Front
14/10/10
15:31
Page 1
Inside Front
29/9/10
15:35
Page 1
01
29/9/10
15:38
Page 1
editorial World Agriculture Editorial Board
Published by Wharncliffe Publishing, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS, UK
Patron Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG, KCVO Chairman Professor Sir Colin Spedding CBE, MSc, PhD, DSc, CBiol, Hon FSB, FRASE, FIHort, FRAgS, FRSA, Hon Assoc RCVS, Hon DSc (Reading). Agriculturalist Deputy Chairman & Editor Dr David Frape BSc, PhD, PG Dip Agric, CBiol, FSB, FRCPath, RNutr. Mammalian physiologist Assistant Editors Robert Cook BSc, CBiol, MSB, ARAgS. Plant pathologist and agronomist Ben Aldiss BSc, PhD, CBiol, MSB, FRES. Ecologist Members of the Editorial Board Professor Phil Brookes BSc, PhD, DSc. Soil microbial ecologist Andrew Challinor BSc, PhD. Agricultural Meteorologist Professor J. Perry Gustafson BSc, MS, PhD Plant Geneticist Professor Paul Jarvis FRS, FRSE, FRSwedish Soc. Agric. & Forestry Silviculturalist Professor Brian Kerry MBE, BSc, PhD Soil microbial ecologist Professor Glen M. MacDonald BA, MSc, PhD Geographer Professor Sir John Marsh CBE, MA, PG Dip Ag Econ, CBiol, FSB, FRASE, FRAgS Agricultural economist Professor Ian McConnell BVMS, MRVS, MA, PhD, FRCPath, FRSE. Animal immunologist ChristiePeacock BSc, PhD, FRSA, ARAgS Tropical Agriculturalist Professor RH Richards C.B.E., M.A., Vet. M.B., Ph.D., C.Biol., F.S.B., F.R.S.M., M.R.C.V.S., F.R.Ag.S. Aquaculturalist Professor Neil C. Turner FTSE, FAIAST, FNAAS (India), BSc, PhD, DSc, Crop physiologist Roger Turner BSc PhD, MBPR. Agronomist Professor John Snape BSc PhD Crop geneticist Advisor to the board John Bingham CBE, FRS, FRASE, ScD Crop geneticist Editorial Assistants Dr Philip Taylor BSc, MSc, PhD Ms Sofie Aldiss BSc Michael J.C. Crouch BSc Rob Coleman MSc
WORLD AGRICULTURE
1
Inside Front
19/3/10
11:07
Page 1
03
29/9/10
15:41
Page 1
contents
In this Issue ... Objectives and functions of World Agriculture Editorials Norman Borlaug 1914-2009
Dr David Frape & Professor Perry Gustafson
Organic Farming
Professor Sir Colin Spedding
GM Maize and mycotoxins
Dr David Frape
Letters to the Editor Scientific: Environmental and economic effects of management of weeds in genetically modified, herbicide tolerant (GMHT) sugar beet Mike May, Director, Liaison Group, Broom's Barn Research Centre
Economic & Social: Planting Paradise – is there an Option? Dr Tony Greer, Group Manager, Sustainability and Conservation, PT Prima Mitrajaya Mandiri, Indonesia New Horizons for Small-scale Farming in East Africa Dr Paul L. Woomer, Forum for Organic Resource Management and Agricultural Technologies (FORMAT), Nairobi, Kenya Making livestock services accessible to farmers in Africa: FARM-Africa’s Dairy Goat and Animal Healthcare Model an example of success Dr Christie Peacock, CE , Farm Africa, London World Food Supply and Biodiversity Professor J. Perry Gustafson, Dr Norman E. Borlaug, and Dr Peter H. Raven, University of Missouri and CIMMYT
Opinion & Comment: The Myths of Organic Farming Lord Dick Taverne, Chairman of Sense About Science, House of Lords, UK Organic farming myths, counter-myths and reality Professor Nic Lampkin, Executive Director, Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm
Instructions to contributors Publisher’s Disclaimer No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Although all advertising material is expected to conform to ethical standards, inclusion in this publication does not constitute a guarantee, or endorsement of the quality or value of such product by the Publisher, or of the claims made by the manufacturer.
