ggolife

[ggolife]

Scotland is to ban the growing of genetically modified crops, the country's rural affairs secretary has announced. Richard Lochhead said the Scottish government was not prepared to "gamble" with the future of the country's £14bn food and drink sector. He is to request that Scotland be excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops. But farming leaders said they were disappointed by the move. Under EU rules, GM crops must be formally authorised before they can be cultivated. An amendment came into force earlier this year which allows member states and devolved administrations to restrict or ban the cultivation of genetically modified organisms within their territory. 'Consumer backlash' Mr Lochhead said Scotland's request for opt-outs from GM crop consent would cover an EU approved variety of genetically modified maize and six other GM crops that are awaiting authorisation. He said that Scotland was known around the world for its "beautiful natural environment" and banning the growing of genetically modified crops would protect and further enhance its "clean, green status". Mr Lochhead added: "There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14bn food and drink sector. "Scottish food and drink is valued at home and abroad for its natural, high quality which often attracts a premium price, and I have heard directly from food and drink producers in other countries that are ditching GM because of a consumer backlash." The announcement was welcomed by Scottish Green MSP Alison Johnstone, who agreed that the cultivation of GM crops would harm the country's environment and reputation for high quality food and drink. But she called on ministers to go further by challenging big retailers to improve their labelling to show whether meat, eggs and dairy products come from animals fed on GM feed. 'Embracing biotechnology' The move has also been broadly welcomed by environment groups. But Scott Walker, chief executive of farming union NFU Scotland, said he was disappointed that the Scottish government had decided that no GM crops should ever be grown in Scotland. "Other countries are embracing biotechnology where appropriate and we should be open to doing the same here in Scotland," he said. "These crops could have a role in shaping sustainable agriculture at some point and at the same time protecting the environment which we all cherish in Scotland." Huw Jones, professor of molecular genetics at agricultural science group Rothamsted Research, said the announcement was a "sad day for science and a sad day for Scotland. He said that GM crops approved by the EU were "safe for humans, animals and the environment".

[ggolife]

Most of Africas Arable Land is too Damages for Food production say reports.

A report published last month by the Montpellier Panel – an eminent group of agriculture, ecology and trade experts from Africa and Europe – says about 65 percent of Africa’s arable land is too damaged to sustain viable food production. The report, “No Ordinary Matter: conserving, restoring and enhancing Africa’s soil“, notes that Africa suffers from the triple threat of land degradation, poor yields and a growing population. “Political stability, environmental quality, hunger, and poverty all have the same root. In the long run, the solution to each is restoring the most basic of all resources, the soil.” — Rattan Lal The Montpellier Panel has recommended, among others, that African governments and donors invest in land and soil management, and create incentives particularly on secure land rights to encourage the care and adequate management of farm land. In addition, the report recommends increasing financial support for investment on sustainable land management. The publication of the report comes with the U.N. declaration of 2015 as the International Year of Soils, a declaration the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) director general, Jose Graziano da Silva, said was important for “paving the road towards a real sustainable development for all and by all.” According to the FAO, human pressure on the resource has left a third of all soils on which food production depends degraded worldwide. Without new approaches to better managing soil health, the amount of arable and productive land available per person in 2050 will be a fourth of the level it was in 1960 as the FAO says it can take up to 1,000 years to form a centimetre of soil. Soil expert and professor of agriculture at the Makerere University, Moses Tenywa tells IPS that African governments should do more to promote soil and water conservation, which is costly for farmers in terms of resources, labour, finances and inputs. “Smallholder farmers usually lack the resources to effectively do soil and water conservation yet it is very important. Therefore, for small holder farmers to do it they must be motivated or incentivized and this can come through linkages to markets that bring in income or credit that enables them access inputs,” Tenywa says. “Practicing climate smart agriculture in climate watersheds promotes soil health. This includes conservation agriculture, agro-forestry, diversification, mulching, and use of fertilizers in combination with rainwater harvesting.” Before farmers received training on soil management methods, they applied fertilisers, for instance, without having their soils tested. Tenywa said now many smallholder farmers have been trained to diagnose their soils using a soil test kit and also to take their soils to laboratories for testing. According to the Montpellier Panel report, an estimated 180 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa are affected by land degradation, which costs about 68 billion dollars in economic losses as a result of damaged soils that prevent crop yields. “The burdens caused by Africa’s damaged soils are disproportionately carried by the continent’s resource-poor farmers,” says the chair of the Montpellier Panel, Professor Sir Gordon Conway. “Problems such as fragile land security and limited access to financial resources prompt these farmers to forgo better land management practices that would lead to long-term gains for soil health on the continent, in favour of more affordable or less labour-intensive uses of resources which inevitably exacerbate the issue.” Soil health is critical to enhancing the productivity of Africa’s agriculture, a major source of employment and a huge contributor to GDP, says development expert and acting divisional manager in charge of Visioning & Knowledge management at the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), Wole Fatunbi. “The use of simple and appropriate tools that suits the smallholders system and pocket should be explored while there is need for policy interventions including strict regulation on land use for agricultural purposes to reduce the spate of land degradation,” Fatunbi told IPS He explained that 15 years ago he developed a set of technologies using vegetative material as green manure to substitute for fertiliser use in the Savannah of West Africa. The technology did not last because of the laborious process of collecting the material and burying it to make compost. “If technologies do not immediately lead to more income or more food, farmers do not want them because no one will eat good soil,” said Fatunbi. “Soil fertility measures need to be wrapped in a user friendly packet. Compost can be packed as pellets with fortified mineral fertilisers for easy application.” Fatunbi cites the land terrace system to manage soil erosion in the highlands of Uganda and Rwanda as a success story that made an impact because the systems were backed legislation. Also, the use of organic manure in the Savannah region through an agriculture system integrating livestock and crops has become a model for farmers to protect and promote soil health. Meanwhile, a new report by U.S. researchers cites global warming as another impact on soil with devastating consequences. According to the report “Climate Change and Security in Africa”, the continent is expected to see a rise in average temperature that will be higher than the global average. Annual rainfall is projected to decrease throughout most of the region, with a possible exception of eastern Africa. “Less rain will have serious implications for sub-Saharan agriculture, 75 percent of which is rain-fed… Average predicated production losses by 2050 for African crops are: maize 22 percent, sorghum 17 percent, millet 17 percent, groundnut 18 percent, and cassava 8 percent. “Hence, in the absence of major interventions in capacity enhancements and adaption measures, warming by as little as 1.5C threatens food production in Africa significantly.” A truly disturbing picture of the problems of soil was painted by the National Geographic magazine in a recent edition. “By 1991, an area bigger than the United States and Canada combined was lost to soil erosion—and it shows no signs of stopping,” wrote agroecologist Jerry Glover in the article “Our Good Earth.” In fact, says Glover, “native forests and vegetation are being cleared and converted to agricultural land at a rate greater than any other period in history. “We still continue to harvest more nutrients than we replace in soil,” he says. If a country is extracting oil, people worry about what will happen if the oil runs out. But they don’t seem to worry about what will happen if we run out of soil. Adds Rattan Lal, soil scientist: “Political stability, environmental quality, hunger, and poverty all have the same root. In the long run, the solution to each is restoring the most basic of all resources, the soil.”

