited food-demand projections, one from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and one led by David Tilman, a prominent ecologist at the University of Minnesota. Hunter and his colleagues did not dispute these underlying projections; they simply updated them to help reframe the narrative.

KEEP READING ON SCIENCE DAILY

Reports Launched Urging a Future Which Prioritises Soil Health and Biodiversity

/by

Published: February 21, 2017 

Two reports have been launched today supporting a future which prioritises soil health and where land use contributes to mitigating the impacts of climate change.

One report is by the Soil Association, a charity promoting organic food, and the other by Simon Fairlie of the Land Workers’ Alliance, a group promoting sustainable methods of farming.

Both reports envision a future which prioritises soil health and biodiversity and where land use contributes to mitigating the impacts of climate change.

They also both agree on the need to maintain or increase the amount currently received by farmers through the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP).

However, they say direct payments based on land area should be scrapped and investment retargeted towards rewarding farmers not landowners.

The reports say funding should also be used to provide funding for advice, training, and farmer-led research and innovation.

KEEP READING ON FARMINGUK

Granjeros 2.0: La Nueva Generación del Campo

/by

Autor: Amaya García | Publicado: 12 de febrero, 2017

A Blanca Entrecanales hay pocas cosas que le hagan perder la calma. Habla con un tono pausado, sin morderse la lengua y reconoce tirar mucho de intuición a la hora de tomar decisiones. Sí, esta mujer de planta imponente, que aparenta 10 años menos de los que tiene, pertenece “a una de las familias de la alta sociedad española, no nos vamos a engañar”. Y es granjera. Aquí su Milagro.

Así bautizó su dehesa tras librarse por los pelos de la muerte: “Al poco de comprarla, yendo hacia allí, tuvimos un accidente terrible de coche en un paso a nivel sin barrera.

Nos embistió un tren, salimos por los aires, fue horrible”, pero la suerte quiso que todo se quedara en una rotura de clavícula y algunas contusiones. Poco después, Blanca se separó de su pareja tras 16 años y decidió convertir sus tierras en una explotación agrícola. Era 2011 y Blanca no tenía ni idea de dónde se metía.

LEER MÁS AQUÍ
LEER MÁS ARTÍCULOS EN ESPAÑOL AQUÍ

Unlikely Allies Seek to Make Vermont’s Milk the Cream of the Industry

/by

Author: Alicia Freese | Published: February 22, 2017 

An improbable coalition is calling for dramatic changes to the state’s dairy industry. Former agriculture secretary Roger Allbee has joined forces with three longtime environmental activists to argue that depressed milk prices, the need to reduce water pollution, and uncertainty about trade and migrant labor at the federal level present a unique opportunity to reinvigorate Vermont dairy farming.

“A perfect storm is brewing,” Allbee told the House Agriculture and Forestry Committee earlier this month. “Vermont has the rare opportunity of helping rescue its largest agricultural industry and to plot a future agriculture [system] for the state that is uniquely Vermont.”

The goal: to develop a set of environmental and ethical standards for dairy farms and build a made-in-Vermont brand that would bring farmers a premium price for their milk. Farms would have to meet those requirements — which could go above and beyond using organic practices — to qualify for using the state seal.

Requirements could include providing a livable wage and decent housing to farmworkers, allowing cows to graze on grassland, using non-GMO corn, forgoing pesticides and synthetic fertilizer, and cultivating carbon-rich soil. State financial incentives would encourage, rather than force, farms to make the transition.

“Our model is broken,” said Allbee, though he added: “I recognize that all dairy farmers cannot go organic.”

In addition to making its pitch to the legislature, the loose alliance of activists is meeting with government officials, writing op-eds and pressuring Vermont’s largest milk customers, which rely on conventional milk.

The Green Mountain State’s conventional dairy farmers have struggled for decades. Unlike farmstead cheese, milk is a commodity. Consumers don’t differentiate Vermont milk from that produced in Wisconsin or Idaho. So farmers here are subject to the price volatility of an international market and to increasing competition from larger farms able to produce cheaper milk. Vermont currently has 838 dairy farms, down 158 from five years ago, according to the Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets. The number of cows declined by 4,000, to 130,000, during the same time period.

Persistently low prices have further squeezed Vermont’s farmers in recent years. Milk has been selling for less than what it costs to produce, and a federal price insurance program has failed to provide much relief. At the same time, farmers are under mounting pressure to reduce water pollution as the state launches a concerted effort to clean up Lake Champlain and other waterways. Runoff of manure and fertilizer from farms contributes roughly 40 percent of the phosphorous contaminating the waters.