Potential future titles Return slips
WORLD AGRICULTURE
3
04
29/9/10
15:42
Page 1
World Agriculture: A peer-reviewed, scientific review journal directed towards opinion formers, decision makers, policy makers and farmers
objectives and functions of the Journal The Journal will publish articles giving clear, unbiased and factual accounts of development in, or affecting, world agriculture. Articles will interpret the influence of related subjects (including climate, forestry, fisheries and human population, economics, transmissible disease, ecology) on these developments. Fully referenced, and reviewed, articles by scientists, economists and technologists will be included with editorial comment. Furthermore, a section for “Opinion & Comment” allows skilled individuals with considerable experience to express views with a rational basis that are argued logically. References to papers that have been subject to peer-review will not be mandatory for this section. From time to time the Editor will invite individuals to prepare articles on important subjects of topical and international concern for publication in the Journal. Articles will be independently refereed. Each article must create interest in the reader, pose a challenge to conventional thought and create discussion. Each will: 1) Explain likely consequences of the directions that policy, or development, is taking. This will include interactive effects of climate change, population growth and distribution, economic and social factors, food supplies, transmissible disease evolution, oceanic changes and forest cover. Opinion, in the “Opinion & Comment” Section must be based on sound deductions and indicated as such. Thus, an important objective is to assist decision-makers and to influence policies and methods that ensure development is evidence-based and proceeds in a more “sustainable” way. Without a clear understanding of the economic causes of the different rates of agricultural development in developing and developed countries and of migration rates between continents rational policies may not be developed. Hence, the role of economics must be understood and contribute an important part in the discussion of all subjects. 2) Provide independent and objective guidance to encourage the adoption of technical innovations and new knowledge. 3) Discourage false short-sighted policies and loose terminology, e.g. “organic”, “genetically modified”, “basic”, “sustainable”, “progress” and encourage informed comment on policies of governments and NGOs. 4) Indicate the essential role of wild-life and climate, not only in the context of agricultural and forestry development, but by maintaining environmental balance, to ensure the sustenance and enjoyment of all. 5) Summarise specific issues and draw objective conclusions concerning the way agriculture should develop and respond in the location/region of each enterprise, to evolving factors that inevitably affect development. 6) Promote expertise, for advising on world agricultural development and related subjects. 7) Allow interested readers to comment by “Letters to the Editor” and by “Opinion & Comment” columns. 8) Provide book and report reviews of selected works of major significance. 9) To include a wide range of commercial advertisements and personal advertisements from advisors and consultant groups. Near drought conditions challenge spring soybean crops. (Glycine max)
4
WORLD AGRICULTURE
05
29/9/10
15:47
Page 1
editorials
Norman Borlaug 1914-2009 American agronomist, humanitarian, Nobel laureate, and "the father of the Green Revolution", Dr. Norman Ernest Borlaug (1914-2009) dedicated almost six decades of his life to ending world hunger and boosting agricultural productivity in the developing world. He talked to more peasant farmers and visited more wheat fields than any other living person, and is considered the founder and spiritual father of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), where he served for many years as a wheat scientist. Hans-Joachim Braun, CIMMYT.
David Frape & Perry Gustafson
T
his Issue of World Agriculture is dedicated to the memory of Norman Borlaug, who was born on a farm near Cresco, Iowa in 1914 and who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. He died in September 2009 during the preparation for this journal of a paper of which he is a co-author. Borlaug always displayed remarkable personal stamina in his plant breeding research, working 12-hour days in harsh field conditions, where he challenged younger researchers with the physical prowess he had developed on the farm and through championship wrestling in his high school and university years. By 1954 Borlaug and his colleagues had successfully bred what became known as "miracle seeds" of highyielding dwarf varieties of wheat. The new seeds produced greater yields in response to chemical fertilisers and other inputs. By 1956 his disease-resistant varieties had helped Mexico double its wheat production and, for the first time, become selfsufficient in grain. By 1963, 95% of Mexico's wheat crops used the semi-dwarf varieties developed by Borlaug’ s team, and the harvest was six times as large as that in 1944. In the mid-1960s, Borlaug's new varieties were being exported and adapted to local environmental conditions in the wheat growing regions of the world. Notable beneficiaries were Pakistan and India , where, between 1965 and
Norman Borlaug
1970, wheat yields nearly doubled, respectively from 4.6m tonnes to 7.3m tonnes , and from 12.3m tonnes to 20.1m tonnes . By 1974 India had become self-sufficient in producing cereals, and the germplasm and the technological improvements rapidly spread to all wheat production regions of the world. His introduction of high yielding semi-dwarf wheat to the developing countries of the world averted predicted international crises and famines, and he has been credited with saving the lives of approximately 1 billion people worldwide. There have been many eminent critics of the Borlaug approach to improving world food production, including the ecologist Vandana Shiva in India, who said that the long-term cost of dependency on Borlaug's new varieties and technology, increased soil erosion and the crop’s vulnerability to pests and reduced soil fertility and genetic diversity.