[ggolife]

Humans will be extinct if plant life not secured Washington: The continued destruction of the plant life on Earth has put humans in jeopardy, a study says. According to researchers from University of Georgia, unless humans slow the destruction of Earth's declining supply of plant life, the civilisation may become completely unsustainable. "The Sun's energy is stored in plants and fossil fuels but humans are draining energy much faster than it can be replenished," said study's lead author and associate professor John Schramski in a paper appeared in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists estimate that the Earth contained approximately 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon in living biomass 2,000 years ago. Since that time, humans have reduced that amount by almost half. It is estimated that just over 10 percent of that biomass was destroyed in just the last century. "If we do not reverse this trend, we will eventually reach a point where the biomass battery discharges to a level at which Earth can no longer sustain us," Schramski said. The vast majority of losses come from deforestation, hastened by the advent of large-scale mechanised farming and the need to feed a rapidly growing population. As more biomass is destroyed, the planet has less stored energy, which it needs to maintain Earth's complex food webs and biogeochemical balances. "As the planet becomes less hospitable and more people depend on fewer available energy options, their standard of living and very survival will become increasingly vulnerable to fluctuations, such as droughts, disease epidemics and social unrest," Schramski said. If human beings do not become extinct, and biomass drops below sustainable thresholds, the population will decline drastically. People will be forced to return to life as hunter-gatherers or simple horticulturalists, according to the paper. Scientists hope that recognition of the importance of biomass, elimination of its destruction and increased reliance on renewable energy will slow the steady march toward an uncertain future.

[ggolife]

Preventing, remediating degradation of soils in Europe through land care

The cross-cutting aim of the RECARE project is to fill the knowledge gaps in the understanding of the complexity and functioning of soil systems and their interaction with human activities. The current state of degradation and conservation will be assessed using a new methodology, based on the WOCAT mapping procedure, and impacts of degradation and conservation on soil functions and ecosystem services will be quantified in a harmonized, spatially explicit way, accounting for costs and benefits, and possible trade-offs. The European Commission recently granted Wageningen University and partners a 11 million euro international research project focusing on preventing and remediating soil degradation in Europe. The RECARE project is a joint initiative of 27 institutions and organizations in Europe. Wageningen University is lead contractor, with a.o. Alterra and ISRIC as partners. The cross-cutting aim of the RECARE project is to fill the knowledge gaps in the understanding of the complexity and functioning of soil systems and their interaction with human activities. "It is a very large project," project leader Coen Ritsema says. "It has a strong Wageningen UR participation with the chair group Soil Physics and Land Management as lead contractor, and Alterra and ISRIC as full project partners. The total project budget is 11 million euro, the budget of the 3 Wageningen partners amounts to 2 million euro. The European Commission contributed 8.6 million euro. Besides participation of universities and research institutes, also multiple small and medium enterprises are embedded within the initiative up to a level of 15% of the available project budget." RECARE envisions to develop effective prevention, remediation and restoration measures using an innovative trans-disciplinary approach, actively integrating and advancing knowledge of stakeholders and scientists in 17 case studies, covering a range of soil threats in different bio-physical and socio-economic environments across Europe. Within this context, soil degradation processes, like water erosion, salinization, compaction, sealing, desertification, floods and landslides, loss of organic matter, contamination, and loss of soil biodiversity will receive the required attention. Coen Ritsema: "Within the RECARE case study sites we deploy several activities. The current state of degradation and conservation will be assessed using a new methodology, based on the WOCAT mapping procedure, and impacts of degradation and conservation on soil functions and ecosystem services will be quantified in a harmonized, spatially explicit way, accounting for costs and benefits, and possible trade-offs. Prevention, remediation and restoration measures, selected and implemented by stakeholders in a participatory process, will be evaluated regarding efficacy. And the applicability and impact of these measures at the European level will be assessed using a new integrated bio-physical and socio-economic model, accounting for land use dynamics as a result of for instance economic development and policies." Existing national and EU policies will be reviewed and compared to identify potential incoherence, contradictions and synergies. Policy messages will be formulated based on the case study results and their integration at European level. A comprehensive dissemination and communication strategy, including the development of a web-based dissemination and communication hub, will accompany the other activities to ensure that project results are disseminated to a variety of stakeholders at the right time and in the appropriate formats to stimulate renewed care for European soils.

[ggolife]

New Study Finds A “Very Strong” Correlation Between GMOs And Two Dozen Diseases

It’s no secret that we are living in a time where chronic disease continues to rise at an exponential rate, especially within the past couple of decades. New evidence continues to mount suggesting that Genetically Modified Organisms (more specifically GM food) might have played, and do play a key role in those statistics. A new study recently published in the Journal of Organic Systems last September examined US government databases, researchers searched for GE (Genetically Engineered) crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data while performing a “correlation analysis” on a total of 22 different diseases. Researchers reached an alarming conclusion: “These data show very strong and highly significant correlations between the increasing use of glyphosate, GE crop growth and the increase in a multitude of diseases. Many of the graphs show sudden increases in the rates of diseases in the mid-1990s that coincide with the commercial production of GE crops. The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow.” (1) If you’re thinking correlation doesn’t mean causation, you are right, but it’s important to consider taking into account the multitude of studies that clearly indicate the potential dangers associated with ingesting genetically modified foods . There is a lot of information out there, and our lack of support for GE foods comes from examining a multitude of information instead of just “a study.” It’s always important to look at a wide variety of data and evidence when trying to make the best possible decisions for you and your family when it comes to GE foods. The science suggesting that they should not be deemed completely safe for consumption is quite large, and goes beyond the correlation analysis that was performed in this study. If you take glyphosate, for example, it was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating at an alarming rate. Over the decades, strong scientific evidence has shown how glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, that it damages DNA and encourages cell mutations that can lead to cancer. It’s also been linked to autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and various other detrimental human health ailments. This fact alone gives more credence to the main study mentioned in this article. The actual study contains more information and visuals for anybody who reads it, you can access it within the sources. With all of the information and science that’s now been published, more specifically with regards to glyphosate, it’s absolutely absurd, dangerous and irresponsible for any biotech corporation who manufactures these substances to tell the world that they are completely safe and harmless, yet they do. Don’t you think? How could a corporation like Monsanto (a corporation charged with regulating our global food supply) claim that glyphosate is safe despite all of the evidence that confirms that it’s not? “It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691 Keep in mind that the use of glyphosate rose 1500% from 1995 to 2005, and that 100 million pounds of glyphosate is used every year on more than a billion acres. (Cherry B. GM crops increase herbicide use in the United States. Science in Society 45, 44-46, 2010)(source) Related CE Article: New Study Links GMOs To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption. This is exactly why a number of countries across the world have completely banned GMOs and the pesticides that go with them. The number of countries that still import or use these products is rapidly declining, The most recent country to introduce severe restrictions (and make a lot of noise in doing so) regarding GMOs, is Russia. “Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The hazards of these foods are uncertain. In view of our enormous ignorance, the premature application of biotechnology is downright dangerous. By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.” – David Suzuki, CC,OBC,PH.D LLD, Geneticist

[ggolife]

Tomatoes are the worlds Favorite vegetable to grow.