KEEP READING ON SEVEN DAYS 

NYS Lawmaker Introduces Carbon Farming Tax Credit Bill

/by

Author: Allison Dunne | Published: February 15, 2017

A New York state Assemblywoman has introduced legislation on carbon farming that she says is the first of its kind. The idea is to promote environmentally friendly farming practices while, at the same time, putting money back into the pockets of farmers.

Democrat Didi Barrett has sponsored a bill that creates a carbon farming tax credit. Barrett, who represents portions of Columbia and Dutchess Counties, says the plan will give farmers a new tax break while helping the state reach its climate change goals.

“This would make New York state the first in the country,” Barrett says. “And I’m very excited about something that really is a win-win for our environment and for our farmers and have New York be the lead on it.”

The 2014 Farm Bill gave USDA authority to provide technical assistance to farmers and land owners in support of their response to climate change. Barrett says that while other states like California have also begun to develop programs with similar aims, New York’s carbon farming tax credit would be the first of its kind to create a tax break for farmers who use climate-smart methods. Barrett says she had been speaking with farmers over the past few years about whether they thought such a tax credit would be beneficial.

“In continuing this conversation, in the midst of one of them, I said, do you think that if we created a tax credit for practices that put carbon back in the soil and obviously therefore take it out of the atmosphere that farmers would find that attractive,” says Barrett.

And these conversations led to her crafting the bill. Barrett, who sits on both the Assembly’s agriculture and environmental conservation committees, says there are items that still need to be worked out, such as metrics, or figuring out how to measure carbon in the soil. She says metrics on the USDA web site are a good place to start.

“What we need to work on next is really figuring out how we measure the changes,” says Barrett. “At one point, you start, and then you measure what the carbon content of the soil is, and then, after a particular cycle, measure again to see the change and the increase, and then develop a tax credit based on that.”

KEEP READING ON WAMC

What is Regenerative Agriculture?

/by

Authors: The Carbon Underground and Regenerative Agriculture Initiative

  Published: February 16, 2017

“Regenerative Agriculture” describes farming and grazing practices that, among other benefits, reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter and restoring degraded soil biodiversity – resulting in both carbon drawdown and improving the water cycle.

Specifically, Regenerative Agriculture is a holistic land management practice that leverages the power of photosynthesis in plants to close the carbon cycle, and build soil health, crop resilience and nutrient density. Regenerative agriculture improves soil health, primarily through the practices that increase soil organic matter. This not only aids in increasing soil biota diversity and health, but increases biodiversity both above and below the soil surface, while increasing both water holding capacity and sequestering carbon at greater depths, thus drawing down climate-damaging levels of atmospheric CO2, and improving soil structure to reverse civilization-threatening human-caused soil loss. Research continues to reveal the damaging effects to soil from tillage, applications of agricultural chemicals and salt based fertilizers, and carbon mining. Regenerative Agriculture reverses this paradigm to build for the future.

Regenerative Agricultural Practices are:

Practices that (i) contribute to generating/building soils and soil fertility and health; (ii) increase water percolation, water retention, and clean and safe water runoff; (iii) increase biodiversity and ecosystem health and resiliency; and (iv) invert the carbon emissions of our current agriculture to one of remarkably significant carbon sequestration thereby cleansing the atmosphere of legacy levels of CO2.

Practices include:

  1. No-till/minimum tillage. Tillage breaks up (pulverizes) soil aggregation and fungal communities while adding excess O2 to the soil for increased respiration and CO2 emission. It can be one of the most degrading agricultural practices, greatly increasing soil erosion and carbon loss. A secondary effect is soil capping and slaking that can plug soil spaces for percolation creating much more water runoff and soil loss. Conversely, no-till/minimum tillage, in conjunction with other regenerative practices, enhances soil aggregation, water infiltration and retention, and carbon sequestration. However, some soils benefit from interim ripping to break apart hardpans, which can increase root zones and yields and have the capacity to increase soil health and carbon sequestration. Certain low level chiseling may have similar positive effects.
  2. Soil fertility is increased in regenerative systems biologically through application of cover crops, crop rotations, compost, and animal manures, which restore the plant/soil microbiome to promote liberation, transfer, and cycling of essential soil nutrients. Artificial and synthetic fertilizers have created imbalances in the structure and function of microbial communities in soils, bypassing the natural biological acquisition of nutrients for the plants, creating a dependent agroecosystem and weaker, less resilient plants. Research has observed that application of synthetic and artificial fertilizers contribute to climate change through (i) the energy costs of production and transportation of the fertilizers, (ii) chemical breakdown and migration into water resources and the atmosphere; (iii) the distortion of soil microbial communities including the diminution of soil methanothrops, and (iv) the accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter.
  1. Building biological ecosystem diversity begins with inoculation of soils with composts or compost extracts to restore soil microbial community population, structure and functionality restoring soil system energy (Ccompounds as exudates) through full-time planting of multiple crop intercrop plantings, multispecies cover crops, and borders planted for bee habitat and other beneficial insects. This can include the highly successful push-pull systems. It is critical to change synthetic nutrient dependent monocultures, low-biodiversity and soil degrading practices.
  1. Well-managed grazing practices stimulate improved plant growth, increased soil carbon deposits, and overall pasture and grazing land productivity while greatly increasing soil fertility, insect and plant biodiversity, and soil carbon sequestration. These practices not only improve ecological health, but also the health of the animal and human consumer through improved micro-nutrients availability and better dietary omega balances. Feed lots and confined animal feeding systems contribute dramatically to (i) unhealthy monoculture production systems, (ii) low nutrient density forage (iii) increased water pollution, (iv) antibiotic usage and resistance, and (v) CO2 and methane emissions, all of which together yield broken and ecosystem-degrading food-production systems.

Co-Authors:

Regenerative Agriculture Initiative, California State University, Chico https://www.csuchico.edu/sustainablefuture/aginitiative/

The Carbon Underground

https://thecarbonunderground.org/

This definition will continue to evolve as research and practice inform what builds the health of soils, sequesters carbon, and grows more topsoil for future generations.

DOWNLOAD THE DEFINITION HERE 

Companies, NGOs and Scientists Come Together Behind New Definition For “Regenerative Agriculture”

/by

Published: February 23, 2017 

Press Release

New approach to agriculture helps create topsoil and mitigate climate change.

Representatives from over 100 countries, including virtually all areas of food production, manufacturing, retailing and soil science have, for the first time, come together on a unified definition for the quickly emerging “Regenerative” approach to growing food that has been shown to provide multiple benefits to food security, health, and climate change.

According to Tim LaSalle, PhD, former head of the Rodale Institute and co-director of the Regenerative Agriculture Initiative at California State University Chico: “Regenerative agriculture keeps the natural cycles healthy—like water and carbon—so that land can keep growing food and keep carbon and the climate in balance.”

Additionally, as the world has realized that most of the planet’s topsoil has been lost due to poor soil management, efforts are being made to rebuild soil health. “It’s impossible to feed the world without soil. The UN says we have sixty harvests left at the rate we’re going.” says Tom Newmark, The Carbon Underground co-founder. “Regenerative agriculture actually creates new topsoil, reversing the last century’s trend of destroying it.”

But perhaps the most powerful reason for the movement toward regenerative agriculture is the impact it will have on the biggest threat facing humanity—climate change. “Reducing emissions alone cannot solve climate change. We must draw down hundreds of billions of tons to succeed, and restoring our soil is the only known path to do this,” says Andre Leu, President of International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM).

“Regenerative agriculture builds healthy soil, helping with challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss and water scarcity,” says Shauna Sadowski, Vice President of Sustainability and Industry relations at Annie’s Foods, “But we also see it as a critical way to strengthen our own supply chains. Healthy soil creates greater resilience for farmers and their crops, which become our ingredients and ultimately our products.”

Regenerative agriculture complements the global movement to healthier food. “Let’s face it—demand for organic food is exploding. But this is different,” says Ronnie Cummins, head of the Organic Consumers Association, “Organic food keeps people healthy. Regenerative agriculture keeps the planet healthy.”

Additional signatories include:

Dr. Tim LaSalle, Co-director, Regenerative Agriculture Initiative, CSUC

Dr. Cindy Daley, Co-director, Regenerative Agriculture Initiative, CSUC

Doug Greene, Founder, New Hope Network

Dave Carter, National Bison Association, former Chair NOSB

Anthony Zolezzi, Board Member, Wild Oats Marketplace

Dr. Elaine Ingham, Soil Food Web

Dr. Appachanda Thimmaiah, Maharishi University of Management

Will Rapp, Gardener’s Supply

Dr. David Johnson, New Mexico University

To view the definition, join as a signatory, or see the most current list, go to: www.thecarbonunderground.org/definition

For additional information contact: info@thecarbonunderground.org

DOWNLOAD THE DEFINITION HERE
READ THE DEFINITION HERE 

How Clothes Are Polluting the Food Supply

/by

Author: Dr. Joeseph Mercola | Published: February 21, 2017 

Every day, each and every one of us contribute to the ongoing destruction of the environment simply by participating in modern society.