The rapid spread of semi-dwarf wheat throughout the world was also said to have a negative impact on cereal biodiversity, because the semidwarf wheat cultivars took over vast areas of land that had been under small farmer production of a wide variety of “landrace” cultivars. However, developing country breeding programs quickly incorporated their locally adapted germplasm into the semi-dwarf cultivars from CIMMYT. As a consequence biodiversity of their wheat cultivars is generally higher now than it was before the Green Revolution. Critics have stated that not only did Borlaug's "high-yielding" cultivars demand expensive fertilisers, but they also required more water. In many developing countries both water and fertilizer were, and still are, scarce. The revolution in plant breeding was said to have led to rural impoverishment, increased debt, social inequality and the displacement of vast numbers of peasant farmers. Borlaug had several robust replies. One of which was the acknowledgement that his Green Revolution had not “transformed the world into Utopia”, but added that many of the critics of this Revolution have “never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertiliser and irrigation canals, and be outraged that critics were trying to deny them these things.”
WORLD AGRICULTURE
5
06
29/9/10
15:48
Page 1
Dramatic view of wheat fields in stormy weather
6
WORLD AGRICULTURE
07
29/9/10
15:49
Page 1
editorials
Organic Farming Colin Spedding
I
n 1987 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) established the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards to set the organic production standards for this country: I chaired it for the next 12 years. It brought together the organic sector bodies, of which there were about six at that time, the largest being the Soil Association, to agree on common standards. Each sector body was, however, free to set additional requirements to be met by its own members. Some years later the European Union (EU) established a Council Regulation ([EEC] 2092/1991) that governed the use of the term “organic” (and all European equivalents, such as “biologique”). This was immediately adopted by the UK. From then on it became illegal to use these terms on any foodstuff that was not produced in conformity with the Regulation. There is now an Advisory Committee on Organic Standards (ACOS) representing the (now) nine sector bodies as Certification Bodies. It is still the case, however, that each sector body is free to require that additional standards be met by its members, only one of which requires planting etc. in
relation to the phases of the moon. It is these sector bodies that make claims about the benefits of organic farming to the environment and for the taste and safety of the produce. No such claims are made in the Regulation, which relates only to “production”. In effect, it says that the label “organic” means that the product is produced in the ways prescribed. It is a matter of judgement as to whether these methods result in the benefits claimed. No tests are required by anybody to see whether such benefits are actually obtained. There is, however, independent inspection of the production methods and noncompliances have to be corrected. Even more important than clarity about standards is the danger of generalisation. How on earth can a generalisation be valid that refers to either “organic” or “conventional” farming? Each may be entirely crop- or animal-orientated, and within both the range of species is huge. And even with, say, cows, there are many breeds and crosses, ages, for milk or meat, in
different different altitudes different
parts of the country, on soil types, at different and aspects and with rainfall!
Furthermore, each can be well- or poorly-farmed by quite different people in different years. Such generalisations make no sense. The situation is no better for generalisations about products. Does an organic sausage taste better? Than what? There are many different kinds of sausage, many of them deliberately designed to taste different from the others. A constructive approach would be to welcome the way in which many organic producers explore the possibilities of, for example, using less herbicides and pesticides. Establishing the validity of reduced inputs would be valuable for all, including conventional farmers who cannot afford to explore such possibilities for themselves. The two approaches could be complementary – at least spelt with an “e”.
‘Even more important than clarity about standards is the danger of generalisation. How on earth can a generalisation be valid that refers to either “organic” or “conventional” farming? Each may be entirely crop- or animal-orientated, and within both the range of species is huge. And even with, say, cows, there are many breeds and crosses, ages, for milk or meat, in different parts of the country, on different soil types, at different altitudes and aspects and with different rainfall!