Tomatoes are by far the most popular vegetable to grow in the United States. There is nothing like a tomato ripe from the vine! Many people started gardening by way of the tomato. They were the very first vegetable we grew. Many gardeners have the techniques they swear by to get the biggest and best tomatoes. Here are some tales that are not necessarily true. Tomato Growing Myths (and Some Truths) 1. Tomatoes love as much sun as possible! This depends on where you live. In very hot climates, 6-8 hours is plenty. Your tomatoes can actually scald in intense sun and heat. For hot climates, plant your tomatoes in a north to south row so each side gets some shade each day. 2. You should prune your tomatoes for the best harvests. This again depends on your climate. If you live in a hot climate with intense sun and heat, you want to keep the leaves to help protect the tomatoes from sun scald. If you live in a damp area, you want to prune the tomato plant to allow good air circulation and sunlight. 3. Tomatoes love fertilizer! Actually, you only want to fertilize when you plant and again when the plant flowers. Too much nitrogen encourages leaf growth. Some that really sock the fertilizer to the plant end up with a giant green plant with no tomatoes. To help with flowering, fruiting and blossom end rot, be sure to get a fertilizer with plenty of phosphorous and calcium. 4. Tomatoes can’t be grown in pots. Tomatoes can be grown in pots, but not the big tomato plants or you have to grow them in a huge container like a whiskey barrel. Look for dwarf, pot, or patio types. You will need to put in a large pot and be prepared to water often. 5. Tomatoes need to be watered a lot. Actually, if you water your tomatoes a lot, you can end up with fungal diseases and mushy fruit. The trick with tomatoes is to keep their moisture even. Letting the ground crack and then drowning the plant will result in cracked fruit. In the hot times of the summer, you will likely need to water at least weekly. Be sure to not water the leaves, but the root. 6. When you see leaves dropping, something is wrong. This is a natural progression of the plant. As fruits begin to form, there is less energy for the leaves and some leaves will turn yellow and die. 7. A spindly tomato transplant is an unhealthy one. Actually the hairs on the stems can easily be transformed into roots. I take my transplants and remove the bottom leaves and plant on its side with only the top 4 leaves above ground. This gives the plant a good root system. 8. You can only transplant in early summer. Actually, if your tomato plants are starting to fade in mid summer, you can put out new transplants that will give you fruit until the first frost. 9. When you make sauce, the skins and seeds have to be removed. I put whole tomatoes into the food processor. Some say that the skin and seeds can impart a bitter flavor. With the many types of tomatoes I have raised, this has never been a problem for me. 10. Only paste tomatoes can be used for sauce. I use all my tomatoes for sauce. The best for sauce for me are the most prolific tomato plants. These have been Yellow Pear and Juliet for us. I would ask your neighbors which ones give the most fruit if you are looking to put up by freezing or canning. The last tip: Tomatoes are susceptible to fungal diseases. Do try to not plant your tomatoes in the same spot for four years. Fungal diseases stay in the soil and take a while to die out. The same goes for a pot. A way around it for a pot is to use new soil and disinfect the pot each year.

[ggolife]

A two-year study evaluated an organic fish fertilizer in a squash/collard rotation, and compared its effectiveness to inorganic sources. Although yields were reduced in the crops grown with hydrolyzed fish fertilizer treatments, economic analyses showed that premium prices and potential profits associated with organic products were enough to offset reduced yield. The authors said that the use of hydrolyzed fish fertilizer could be an economically feasible option in organic vegetable production. In the production of organic vegetables, nitrogen is important, yet can be quite costly to manage. Nitrogen management is even more challenging when production practices call for the use of polyethylene mulch combined with fertigation. The authors of a new study published in HortScience have found that hydrolyzed fish fertilizer holds promise as an "economically feasible" nitrogen source for growing organic vegetables. "Soluble organic nitrogen sources suitable for fertigation in organic vegetable production are much needed," said lead author of the study, Charles Ogles. Ogles and colleagues at Auburn University studied the effects of three different nitrogen sources during a 2-year crop sequence of yellow squash and collards. The scientists used hydrolyzed fish fertilizer, inorganic nitrogen (N) source with secondary and micronutrients, inorganic nitrogen without secondary or micronutrients, and a zero nitrogen control for the study. Nitrogen was applied at: recommended rates for both squash and collards, 80% of the recommended rates, and 60% of the recommended rates. The study design included a zero nitrogen treatment used as the control. "To eliminate the rotation order effect, the crops were switched each year: yellow squash-collard in year one, and collard-yellow squash in year two," explained Ogles. In the first year of the study, the researchers found that yellow squash had a 30% higher yield when grown with inorganic nitrogen as compared with squash grown in hydrolyzed fish fertilizer. Collards showed a 21% higher yield when grown with inorganic nitrogen source with secondary and micronutrients as compared with collards grown in the hydrolyzed fish fertilizer. "In the second year of the study, highest yields of collards were again produced with inorganic nitrogen source with secondary and micronutrients treatments, followed by those grown in the hydrolyzed fish fertilizer treatments," the authors said. "Second-year squash grown in the inorganic N treatments produced highest yields, while squash grown in the fish fertilizer had a 16% lower yield as compared with those grown in the two inorganic N sources." Additional results revealed that inorganic nitrogen without secondary or micronutrients produced lower marketable collard yields than the other treatments, an outcome the authors attributed to sulfur deficiency. After performing economic analyses, the authors concluded that if growers can obtain the price premiums associated with organic produce, the use of hydrolyzed fish fertilizer could be an economically feasible option in organic vegetable production. "Although yields were reduced in the crops grown in hydrolyzed fish fertilizer treatments, the premium price and resultant profit associated with organic products were enough to offset the reduced yield,"

[ggolife]

New research has found that the interaction of roots with a common soil fungus changes the genetic expression of rice crops -- triggering additional root growth that enables the plant to absorb more nutrients.

In addition to causing extra root growth, the mycorrhizal fungus also enmeshes itself within crop roots at a cellular level -- blooming within individual plant cells. The fungus grows thin tendrils called hyphae that extend into surrounding soil and pump nutrients, phosphate in particular, straight into the heart of plant cells.

Plants 'colonised' by the fungi get between 70 to 100% of their phosphate directly from these fungus tendrils, an enormous mineral boost which may eventually mitigate the need for farmers to saturate crop fields with phosphate fertilizer to ensure maximum yield.

The hope is that mycorrhizal fungi could one day act as a 'bio-fertilizer' that ultimately replaces the need to mine phosphate from the ground for industrial fertilizer. Finding a replacement for mined phosphate is a critical problem as not only is the resultant fertilizer a pollutant -- causing algal growth which chokes water supplies -- but the big phosphate mines are now depleted to the point where they are expected to run out in the next 30 to 50 years. Many experts are predicting a 'phosphate crisis'.

"The big question we are trying to answer is whether and how we can make use of the biofertilizer capacity of mycorrhizal symbiosis in modern and more high input agricultural settings, meaning more intensive farming methods. We need alternatives to phosphate fertilizer if we are to feed growing populations," said Dr Uta Paszkowski from the University of Cambridge's Department of Plant Sciences, who co-authored the research published in the journal PNAS.

"Cereals such as rice, wheat and maize are the most important crops in the world, feeding billions of people every day. mycorrhizal fungi have a mutualistic relationship with plants, including cereals, going back to the earliest days of plant life on land, before roots were 'invented'. By analysing this ancient and common relationship we are gaining insights that could be used to breed crops with the best possible root architectural and symbiotic properties -- towards 'designing crops' with very high food outputs," she said.

The new research pioneers the examination of the root system building units of adult rice plants at a molecular level, as rice can be used as a model for cereal crops generally. Cereal root 'architecture' involves a few big, thickset roots called crown roots that act as a scaffold from which all the smaller, lateral roots spread out into the different layers of soil, which contain the various nutrients.