Not only do people inappropriately dispose of drugs by flushing them down the toilet, the cleaning and personal care products we use and the clothes we wear and wash on a daily basis also contribute to the environmental pollution.

Indeed, the environmental impacts of our clothing choices are shocking, as studies assessing toxic effects of various fabric treatments (such as dyes, flame retardants and stain-resistant chemicals) to laundry detergents and the fabric fibers themselves need serious attention.

The Drawback of Fleece

Microfibers1 in particular have gained notoriety for posing a serious threat to marine life and migrating into fields and onto our plates. As noted by NPR:2

“The innovation of synthetic fleece has allowed many outdoor enthusiasts to hike with warmth and comfort.

But what many … don’t know is that each wash … releases thousands of microscopic plastic fibers, or microfibers, into the environment — from their favorite national park to agricultural lands to waters with fish that make it back onto our plates.

This has scientists wondering: Are we eating our sweaters’ synthetic microfibers?

Probably, says Chelsea Rochman, [Ph.D.,] an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Toronto, St. George. ‘Microfibers seem to be one of the most common plastic debris items in animals and environmental samples,’ Rochman says.”

Microfibers Have Become a Very Significant Water Pollutant

Indeed, synthetic microfibers make up 85 percent of shoreline debris worldwide,3 and tend to be found in higher concentrations in beach sediment near waste water treatment plants.4

Water testing done by the Rozalia Project also showed microfibers are showing up in most water samples collected from the Hudson River.5 The fibers have also been found in both table salt6 and fish sold for human consumption.7

A 2015 study from the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) directly linked microbead plastics and man-made microfibers to the pollution in fish,8 and when Abigail Barrows — chief investigator for Global Microplastics Initiative — sampled over 2,000 marine and freshwater fish, 90 percent had microfiber debris in their bodies.

Near identical results have been reported by Amy Lusher, a microplastics researcher based in the U.K. who co-authored a study9 on microplastic pollution in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, published in 2014. There really does not appear to be any place on Earth that remains unspoiled by plastic pollution.

As Abby Barrows, a microplastics researcher for Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation told The Washington Post:10

“Working in this field of research … can be really depressing. I open up a box of water — it’s from some beautiful place in Palau, and it’s just full of plastics.

Or it’s from Antarctica, and I think there’s definitely not going to be anything in here. And it’s just full of fragments. I haven’t seen a sample that doesn’t contain an alarming amount of plastic.”

Microfibers Are Also a Potential Food Contaminant

Microfibers, which are more prevalent than microbeads (found in face scrubs and similar items), are particularly detrimental as the fibers are easily consumed by fish and other wildlife, accumulating in the gut and concentrating in the bodies of other animals higher up the food chain.

In one study, microfibers raised mortality among water fleas.11 In another, the presence of fibers were found to reduce overall food intake of crabs, worms and langoustines (aka Norway lobster),12,13 thereby threatening their growth and survival rates.

Making matters worse, these microscopic plastic fibers actually soak up toxins like a sponge, concentrating polychlorinated bisphenyls (PCBs), pesticides and oil in ever higher amounts as you move up the food chain.

Factors That Worsen Microfiber Release

Tests show each washing of a synthetic fleece jacket releases an average of 1.7 grams of microfiber, and may release as much as 2.7 grams.14,15,16 For comparison, a paperclip weighs about 1.5 grams.

The older the jacket, the more microfibers are released,17 and lower quality generic brand fleece was also found to shed 170 percent more over its lifespan than higher quality fleece.

Separate research18,19 published in Marine Pollution Bulletin found that the type of fabric also makes a difference in the rate of microfiber shed. In a comparison of acrylic, polyester and a polyester-cotton blend, acrylic was the worst, shedding microfibers up to four times faster than the polyester-cotton blend.

Different types of washing machines may also release different amounts of fibers (and chemicals) from your clothes. Tests show top loading machines release about 530 percent more microfibers than front loading models.20

KEEP READING ON MERCOLA.COM