- Fiji looking for better sugarcane. Not a moment too soon, with the EU subsidies going and all.
- Collecting the very valuable caterpillar mushroom in China’s protected areas. Illegal, but whachagonnado?
- The honeybees of the Saharan oases are isolated. Well, actually, not all of them, which I guess qualifies as a surprise.
- Can you tell different vodka brands apart? Here’s why. Maybe. Sounds a bit flaky to me.
- A global review of cotton genetic resources.
- Ploughing up the African savannah is gonna solve all our problems, apparently.
- Organic Seed Alliance launches a youtube channel. Oh goody, there’s how to breed organic carrots!
Organic farming and climate change: still seeking silver bullets?
There’s a long piece over at the Freakonomics blog examining recent claims about organic agriculture and climate change. Two approaches are contrasted. First, the Rodale Institute’s 2008 report which claimed that organic agriculture could sequester 40% of global carbon emissions. Ah but, carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas associated with agriculture. Methane and nitrous oxide contribute far more. And organic ag releases far more of those, according to Steve Savage, a plant scientist and blogger, who concludes that “organic farming is not the best option from a climate change point of view”.
At which point everything could descend into the entrenched mud-slinging we’re used to, except that in the Freakonomics piece, it doesn’t. James McWilliams outlines the different ways in which “conventional” and “organic” make their different contributions to climate change, and even goes so far as to suggest that there could be ways in which organic practices could be modified to reduce their contributions (the reverse, not so much).
To me, though, there are a couple of things wrong with the whole approach. One is that the attempt to come up with global estimates of the “productivity” and “carbon footprint” ((And yes, I’m well aware that I’m not even getting into the discussion of those terms.)) of any single system is bound to run into problems regarding specific elements of the estimate. And then the debate gets bogged down in those elements rather than in trying to move forward. A clear example is that as far as I can tell neither McMillan nor Savage includes the carbon footprint of food transportation. And the model of organic agriculture seems to be one of intensive monoculture, but using manure and organic fertilizers rather than energy-intensive synthetic fertilizers. I’m not saying we need to become geophagous strict locavores, but maybe we do need to look more closely at integrated food and farming systems, on a smaller scale. Climate change may be a global problem, but local efforts can contribute to solutions. I like the idea of just cutting out a couple of meals of factory-farmed red-meat a week myself. Except that I already do. So what’s the next small change I could make?
Nibbles: Mayan archaeobeerology, Pesticidal plants, Livestock and livelihoods, Uganda national park
- Cacao beer. What’s not to like?
- CABI blog deconstructs pesticidal plants.
- Worldwatch blog on how “livestock can improve food security and preserve and rebuild communities.”
- Bwindi Impenetrable National Park tries to diversify.
Nibbles: Wild coffee in Uganda, Grasspea, Land Institute, Biopiracy, Frog endangered by tea
- Conservation project fails to work. But lessons are learned.
- The archaeology of grasspea. Mainly Aegean, as it turns out.
- Artificial selection can help fill gaps left by other kind.
- Nestlé accused of stealing roiboos.
- Tea or frog?
Birds not so smart after all?
Hold the phone! A press release informs us that over two winters, using two different varieties of wheat, garden birds and lab canaries preferred conventional over organic grain. And the reason seems to be that the conventional grain contained 10% more protein. Very smart! But before word goes out to the birds of the world, consider what else the press release says:
This study is only looking at one aspect of the organic food debate – it does not take into account the long-term health implications of using chemical fertilizers and pesticides, or the often negative environmental impact of conventional farming; for example, other work has shown that pesticides can strongly reduce availability of seeds for birds. But it does raise questions about the nutritional benefits of organic food and what consumers are being led to believe.
Because consumers in the UK are choosing organic for its higher protein levels? Because they’re short of protein? More to the point, has anyone asked the birds to consider the long-term consequences of their choices, like the reduced availability of seeds, or nesting spots, or insects for their insectivorous feathered friends?
And, let’s not forget, increased levels of carbon dioxide are reducing protein levels in wheat. Another good reason to grow conventionally, whatever that means.
“Gary says: [A]ll you will get from political advocates is disinformation and misinformation intended to advance their agenda.”