Researchers found that plants colonised by mycorrhizal fungi have a different genetic expression which causes the cell walls within crown roots to soften, triggering the growth of many more lateral roots which are able to suck in more nutrients, contributing to a healthier plant with a higher yield. This is in addition to the phosphate provided by the fungal 'hyphae' tendrils, which in effect act as extra roots themselves (in return for which, the fungus gets its carbohydrate from the plant).

"Plant roots that have the capacity to explore the widest soil area absorb the most nutrients as a consequence and so are likely to have a greater crop yield. By finding out which parts of the genome are responsible for the best plant root systems we can start breeding for the best root 'architecture'," said Paszkowski.

"Designer crops with the best possible root systems will mean greater crop yield, which means more people fed."

Rice is best grown in highly irrigated paddy fields, but there are many parts of the world where this isn't an option, and 40% of the world's area for rice crop is grown 'dry'. However, the plant-fungi relationship that creates enhanced crops actually works best in dry environments. Mycorrhizal fungi could be of huge benefit to those who rely on dry rice crops in some of the poorest areas of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

The main hurdle for researchers to overcome is the self-regulation of plants, which means the fungi cannot be tested on an industrial scale alongside traditional fertilizer.

"Plants monitor their own nutritional state. If a plant has enough phosphate it will not allow fungus to enter root -- so at the moment it's one or the other. We are working on ways to circumvent this blockage so we can allow symbiosis to contribute in agricultural practices in better developed countries " said Paszkowski.

Mycorrhizal fungi are extremely common in all soils around the world, and are an ingredient in many 'bio' plant foods found in domestic garden centres, but have yet to be used for industrial agriculture.

[ggolife]

Officials Declare ‘Eating Healthy’ A Mental Disorder

Credit to JEFFEREY JAXEN

In an attempt to curb the mass rush for food change and reform, psychiatry has green lighted a public relations push to spread awareness about their new buzzword “orthorexia nervosa,” defined as “a pathological obsession for biologically pure and healthy nutrition.” In other words, experts are saying that our demand for nutrient-dense, healthful food is a mental disorder that must be treated.

CNN, Fast Company, Popular Science, and other top outlets have all began to trumpet the talking points on cue relatively recently:

“Orthorexia nervosa is a label designated to those who are concerned about eating healthy. Characterized by disordered eating fueled by a desire for “clean” or “healthy” foods, those diagnosed with the condition are overly pre-occupied with the nutritional makeup of what they eat”.

In short, if you turn your back on low quality, corporate food containing known cancer causing toxic additives and a rich history of dishonesty rooted in a continuous “profits over people” modus operandi, then you may suffer from a mental illness. The cherry on top is that if you have the pseudo-science labeled disorder of orthorexia nervosa, you will be prescribed known toxic, pharmaceutical drugs from some of the same conglomerate corporations that you are trying to avoid by eating healthy in the first place.

Orthorexia has not yet found its way into the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), yet is commonly being lumped in with other eating disorders. Stepping back and looking at the ones pushing this label on us shows highly questionable motives.

Psychiatry as a whole is deeply in bed with a pharmaceutical industry that makes the drugs to “treat” every one of these “disorders.” It is often these companies that are wielding influence behind the scenes to invent more mental health categories with their toxic products as the answer. This latest media push to popularize orthorexia as a mental disorder with a goal to marginalize or derail the food revolution appears to have been dead on arrival.

The psychiatric community has even deemed creativity to be a mental illness.

As the people continue to walk away from the broken medical and agricultural/food systems like any abusive relationship, the food makers are willing to do anything to maintain their waning control. Organic and non-GMO food markets have exploded in the last 5 years, so much so that any corporation wishing to not follow the trend risks financial hardship or ruin. In addition, pharmaceutical companies are feeling the strain as less people want their toxic medications and crippling side effects.

Perhaps some people to take it too far to the point of self-harm, but the problem we face with a toxic food system is a much larger threat. In closing, let’s be aware of some of the overall BS fed to us by the pharmaceutical bankrolled industry of psychiatry. When healthy eating and creativity are mental issues, something is amiss.

[ggolife]

The One-Straw Revolution

The Amazing Natural Farm of Masanobu Fukuoka

Mother Earth News, Issue #52, July/August 1978

Masanobu Fukuoka may be one of the most farsighted and downright radical farmers in the world today! Why? Because over the past 30 years he has gradually abandoned most conventional agricultural practices in order to return control of his land to the most skilled grower of all ... Nature herself! In return—he claims—he has reaped both bumper crops and a peace that surpasses understanding.

Excerpted by permission from The One-Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka, copyright - 1978 by Rodale Press. Available in hard cover for $7.95 from any good bookstore or for $7.95 plus 95¢ shipping and handling from Mother's Bookshelf, P.O. Box 70, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28739.

From the Introduction by Larry Korn

For several years I had been living with a group of friends on a farm in the mountains north of Kyoto. We used the traditional organic Asian techniques to grow rice, rye, barley, soybeans, and various garden vegetables.

When I first heard stories about Mr. Fukuoka, then, I was skeptical. How could it be possible to grow highyielding crops of rice and winter grains each year simply by scattering seed onto the surface of an unplowed field? There had to be more to it than that!

Whenever there was a lull in our work schedule, I used to travel to other parts of the country...stopping at tarms and communes, working part time along the way. and, on one of these excursions, I paid a visit to Mr. Fukuoka's farm to learn about his work for myself.

I am not quite sure what I expected...but after having heard so much about this great teacher, I was somewhat surprised to see that he was dressed in the boots and work clothes of the average Japanese farmer.

I stayed at Mr. Fukuoka's farm for several months on that first visit, working in the fields and in the citrus orchard. There—and in the mud-walled huts during evening discussions with other student farm workers—the details of Mr. Fukuoka's method and its underlying philosophy gradually became clear to me.

For instance, if the newcomer expects "natural farming" to mean that nature farms while he sits and watches, Mr. Fukuoka soon teaches him that there is a great deal he must know and do. Strictly speaking, no farming is "natural". Agriculture is a cultural innovation that requires knowledge and persistent effort.

The fundamental difference between Mr. Fukuoka's method of farming and conventional agriculture is that he cooperates with nature rather than attempting to "improve" or conquer her. Once he has seen to it that conditions have been tilted in favor of his crops, in other words, Mr. Fukuoka interferes as little as possible with the plant and animal communities in his fields. I believe there is much we all can learn from that approach.

The One-Straw Revolution, by Masanobu Fukuoka

Look at this grain! I believe that a revolution can begin from this one strand of straw. Then take a look at these fields of rye and barley. This ripening grain will yield about 22 bushels (1,300 pounds) per quarter acre. I believe this matches the top yields in Ehime Prefecture (where I live), and therefore, it could easily equal the top 'harvest in the whole country...since this is one of the prime agricultural areas in Japan. And yet...these fields have not been plowed for 25 years!

To plant, I simply broadcast rye and barley seed on separate fields in the fall...while the rice is still standing! A few weeks later, I harvest the rice and spread the straw back over the fields from which it came.

It is the same for the rice seeding. This winter grain (rye and barley) will be cut around the 20th of May. About two weeks before these crops fully mature, I broadcast rice seed over them. After they have been harvested—and the grains threshed—I spread the resulting rye and barley straw over the field.

I suppose that using the same method to plant rice and winter grain is unique to this kind of farming...but there is an even easier way! As we walk over to the next field, let me point out that the rice there was sown last fall at the same time as the winter grain. In fact, the whole year's planting was finished in the field by New Year's Day!

