- Where does the eggplant come from? Where is it going?
- William Woys Weaver and his heirloom seed collection.
- Orissa farmers try emus. In desperation, presumably.
- India runs out of cropland.
- Tweaking Togo’s traditional grain storage structures.
Nibbles: Haiti, India, Maize, Research
- Monsanto’s seeds in Haiti. “Let the farmers decide,” says Anastasia
- Indian stamps celebrate biodiversity. No pictures, so we can’t comment.
- Is maize becoming more tolerant to heat and drought? Maybe not.
- Olivier de Schutter says investment in agriculture is destroying the world’s peasantry. Responsibly.
Nibbles: Wheat, Mississippi, Blogs, Greenwash, Livestock
- CIMMYT live blogs the wheat meet in St Pete. Riiiiiiight.
- Got the no veg blues? More ag on the airwaves. h/t Agricultural Law
- Guardian collects science blogs, almost no botany. h/t Anastasia.
- Coke-fuelled excitement at Green Week.
- Lights! Camera! ILRI! Films on livestock goods and bads.
Agrobiodiversity and food on the airwaves
Our follower and occasional contributor André kindly alerted us to what he calls a European Union mega-conference on biodiversity, going on all this week in Brussels. There may be some agricultural biodiversity in there somewhere. The whole thing is being streamed. And next week Michael Pollan is at the RSA, and you can listen to a feed of that too. I know which one I’ll be following.
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?