WORLD AGRICULTURE
7
08
29/9/10
15:52
Page 1
09
29/9/10
15:54
Page 1
editorials
GM Maize and mycotoxins David Frape
I
n the first Issue we commenced an analysis of problems related to the structure of African agriculture, that discussion is continued here. We present evidence of the replacement of a tropical forest by oil palm plantations, as an economic necessity. These forests are not only repositories of vast numbers of extremely valuable species, but are also vital carbon sinks. Moreover, the act of uprooting large numbers of tropical trees, itself leads to the release of enormous quantities of greenhouse gases. The resolution of the adverse effects of this type of development will involve the solution to several interrelated issues. The paper by Gustafson, Borlaug, and Raven in this Issue indicates that it should be possible to meet the increasing world-wide demand for food over the next decades, without increasing the area under cultivation, if reliable technical developments are adopted. In this Issue the debate is opened between so called
conventional agriculture and organic agriculture, a debate that has a considerable bearing on the conclusions of Gustafson et al. Using the scientific method, in its simplest form, progress is made by a comparison of a novel method with an existing method. Unfortunately direct scientific comparisons between conventional and organic methods are scarce, so that conclusions about the relative merits of these systems cannot be drawn from developments within each field, particularly in respect of worldwide agricultural production. Statistically, the main effects are not comparable, but it is possible to make some comparison between interactions within each field. As developments in agriculture should be from sound scientifically based evidence, it is the case that there will be a convergence between the methods of organic and conventional production, so that
under many agronomic conditions the methods will become indistinguishable. Basing this debate on such evidence must be to the benefit of all concerned. A much greater understanding of how plants “work� to produce a crop will simplify and clarify many of the arguments. Organic production excludes GM technology. A paper in this Issue describing GM technology adopted in sugar beet production indicates great advantages in weed control with a reduced use of herbicides. Another example shows that premature adverse criticism of GM methods should be avoided. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacterium, which produces crystal proteins toxic to a range of insect pests, including the corn borer caterpillar. Bt preparations rich in this protein have been used for many years as insecticides. A transgenic (GM) maize resistant to the corn borer was created by inserting a single gene for a Bt protein into the
WORLD AGRICULTURE
9
10
14/10/10
15:30
Page 1
editorials maize genome. The resulting crop expresses a very high level of the toxin preventing corn borer damage, avoiding the need for sprays that could affect a range of insect species. These advantages, in themselves, might be considered by some individuals to provide an inadequate case for the adoption of GM maize. This clearly indicates that we should neither accept, nor reject, any technology without evaluating its potential for utilization under individual environmental conditions. A secondary benefit is that Bt maize grain has lower concentrations of fungal mycotoxins than non-Bt maize grain (The Royal Society 2009). These toxins include fumonisins, produced by Fusarium moniliforme, an aggressive coloniser of maize, so that fumonisins have a worldwide distribution. Samples have shown a presence frequently exceeding 50 % of crop samples with visually healthy kernels (Pitt & Hocking 1996, Bryden et al. 1998, Wu 2007). These toxins can cause severe damage to human and animal health and in my experience at high concentrations in maize grain have been lethal.
Fortunately, concentrations in grain infrequently reach such levels and mixed diets reduce their dietary concentration. Climate change could, nevertheless, alter the distribution of damaging concentrations that could radically change the risk:benefit argument relating to the introduction of Bt maize, affecting the presence of fumonisins, aflatoxins and other seed borne mycotoxins!
Appointments to the Editorial Board This is an International journal and the Editorial Board is very pleased to introduce to our readers three scientists as new members: Professor J. Perry Gustafson, Missouri, Professor Glen M. MacDonald, California and Professor Neil C. Turner, Western Australia.
‘Climate change could, nevertheless, alter the distribution of damaging concentrations that could radically change the risk: benefit argument relating to the introduction of Bt maize, affecting the presence of fumonisins, aflatoxins and other seed borne mycotoxins!’
I also wish to thank my old friend, Maxwell D. Epstein, Dean Emeritus, International Students and Scholars, UCLA, for introducing Professor MacDonald to us. Max and I worked on international relations during our days in Ames, Iowa, several decades ago.
References Anon (2009) Developments in biological science with potential benefits for food crop production. In: Reaping the benefits. Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture, RS Policy document 11/09, ISBN:978-0-85403-784-1, Publ.The Royal Society, 2009, pp. 21-38. Bryden, W.L., Shanks, G.J., Ravindran, G., Summerell, B.A. & Burgess, L.W. (1998) Mycotoxin contamination of Australian pastures and feedstuffs; and Occurrence of Fusarium moniliforme and fumonisins in Australian maize in relation to animal disease. In: Toxic Plants and Other Natural Toxicants (eds T. Garland & A.C. Barr), pp. 464–8 and 474–8. CABI, Wallingford, U.K.