You might further notice that white clover and weeds are also growing in these fields. Clover seed was sown among the rice plants in early October (shortly before the rye and barley). I do not worry about sowing the weeds...they reseed themselves quite easily!

So the order of planting in this field is as follows: In early October, I broadcast clover among the rice...followed by winter grain in the middle of the month. In early November, the rice sown the previous year is harvested. Then I sow next year's rice seed and lay straw across the field. The rye and barley you see in front of you were grown this way.

In caring for a quarter-acre field, one or two people can do all the work of growing rice and winter grain in a matter of days!

This method completely contradicts modern agricultural techniques. It throws "scientific knowledge" and traditional farming know-how out the window. With this kind of farming—which uses no machines, no prepared fertilizer, and no chemicals—it is possible to attain a harvest equal to or greater than that of the average Japanese farm. The proof is ripening before your eyes.

This way of farming has evolved according to the natural conditions of the Japanese islands, but I feel that "natural farming" could also be applied in other areas...and to the raising of other indigenous crops.

In regions where water is not so readily available, for example, upland rice or other grains—such as buckwheat, sorghum, or millet—might be grown. Instead of white clover, another variety of clover, alfalfa, vetch, or lupine might prove a more suitable field cover. Natural farming takes a distinctive form in accordance with the unique conditions of the area in which it is applied.

In making the transition to this kind of farming, some weeding, composting, or pruning may be necessary at first...but these measures should be gradually reduced each year. Ultimately, it is not the growing technique which is the most important factor, but rather the state of mind of the farmer.

For 30 years I lived only for my farming and had little contact with people outside my own community. During those years I was heading in a straight line toward a "donothing" agricultural method.

The usual way to go about developing a method is to ask "flow about trying this?" or "How about trying that?"...bringing in a variety of techniques, one upon the other. This is modern agriculture and it only results in making the farmer busier.

My way was opposite. I was aiming at a pleasant, natural way of farming...which results in making the work easier instead of harder. "How about not doing this? How about not doing that?"—that was my way of thinking. By taking this approach, I ultimately reached the conclusion that there was no need to plow, no need to apply fertilizer, no need to make compost, no need to use insecticide! When you get right down to it, there are few agricultural practices that are really necessary.

The reason that man's "improved" techniques seem to be necessary is that the natural balance has been so badly upset beforehand by those same techniques that the land has become dependent on them.

Make your way carefully through these fields. Dragonflies and moths fly up in a flurry. Honeybees buzz from blossom to blossom. Part the leaves and you will see Insects, spiders, frogs, lizards, and many other small animals bustling about in the cool shade. Moles and earthworms burrow beneath the surface.

This is a balanced ricefield ecosystem. Insect and plant communities maintain a stable relationship here. It is not uncommon for a plant disease to sweep through this region and leave the crops in my fields unaffected.

And now look over at the neighbor's field for a moment. The weeds have all been wiped out by herbicides and cultivation. The soil animals and insects have been exterminated by poison. The earth has been burned clean of organic matter and micro-organisms by chemical fertilizers. In the summer you see farmers at work in the fields...wearing gas masks and long rubber gloves. These rice fields—which have been farmed continuously for over 1,500 years—have now been laid waste by the exploitive farming practices of a single generation.

For centuries, farmers have assumed that the plow is essential for growing crops. However, non-cultivation is fundamental to natural farming. The earth cultivates itself naturally by means of the penetration of plant roots and the activity of micro-organisms, small animals, and earthworms.

When the soil is cultivated, the natural environment is altered beyond recognition. The repercussions of such acts have caused the farmer nightmares for countless generations.

For example, when a natural area is brought under the plow, very strong weeds—such as crab grass and docks—sometimes come to dominate the vegetation. When these pests take hold, the farmer is faced with a nearly impossible task of weeding each year. Very often, the land is abandoned.

Moreover, weeds play an important part in building soil fertility and in balancing the biological community. As a fundamental principle, they should be controlled, not eliminated. Straw mulch, a ground cover of white clover interplanted with the crops, and temporary flooding provide effective weed control on my farm.

A local farmer who had expected to see my fields completely overgrown by weeds was surprised to find the barley growing so vigorously among the many other plants. Technical experts have also come here...seen the weeds, seen the watercress and clover growing all around...and have gone away shaking their heads in amazement.

Twenty years ago—when I was encouraging the use of " nanent ground cover in fruit orchards—there was not a blade of grass to be seen in fields or orchards anywhere in the country. But seeing orchards such as mine, people came to understand that fruit trees could grow quite well among the weeds and grasses. Today, orchards covered with grasses are common throughout Japan...and those without grass cover have become increasingly rare.

It is the same with fields of grain. Rice, barley, and rye can be successfully grown while the fields are covered with clover and weeds all year long! Here are some key points to remember when you're dealing with weeds:

As soon as cultivation is discontinued, the number of weeds decreases sharply. Also, the varieties of weeds in a given field will change.

If seeds are sown while the preceding crop is still ripening in the field, those seeds will germinate ahead of the weeds. Winter weeds sprout only after the rice has been harvested...but by that lime the winter grain already has a head start. Summer weeds sprout right after the harvest of barley and rye...but the rice is alreadv growing strongly. Timing the seeding in such a way than there is no interval between succeeding crops gives the grain a great advantage over the weeds.

Directly after the harvest—if the whole field is then covered with straw—the germination of weeds is stopped short. White clover sowed with the grain as a ground cover also helps to keep weeds under control.

The usual way to deal with weeds is to cultivate the soil. But when you cultivate, seeds lying deep in the earth—which would never have germinated otherwise—are stirred up and given a chance to sprout. Furthermore, the quick-sprouting, fast-growing varieties are given the advantage under these conditions. So you might actually say that the farmer who tries to control weeds by cultivating the soil is—quite literally-sowing the seeds of his own misfortune!

People interfere with nature, and—try as they maythey cannot heal the resulting wounds. Their careless farming practices drain the soil of essential nutrients...and the result is the yearly depletion of the land.

If left to itself, the soil maintains its fertility naturally...in accordance with the normal, orderly cycle of plant and animal life.

From the time that weak plants first developed as a result of such unnatural practices as plowing and fertilizing, disease and insect imbalance have become a great problem in agriculture. Nature—left alone—is in perfect balance. Harmful insects and plant diseases are always present, but do not occur in nature to an extent which requires the use of poisonous chemicals. The sensible approach to disease and insect control is to grow sturdy crops in a healthy environment.

Furthermore, with natural—as opposed to "organic"—farming, there is no need to prepare compost! I will not say to you that you do not need compost...only that there is no need to work hard making it. If straw left lying on the surface of the field in the spring or fall is covered with a thin layer of chicken manure or duck droppings, in six months it will completely decompose.

To make compost by the usual method, the farmer works like crazy in the hot sun...chopping up the straw, adding water and lime, turning the pile, and hauling it out to the field. He puts himself through all this grief because he thinks it is a "better way". I would rather see people just scattering straw or hulls or woodchips over their fields!

Scattering straw maintains soil structure and enriches the earth so that prepared fertilizer becomes unnecessary. This, of course, is connected with non-cultivation. My fields may be the only ones in Japan which have not been plowed for over twenty years...yet the quality of the soil improves with each season! I would estimate that the surface layer—rich in humus—has become enriched to a depth of more than four inches during these years. This is largely the result of returning to the soil everything grown in the field but the grain itself.

