Category: Organic agriculture

Posted on

Ancient wheats brought up to date in Hungary

Quite by coincidence, while Luigi was digesting cereal diversity and nutrition, I was reading about an effort to bring ancient wheats up to date, also centred in Hungary. Geza Kovács of the Agricultural Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences has overseen a project that looked at 250 einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and 130 emmer (T. dicoccum) samples from various genebanks and screened them to see how well they performed and what kind of grain they produced. The best 20 were selected for further breeding, with a particular eye on their performance in organic systems and how well they met the needs of end users such as bakers and consumers. ((I found a brief report in the Bulletin of the Organic Research Centre, and I am trying to source a published paper.))

Two particularly promising new einkorn varieties emerged, with “acceptable” yield compared to a bread wheat and significantly higher protein content. Other varieties have undetectable levels of gluten, which might make them suitable for people with gluten allergies. Some are also high in fat-soluble anti-oxidants. Some of the new emmers also show great promise, with protein levels higher than standard bread wheat and a high level of carotenoids.

Kovács also speculates that some of the new varieties may be a good source to resurrect the production of ancient foods such as frikeh. This is made from wheat, harvested at a critical point when the seeds are plump but still green and not yet mature. The seeds are dried and then burned. Frikeh is delicious — I tried some in Aleppo once — and could be an excellent snack for health-conscious consumers, and those who just want to eat something good that preserves diversity.

Posted on

Organics examined

David Zetland, the aguanomics blogger, has rounded up a couple of choice items on organic agriculture. There’s a report from UNEP and UNCTAD on Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa.

According to a newspaper report,

An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in east Africa.

The article goes on to say that

[O]rganic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming. It also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. And the research highlighted the role that learning organic practices could have in improving local education.

David doesn’t like that because he says that UNCTAD is “known for its anti-globalization perspective”. But how, exactly, would this invalidate the conclusions or the report? Furthermore, he says that:

[T]he 114 analyzed projects involved 1.9 million farmers on 2.0 million ha. Those are SMALL farms, and it’s hard to imagine expanding organic practices everywhere, at all scales.

Indeed they are small, just over a hectare each. But actually, that’s big, for most subsistence farmers. and I would argue that it is less important to expand organic practices everywhere at all scales than it is to give the smallest landholders (and, more so, those who don’t even own land) access to sustainable practices that can boost resilience and yields and deliver environmental benefits. Not necessarily organic, but soundly based on agricultural biodiversity.

P.S. Follow the other links in David’s piece if you’re more interested in “truth” than rhetoric.

Posted on

Pollan for president

In an open letter in the New York Times magazine, slow food pundit Michael Pollan urges the next US president, the Farmer in Chief, to

Reform the entire food system: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on.

His main point is that the US should wean from oil, and resolarize the farm. I can see where he is coming from, but does he really want all that backbreaking drudgery again? Yikes.

Pollan also says that the government should encourage farmers to

grow as many different crops and animals as possible. Because the greater the diversity of crops on a farm, the less the need for both fertilizers and pesticides.

Fair enough, but at what cost? Pollan says that we do not know, because we haven’t tried. Well, I would agree that organic agriculture can be very productive, but kicking out fertilizers all together is a foolish idea.

It is a long article, and it has a long list of policy objectives: “Perennialize” commodity agriculture; Enhance national security by decentralization of the food system; Four-Season Farmers’ Markets; And, create a Federal Definition of “Food.” (I believe the goal is to make it illegal to call junk, food).

Pollan is a bit too much of a romantic to my taste. But then I am not much of a visionary. The US certainly should change some of its bad food habits. Our times call for a presidents who withstands the Agro-Industrial Complex (and who does not fear Iowa’s voters). If anything, Mr. President should take Pollan’s most daring advice: rip a section of the White House lawn, and farm and govern by example.