10
WORLD AGRICULTURE
Pitt, J.I. & Hocking, A.D. (1996) Current knowledge of fungi and mycotoxins associated with food commodities in Southeast Asia. In: Mycotoxin Contamination in Grains. 17th ASEAN Technical Seminar on Grain Postharvest Technology, Lumut, Malaysia, 25–27 July 1995 (eds E. Highley & G.I. Johnson) ACIAR Technical Reports Series; No 37; pp. 5–10. Publ. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra. Wu, F. (2007) Bt corn and impact on mycotoxins. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture. Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2, 060.
11
29/9/10
15:56
Page 1
letter to the editor
GM and developing agriculture in Africa Dr. Philip N. Taylor, South Darenth, Kent, UK: The GM stakes are much higher in developing countries than here in the cosy subsidized EU. Food security is a real issue; they are closer to starvation than we are and the margin of error (literally between life and death) is that much narrower. There are immense benefits that could be brought in with the introduction of GM into the agriculture of developing counties. My
recent trip to Uganda underlined this for me. My concerns are that should GM make farming large areas of Uganda (for example) profitable, then landowning people will sell their land for short term gain and then for evermore be at the mercy of large agricultural production enterprises, not necessarily the biotechnology companies that generally take the flack on this matter. However, I do appreciate the
argument that they could not become more poor than they already are but they would have lost a great opportunity to change their position. To do nothing for fear of getting it wrong is not the solution, but we should proceed with a great deal of caution (not from a safety point of view, I believe that has been done to death) with as much legislation to protect poor people, from exploitation, as we can muster.
A large tornado working its way across fields
WORLD AGRICULTURE
11
12
29/9/10
15:57
Page 1
scientific
Environmental and economic effects of management of weeds in genetically modified, herbicide tolerant (GMHT) sugar beet Mike May Summary Post-emergence weed control in sugar beet relies on a sequence of three to four treatments of herbicide mixtures applied when weeds, and crop, are small. The use of glyphosate in genetically modified herbicide tolerant beet would provide growers with a simpler and cheaper system. However, the ability of glyphosate to control a range of weeds at small or large growth stages also provides opportunities to manage weeds for environmental benefit. These include control of pernicious weeds, increasing invertebrate populations in the crop early in the season, reducing the risk of wind erosion, adoption of minimum tillage, and increasing weed seed production. Some of the options are mutually exclusive whilst others could be combined, certainly on a whole farm approach, to deliver benefits for both the farmer and the environment. This paper considers the published results of different management systems and the options these provide for farmers to achieve different economic or environmental outcomes. Key words: Weed management; economic & environmental benefits; herbicide tolerant sugar beet, genetically modified; glyphosate
Introduction Approximately 20% of the world sucrose production comes from beet with the majority of the remainder from sugar cane (Anon. 2008). Europe produces over 75% of the world’s beet sugar, sowing around 3.80 x 106 ha in the 2007/2008 season. Although only 0.10 x 106 ha are grown in the UK, in 2007/8 yields were the fourth highest in the EU at 11.08 x 103 kg raw sugar/ha. Sugar beet was one of the first crops to undergo genetic modification (GM) to provide tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (Steen & Pedersen 1993, MannerlÜf et al. 1997). Other crops with similar genetic modification, such as soya beans, were also tested around the same time (Padgette 1995). Weed control is difficult and complicated in conventional sugar beet (May 2001). Current conventional methods rely on the treatment of weeds from pre-emergence or soon after they emerge (usually at the cotyledon stage) with repeated applications (usually 3), each of mixtures of herbicides (typically 2 to 6 active ingredients), to control weeds over a range of emergence times. One of the main strengths of glyphosate is its ability to control a wide spectrum of weeds at a range of growth stages (Baylis 2000). Therefore weed control in glyphosate tolerant sugar beet would be greatly simplified compared to current conventional systems. Glufosinate-ammonium tolerant sugar beet (Rasche et al. 1995) have been developed and tested (e.g. Sweet et al. 2004) but
12
WORLD AGRICULTURE