For the most part, a permanent green manure cover and the return of all the straw and chaff to the soil will be sufficient to ensure fertility. To provide animal manure to help decompose the straw, I used to let ducks loose in the fields. If they are introduced as ducklings-while the seedlings are still young—the ducks will grow up together with the rice. Ten ducks will supply all the manure necessary for a quarter acre of land and will also help to control weeds.

Using straw, green manure., and a little poultry manure, one can get high yields without adding compost or commercial fertilizer at all. For several decades now, I have been sitting back, observing nature's method of cultivation and fertilization. And while watching, I have been reaping bumper crops of vegetables, citrus, rice, and winter grain—as a gift, so to speak—from the natural fertility of the earth!

In growing vegetables in a "semi-wild" way—making use of a vacant lot, riverbank, or open wasteland—my idea is to just toss out the seeds and let the vegetables grow up with the weeds. I grow my vegetables on the mountainside...in the spaces between the citrus trees.

The important thing is to know the right time to plant. For the spring vegetables, the right time is when the winter weeds are dying back...and just before the summer weeds have sprouted. For the fall sowing, seeds should be tossed out when the summer grasses are fading away...and the winter weeds have not yet appeared.

It is best to wait for a rain that is likely to last for several days. Cut a swath in the weed cover and put out the vegetable seeds. There is no need to cover them with soil: Just lay the weeds you have cut back over the seeds to act as a mulch and to hide them from the birds and chickens until they can germinate. Usually the weeds must be cut back two or three times in order to give the vegetable seedlings a head start...but sometimes just once is enough.

Where the weeds and clover are not so thick, you can simply toss out the needs. The chickens will cat some of them, but many will germinate. If you plant in a row or furrow, there is a chance that beetles or other insects will devour many of the seeds...for these creatures walk in a straight line. Chickens also spot a patch which has been cleared and come to scratch around. It is my experience that it is best to scatter the seeds here and there.

Vegetables grown in this way are stronger than most people think. If they sprout up before the weeds, they will not be overgrown later on. There are some vegetables—such as spinach and carrots—which do not germinate easily. Soaking the seeds in water for a day or two, then wrapping them in little pellets of damp clay should solve the problem.

To the extent that people separate themselves from nature, they spin out farther and farther from the center. At the same time, a centripetal effect asserts itself and the desire to return to nature arises.

But if people merely become caught up in reacting—moving to the left or to the right, depending on conditions—the result is only more activity. The non—moving point of origin—which lies outside the realim of relativity—is passed over, unnoticed. I believe that even "returning-to-nature" and anti-pollution activities—no matter how commendable—are not moving toward a genuine solution if they are carried out solely in reaction to the overdevelopment of the present age.

Nature does not change...although the way of viewing nature invariably changes from age to age. No matter the age, natural farming exists forever as the wellspring of agriculture.

Can Natural Farming Work for You!

Just about every farm or garden article you're ever likely to read tells you what to do...to grow salsify, make lettuce tents, conquer aphids, or whatever. Every one, that is, except the one on these pages: "The Amazing Natural Farm of Masanobu Fukuoka." This article tells you what NOT to do...and that's where the trouble begins!

Americans, Canadians, and most varieties of Europeans just plain have a hard time NOT doing something. We're all tinkerers by tradition, manipulators of time and space who as often as not don't know when to leave well enough alone (even when something doesn't work, we still call it "progress" or "new and improved").

So when someone like Mr. Fukuoka—who's grown up in the Eastern tradition of passivity (see, even the word bothers us) in the face of the cosmos—comes along and tells us NOT to do something, we have a darned hard time taking his advice...even if we think he's right! It just goes against our grain not to do something.

So if you thought—as we did—that Mr. Fukuoka's farm is an inspiring, visionary model of what, agriculture should and could be—and if you want to live and farm the same way—your automatic response to the article (right along with ours!) was probably to figure step by step how to put Masanobu's great ideas to work in your fields, orchards, and gardens. Right?

Well join the club. The only problem is that this good, old-fashioned American approach to gettin' things done is 180 degrees opposite to what Mr. Fukuoka advocates! Since none of us (no, not even the so-called experts) know enough about Nature to tell for sure what's "natural" and what's not . . . there's no way we can run out and one-two-three "naturalize" our farms! We'd just end up with even more tinkering...which is exactly what Masanobu wants to avoid.

Having said all that, we should also make it clear that Mr. Fukuoka does offer some solid, down-to-earth tips on gardening that you can try tomorrow, if you like. (For example, see the sections on mulching with straw and chicken manure...or on growing vegetables in semi-wild places.) But the main point of Masanobu's work—to let Nature do as much of the farming as possible—cannot he quickly summed up in a handy set of instructions.

For one thing, Mr. Fukuoka has developed his techniques in response to particular conditions on his farm and to the needs of his crops. What works for him may or may not work for you. It's good to remember, too, that Mr. Fukuoka did not succeed overnight. He developed his present method over a period of 30 years...and, by his own account, made some pretty spectacular mistakes along the way (for example, he has managed to wipe out an entire mandarin orange grove...TWICE).

Furthermore, if Masanobu is right, the knowledge of what is natural for your area and your land will not come from scientific analysis or experimentation...but from living on it for many years, sensing its pulse, and coming to love it even as you realize you can never really understand it.

Now, some folks may find this kind of talk too mystical for their taste. But from another point of view, it's just plain common sense. For instance, you don't learn to really know someone you love by jotting down their idiosyncrasies...for such an action will only take you farther from your goal. Instead, you just spend time with that individual...and, slowly...an imperfect but steadily growing knowledge of who he or she is and what he or she needs is sure to emerge.

According to Mr. Fukuoka, it's exactly the same with the land! While most farmers and gardeners try to figure out how to coax that next apple, plum, or dollar from the soil...Masanobu quietly waits for Nature to show the way. What NOT to do then proceeds as "naturally" as water from a spring. - SW

The Amazing Natural Farm of Masanobu Fukuoka

[ggolife]

'Slow, insidious' soil erosion threatens human health and welfare as well as the environment, Cornell study asserts

Around the world, soil is being swept and washed away 10 to 40 times faster than it is being replenished, destroying cropland the size of Indiana every year, reports a new Cornell University study.

Yet the need for food and other agricultural products continues to soar.

Plenty of people should be, stressed Pimentel, whose study on the food and environmental threat of soil erosion is published in a recent issue of the Journal of the Environment, Development and Sustainability (Vol. 8, 2006)."Soil erosion is second only to population growth as the biggest environmental problem the world faces," said David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell. "Yet, the problem, which is growing ever more critical, is being ignored because who gets excited about dirt?"

"Erosion is a slow and insidious process," stressed Pimentel. "Yet, controlling soil erosion is really quite simple: The soil can be protected with cover crops when the land is not being used to grow crops."

Other ways to reduce erosion include reducing the need for people in developing countries to clear forests for agriculture, overgraze their cattle and remove crop residues for cooking fuel.

The vast majority -- 99.7 percent -- of human food comes from cropland, which is shrinking by more than 10 million hectares (almost 37,000 square miles) a year due to soil erosion, Pimentel reports, while more people than ever -- more than 3.7 billion people -- are malnourished.

"Erosion is one of those problems that nickels and dimes you to death: One rainstorm can wash away 1 mm (.04 inches) of dirt. It doesn't sound like much, but when you consider a hectare (2.5 acres), it would take 13 tons of topsoil -- or 20 years if left to natural processes -- to replace that loss," Pimentel said. "And that kind of loss occurs year after year by wind and rain around the world."

