Imagined nostalgia or invented future?

Strange to have two long articles surface over the weekend that in some respects negate one another and yet that both seem to point to a different future for food security. The Des Moines Register points not merely to perennial grains, a favourite topic here, but specifically to perennial maize. The piece is packed with all that one might expect, including a couple of doses of reality. Who will do the research?

Perennial crops … have little appeal to today’s agribusiness, including seed giants like Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto.

“They depend on selling a lot of seed every year,” said Bill Beavis, interim director of Iowa State University’s Plant Sciences Institute. “I’m not sure the perennials ever catch up [sic] just because they don’t have the resources” in terms of research funding, he said.

What funding would it take?

The USDA has asked Congress for $1 million in fiscal 2012 for perennial grain or sunflower research at its own labs, a slight increase over this year’s funding. In 2009-10, the department provided about $1.5 million in grants for perennial grains research at the Land Institute and a few universities, including Iowa State.

A serious effort to breed perennial corn crops would require spending $1 million to $2 million for five years to identify the genes necessary for perennialism, [Ed Buckler, an Agriculture Department scientist at Cornell University in New York] said. After that, $10 million to $20 million a year and dozens of scientists would be needed to breed a perennial corn that could eventually be commercialized, he said.

One beauty of perennial grain crops would be that they don’t need ploughing. Does that mean, then, that the burgeoning hoof-power movement will lose traction? The benefits are many.

[A]s diesel prices skyrocket, some farmers who have rejected many of the past century’s advances in agriculture have found a renewed logic in draft power. Partisans argue that animals can be cheaper to board and feed than any tractor. They also run on the ultimate renewable resource: grass.

Ploughing, of course, is just a part of it. Aside from other tasks around the farm, those perennial grains will still need to be harvested and processed,

Some young farmers are developing a hybrid practice, using oxen to supplement, rather than replace, tractors. Some use them just to log and plow, while others have their teams haul machines with engines. Even this can be energy efficient.

“If you use animals to pull a motorized hay-baler,” Mr. Roosenberg [the founder of Tillers International, a 430-acre farm learning center in Scotts, Mich] said, “you can bale hay pretty fast with about one-third the gas.”

I remember reading, ages ago, about engineers who were working to give farmers in developing countries options to adapt efficient machinery so that it could be used with draft animals. It may have been something like this — I honestly don’t remember — and there seems to be lots of good information on draft animal power for farming at the website of the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service in the US. And yet, at the Open Source Ecology movement, which aims to offer blueprints for 50 essential items needed “to build a sustainable civilization with modern comforts” I couldn’t see anything about better animal-powered agriculture.

Maybe it is all just a form of eco-dreaming sustainable agro-tourism that couldn’t possibly feed the world.

H.R. Clinton favours increased crop diversity shock

NewImage

This just in from our colleague with the FAO building pass. (Photo hacked from IFAD’s Facebook page.

Just went and heard Hillary at FAO. She was brilliant and spoke very sensibly about food security.

She said we need higher quality seeds (more nutritious, more drought tolerant and disease resistant), we need to connect farmers to local markets and local markets to global markets. She also said we need to increase crop diversity!!

Hopefully the full transcript will be available on the FAO website at some point – she spoke very quickly!

She ended by saying that in spite of all the current headlines, she keeps her eye on the ‘trendlines’ and that we need to make advancing food security a cause for our time and deal with it now, or else we may never catch up.

LATER: Here’s the audio.

Sending the future up in smoke

Here, as our informant put it, is “today’s chapter in a seemingly never-ending story”.

The state legislature of North Carolina in the United States is minded to cut all funding to the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund. That’s short-sighted and a great shame.

Tobacco, unlike, say, opium poppy, is not an easy crop, to grow or to defend. Wendell Berry, although he doesn’t himself grow it, is surrounded by people, including family, who do and he has worked for many of them. Berry has written elegiacally about tobacco, and the essential dilemma it presents, now that demand has fallen. I can’t find my copy of that essay right now (or on the web) but the gist of it was that a high-value crop like tobacco spared the environment because by dint of skill and hard work a family could make a decent living from a relatively small patch of land for the tobacco and the food they needed.

North Carolina’s Tobacco Trust Fund was established with the state’s share of money that the tobacco companies paid in settlement of lawsuits, and is intended to protect farms and smooth the transition from tobacco to new crops, new farming systems, and new approaches to local sales. In other words, to promote diversification. By all accounts, it has worked. One advocate for, and beneficiary of, the Fund put forward these numbers:

In the past three years alone, RAFI’s Tobacco Community Reinvestment Fund has brought over $733 million into communities throughout the state and created or preserved more than 4,100 jobs. All these benefits come from a relatively modest investment: $3.6 million of Tobacco Trust Fund money distributed to 367 innovative farmers in awards of less than $10,000 per individual or $30,000 per community project. Each dollar invested has led to $205 circulating in our state’s economy, an incredible return on investment with direct benefits to our tax base.

Why North Carolina is planning to cut the Fund is not at all clear to me. This certainly isn’t a case like that of the genebanks at Pavlovsk, or Wellesbourne, or Jharkand, where land is deemed more valuable for other purposes. But it shares the same basic underlying premise; that the future can take care of itself. Where agriculture is concerned, with its dependence on living resources and human ingenuity and knowledge, that is often simply wrong. There’s money to be saved (or made) now, but only because those who make and save it now will not have to pay out in future for what they destroy now.

Not every piddling genebank or subsidy scheme deserves to remain untouched, but it doesn’t take a genius or a seer to realize that the costs down the line often far outweigh the benefits here and now. We don’t really know how to measure those costs properly, but that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that the rules of the game require that we do, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to change the rules.

Nibbles: Coffee, British orchards, Wild foraging, African agriculture, Sesame, Taro wine, African beer, Brazilian pastures, Hemp