The study, which pulls together statistics on soil erosion from more than 125 sources, reports:

The United States is losing soil 10 times faster -- and China and India are losing soil 30 to 40 times faster -- than the natural replenishment rate.

The economic impact of soil erosion in the United States costs the nation about $37.6 billion each year in productivity losses. Damage from soil erosion worldwide is estimated to be $400 billion per year.

As a result of erosion over the past 40 years, 30 percent of the world's arable land has become unproductive.

About 60 percent of soil that is washed away ends up in rivers, streams and lakes, making waterways more prone to flooding and to contamination from soil's fertilizers and pesticides.

Soil erosion also reduces the ability of soil to store water and support plant growth, thereby reducing its ability to support biodiversity.

Erosion promotes critical losses of water, nutrients, soil organic matter and soil biota, harming forests, rangeland and natural ecosystems.

Erosion increases the amount of dust carried by wind, which not only acts as an abrasive and air pollutant but also carries about 20 human infectious disease organisms, including anthrax and tuberculosis.

[ggolife]

France Declares All New Rooftops Must Be Topped With Plants Or Solar Panels. A new law recently passed in France mandates that all new buildings that are built in commercial zones in France must be partially covered in either plants or solar panels. Green roofs, as they are called, have an isolating effect which helps to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat a building during the winter or cool it in the summer. They are capable of retaining rainwater and reducing problems with runoff, and also offer birds a place to call home in the urban jungle. French environmental activists originally wanted to pass a law that would make the green roofs cover the entire surface of all new roofs. However, partially covered roofs make for a great start, and are still a huge step in the right direction. Some say the law that was passed is actually better, as it gives the business owners a chance to install solar panels to help provide the buildings with renewable energy, thereby leaving even less of a footprint. Green roofs are already very popular in Germany and Australia, as well as Canada’s city of Toronto! This by-law was adopted in 2009, by the city of Toronto which mandated green roofs on all new industrial and residential buildings. Benefits of Green Roofs There are so many benefits to green roofs. Here are just a few: Adding natural beauty and major aesthetic improvement to buildings, which in turn increases the investment opportunity. Helping contribute to landfill diversion by prolonging the life of waterproofing membranes, using recycled materials, and prolonging the service of heating, ventilation, and HVAC systems through decreased use. Green roofs assist with storm water management because water is stored by the substrate, then taken up by plants, and thus returned to the atmosphere through transpiration and evaporation. They also retain rainwater and moderate the temperature of the water and act as natural filters for the water that does run off. They delay the time at which runoff occurs, which results in decreased stress on sewer systems during peak periods. The plants on green roofs do a great job of capturing airborne pollutants and other atmospheric deposition. They can also filter noxious gasses. They open up new areas for community gardens, commercial and recreational space in busy cities where this space is generally quite limited. France is definitely on the right track, but it should be a mandate that all new buildings being built in North America, and even worldwide, adopt this amazing idea to reap all of the potential benefits.

[ggolife]

German government to boost organic farming Germany is hungry for organic products. But, despite good market conditions, and heavy marketing, organic farmers are not reaping their share of the boom’s benefits, something Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt intends to change. EurActiv Germany reports. Between 2010 and 2013, Germany’s market for organic foods increased by one-fourth to almost €8 billion. Still, switching to organic cultivation remains a difficult process for farmers. While revenue from organic products has enjoyed an annual increase of 5-9% since 2011, the parallel increase in surface area over the past four years has only been 1-3%. Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt hopes to change this. “We want a timetable for growth that allows domestic producers to benefit more from the boom,” he said on Tuesday (19 May) in Berlin. Organic must be strengthened, he said, with the help of the Future Strategy Organic Farming plan. Schmidt’s Ministry hopes to work out details of the scheme together with representatives from the organic foods industry, and with involvement from Germany’s states, relevant associations and academia. >>Read: Agriculture poses immense threat to environment, German study says In this way, Germany, which is the biggest market for organic products in Europe, will take advantage of its “key role”, Schmidt indicated. If growth in the organic sector remains at the same level, it would take until 2077 for Germany to reach its goal of having 20% of cropland used by organic farmers. More support and motivation for young farmers The Organic Food Production Alliance (BÖLW) is emphasising a need for action in one area in particular. More agriculture companies must be motivated to switch to organic cultivation. “The younger farmers must get a clearer idea of what organic even means,” said BÖLW chairman Felix Prinz zu Löwenstein. Many farmers still have preconceptions concerning organic cultivation, he explained. How education and consulting resources can be improved for farmers is one of the issues tackled by the Thünen Institute, which is helping the German government develop action plans. “Better training is one of many important goals meant to give an extra push to bolstering the supply of organics,” said Thünen researcher Jürn Sanders. At the same time, he said, marketing and the value-added chain should also be strengthened, the advance offerings for organic farmers should be expanded, and EU legal requirements further developed. But the EU laws are a particular point of content between the Commission and the German Agriculture Ministry. In reforming the EU Organic Agriculture Regulation, the Commission is focusing on setting new limits. But just over a week ago, Schmidt stopped a corresponding amendment in the EU’s Council of Ministers. >>Read: New EU regulation could curb organic farming “Limit value checks on pesticides cannot be the only approach”, he said. Instead, one must focus on the “processuality” of the checks, sticking to checks that closely investigate the production and processing procedure at farms, or in processing operations. Like Schmidt, many experts believe that the Commission’s draft, especially the planned introduction of additional limit values for organic foods, is handicapping organic cultivation and overstraining smaller companies in particular. Skyrocketing rental fees being neglected Meanwhile, regional politicians and farms are complaining about an extremely high hurdle in the change to organic. In many regions of Germany, purchase as well as leasing costs for agriculture lands have all but skyrocketed. Competitors interested in the properties have long come from outside the agriculture sector. Statistical estimates indicated that building areas and infrastructure projects have been steadily running agricultural lands short. In Germany alone, 80 hectares of agricultural land are lost every day. In addition, government-funded expansion of biogas plants has consumed a large part of what is grown in the fields over the past few years. In the eastern states, the price of rent has increased from €122 per hectare to €169 today, Schmidt said at the presentation of the 2015 agriculture report on Wednesday (21 May). The German government is hoping to curb this, he said, but concrete paths for a solution remain open. But fears remain high in particularly hard-hit states. “Organic operations that are especially extensive, but also dairy farmers, are coming closer and closer to not being able to cope with this enormous rise in rental prices,” complained Lower Saxony’s Agriculture Minister Christian Meyer. But years could pass, before a price limit he proposed is introduced. In the meantime, the EU has launched an ambitious plan for green cultivation. Around 30% of the funds are used for the greening payment, which the farmers receive for taking additional environmental measures. But this will not solve all the farmers' problems. If land prices continue to rise, most of the extra money will go to the leaseholders, they predict.

[ggolife]

Exploring biocarbon: The road less traveled in climate policy

How are we going to repair the changed climate? Seriously, how are we going to un-do the damage already done? The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere (400 parts per million or ppm) is well beyond the 350 ppm that scientists agree is needed “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.” (Dr James Hansen, 2008.) Why is 400 ppm a concern? Why must we get back to 350 ppm? We’ve already overshot, which means not only must we stop emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs), but we must also begin actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere and putting it somewhere safe. A simplified version of the carbon cycle in vegetation and soil. Plants take CO2 from the atmosphere to synthesize tissue (plant biomass). As long as biomass is growing it accumulates carbon. During decomposition of dead biomass and humus the carbon is released a How about the soil? That’s a safe place for carbon. This is the advice from Dr. Rattan Lal of Ohio State University. He points out, since we humans began the agricultural revolution, world soils have lost between 25% to 75% of their original soil organic carbon (SOC). What many of us do not sufficiently recognize is that we can put that carbon back. And fortunately, when we put carbon back in the soil, other good things tend to happen: Erosion slows, drought resistance improves, nutrients tend to remain in the soil, and net plant productivity increases, allowing for more food production for a growing global population. So how do we do it? We all know we’ve got to stop burning coal and petroleum and other dirty fuel sources. Yes, we’ve got to radically improve efficiency and reduce waste of energy. Yes, we must continue to grow solar and wind and other renewables. But these measures cannot remove the carbon pollution already put in the air by our parents and grandparents. In April of 2012, volunteers with Green Forests Work helped plant new trees on the site of the crash of Flight 93. Let me be clear: To get back to 350 ppm, we’ll have to run the whole carbon-spewing machine backwards, sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it somewhere safely. Typically, energy and climate policy analysts suggest afforestation and biomass carbon capture and storage (BECCS). But these are only two of many tools available in the toolkit to restore carbon to the biosphere. Hmm, biosphere plus carbon. Let’s call it biocarbon, shall we? Thankfully, there are many more biocarbon strategies than just afforestation and CCS that can help suck up excess carbon pollution and bring CO2 in the atmosphere back down to an acceptable level. Agriculture in the Southeast plays a huge role on the landscape, and in emissions of greenhouse gases (like nitrous oxide from cropland, or methane and ammonia from animal manure). Different ways of farming (sometimes called “sustainable agriculture” or “carbon farming”) can actually reduce these emissions while also improving the soil – in part by increasing the amounts of carbon stored in soils. Another tool is careful forest management. By growing more forests, growing more trees, and better managing all our forests, we Southerners can seize the advantage of our long growing season to soak up carbon in safe and useful ways. A modified carbon cycle using biochar for carbon sequestration. Biochar is recalcitrant against decomposition and remains in the soil for centuries or millennia. Thus pyrolysis can transfer 50% of the carbon stored in plant tissue from the active to an inactive carbon pool. The remaining 50% of carbon can be used to produces energy and fuels. This enables carbon negative energy generation if re-growing resources are used. A third tool is bioenergy systems that also produce biochar. For example, Cool Planet Energy Systems is re-purposing a plant in Alexandria, LA to make cellulosic biofuel while co-producing a charcoal-like soil amendment. The plant will make 10 million gallons per year of biomass-based gasoline from a variety of renewable biomass sources. “The process also generates value through biochar production, which can be returned to the soil, enabling fertilizer and water retention for increased crop productivity, and more robust plant health.” These practices that restore soil are sort of a “road less traveled” in climate policy. For example, in President Obama’s Climate Plan released earlier this year, there was almost zero mention of biocarbon measures – no mention of no-till, composting, cover crops, perennial crops, permaculture, or biochar – but I guess that’s not sexy. What was mentioned in the plan is better management of forests – recognizing the great need for better management and protection of the forests we already have. However, Obama’s plan focuses solely on Western forests, while there are huge swaths of forests in the Southeast that need similar treatments and policies to lower the risk of runaway wildfires, to strengthen the trees’ resistance to pests and disease, or to offset the pressures to convert to sprawl. Sustainable, residue-sourced biomass energy can help by providing markets for the low-value materials that must be removed to make the remaining trees more healthy. Even city-dwellers can help pull carbon from the atmosphere: Green roofs, urban gardens, tree planting, backyard composting, etc., are great ways to enrich our lives, improve the places we live, while also storing carbon. The Earth’s soils hold more than double the carbon of our atmosphere. So how much more might they hold? “The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion metric tons per year for the next 50 years. Thus, the potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.” Dr. Rattan Lal, Ohio State University, 2009. In short, with broad effort and careful management of biocarbon, we might actually reverse the rise from 350 to 400 ppm. It is understandable why this subject is frequently overlooked or underestimated. It’s complex: As the authors of the IPCC 4th report noted “There is no universally applicable list of [agricultural] mitigation practices; practices need to be evaluated for individual agricultural systems and settings,” However, this road less traveled may make all the difference, because these biocarbon approaches deliver multiple value streams: Wise forest management enhances water quality and quantity by strengthening the hydrologic cycle. Sustainable food production reduces water pollution and improves human health with greater nutrient density in food. Soil building practices increase the amount of food we can grow while saving the farmer money on chemical inputs. Growing an energy crop like switch grass on margins around cropland can result in significant soil carbon accumulation, enhanced wildlife habitat, and protection of streams from agricultural runoff. Bioenergy systems that produce fuel, electricity or heat, while co-producing biochar will result in soils having more microbial and mycorrhizal activity (thus more fertility), and greater resistance to drought. We should consider taking this road less traveled and recognize the massive carbon sequestering potential of soils. In doing just that, we are launching a Southeast Biocarbon Initiative to highlight and promote these measures in our region.

[ggolife]

This Is What Pesticides Are Doing To Bees Brains

n research report published in the May 2015 issue of The FASEB Journal, scientists report that a particular class of pesticides called "neonicotinoids" wreaks havoc on the bee populations, ultimately putting some crops that rely on pollination in jeopardy. Specifically, these pesticides kill bee brain cells, rendering them unable to learn, gather food and reproduce. The report, however, also suggests that the effects of these pesticides on bee colonies may be reversible by decreasing or eliminating the use of these pesticides on plants pollenated by bees and increasing the availability of "bee-friendly" plants available to the insects.

Bees at risk

"Our study shows that the neonicotinoid pesticides are a risk to our bees and we should stop using them on plants that bees visit," said Christopher N. Connolly, Ph.D., a researcher involved in the work from the Medical Research Institute at the Ninewells Medical School at the University of Dundee in Dundee, UK. "Neonicotinoids are just a few examples of hundreds of pesticides we use on our crops and in our gardens. Stop using all pesticides in your garden and see insect damage as a success. You are providing for your native wildlife. Nasty caterpillars grow into beautiful butterflies."

How did they figure this out?

To make their discovery, Connolly and colleagues fed bees a sugar solution with very low neonicotinoid pesticide levels typically found in flowers (2.5 parts per billion) and tracked the toxins to the bee brain. They found that pesticide levels in the bees' brains were sufficient to cause the learning cells to run out of energy. Additionally, the brain cells were even vulnerable to this effect at just one tenth of the level present. When the ability of the bee's brain to learn is limited, the bee is unable to master key skills such as recognizing the presence of nectar and pollen from the smell emitted from flowers. In addition, scientists fed bumblebee colonies this same very low level of pesticide in a remote site in the Scottish Highlands where they were unlikely to be exposed to any other pesticides. They found that just a few of the exposed colonies performed well, colonies were smaller, and nests were in poor condition with fungus taking over. This further suggests that bumblebees exposed to this type of pesticide become poor learners, become unable to properly gather food, and become unable to properly nurture the next generation of bees. "It is ironic that neonicotinoids, pesticides developed to preserve the health of plants, ultimately inflict tremendous damage on plant life," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "These chemicals destroy the insect communities required by plants for their own reproduction."