are unlikely to be commercialised. The suitability of acetolactate synthase (ALS) herbicide tolerance in sugar beet has also been considered but not pursued at present owing to potential rotational weed control problems and the importance of this group of herbicides in cereals and other crops grown in rotation with sugar beet in various countries. Weed control in conventional soya beans is also complicated and difficult and Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance (GMHT) offers similar advantages for beet. Whilst GMHT soya has been accepted since 1996 in the USA and is now grown on over 69 x 106 ha (James 2009) GMHT sugar beet was not commercialised until 2008. A major reason for this delay was that GM crops were accepted in the main countries that grow soya (e.g. North and South America) but not in the main sugar beet areas, particularly the EU. However, herbicide tolerant sugar beet now comprise 95% of the USA crop in 2009 (James 2009), making it one of the fastest adopted GM crops. In the UK, various issues have been raised regarding the growing of GM crops, particularly gene flow. In sugar beet, which is a biennial crop and harvested before it flowers, gene flow is less of an issue than for open pollinating crops such as oilseed rape. The change to a more environmentally benign herbicide (glyphosate) offers opportunities to reduce the negative effects of herbicide use. May
13
29/9/10
15:57
Page 1
scientific et al. (2003) and Dewar et al. (2003) suggest that, whilst the environmental impact as measured under the Milieumeetlat system (Wevers 2000) for all conventional herbicide programmes used in the UK would be within acceptable limits for water organisms, some conventional treatments containing lenacil, clopyralid or paraquat and diquat could be above the limits for deeper water and or soil organisms (note: paraquat is no longer registered for use in the EU). Glyphosate scores under this system were very low, indicating no or little environmental effect. In addition, the reduction in pesticide use by adoption of a glyphosate based GMHT would be large – circa 40% (Coyette et al. 2002, Champion et al. 2003). Bennett et al. (2006) carried out life cycle analyses and suggested that GM herbicide tolerant beet would reduce environmental impacts by between 15 and 50% compared to conventional beet. The reduction depended on the impact measured, but the main effect was a reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of fewer herbicide treatments and tractor
Glossary
Bolters: sown sugar beet plants which have vernalised and produced a flowering stem (and usually flower and seed) in their first year of growth. Headland: outside area of cropped field, typically between 6 and 24 m wide. It may be sown with the crop, left unsown or sown with an alternative species. Height selective applications: use of equipment such as rope wick or roller
Economic aspects May (2003) discussed the various ways that GMHT sugar beet would have an impact on the economics of growing sugar beet in the UK. He suggested that the total farm savings from growing glyphosate tolerant compared to conventional beet would be approximately €200/ha (ca €22/t raw sugar). Kniss et al. (2003) suggested that would be greater in the US at around €270/ha (ca €30/ha) but this depended on the relative yield performance of the varieties. In both cases the degree of economic saving would be affected by any price premium applied to the technology and so they worked on figures similar to those in other commercialised GM crops in the USA. A review of May’s figures in 2009 (May 2009) indicated that the savings would then be nearer to €150/ha, mainly as a result of higher technology fees. The economic cases would vary according to country. Most of the EU countries pay a similar price for
operations. In the UK, bodies such as English Nature (English Nature 1998, 2000) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB 2003) expressed concern that the high levels of weed control provided by glyphosate in GM crops would result in fields devoid of the weeds that are important for birds and wildlife. As a consequence of these concerns, the UK government set up the Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials of GM crops (Firbank et al. 2003) to determine whether there was any difference in the composition of plant and invertebrate species in GM compared to conventional fields when managed for costeffective weed control. However, there is an alternative view that the ability of glyphosate to control a wide spectrum of weed species at a range of growth stages could allow growers to manage their weeds in GMHT sugar beet for a variety of outcomes. This paper examines and discusses the various management approaches that could be used in glyphosate tolerant GM sugar beet.
applicators that utilise the height difference between tall weeds and a crop to apply a herbicide (typically glyphosate) only to the parts of the weed above the crop. Nematicide: chemical that can be applied to a crop or soil to kill nematodes. Weed beet: Beta vulgaris, a weed of arable fields, usually those that have grown a beet crop. It is an annual and germinates, grows, bolts and sets conventional herbicides but labour costs vary. In some countries, e.g. Turkey and India, labour costs are low and savings would likely be very much lower than those suggested by Kniss et al. (2003) and May (2003).
Potential management options using GMHT Management for cost-effective weed control The ability of glyphosate to control most weed species at a range of growth stages in tolerant sugar beet has been tested extensively. Wevers et al. (2005) suggest that high levels of control of most weeds can be achieved if a first application of glyphosate is applied no later than 10 days after the cotyledon stage of the first flush of weeds. A second or third application of glyphosate may be required to complete weed control
seed within the same season. Minimum tillage: non-inversion (i.e. not ploughed) tillage that involves less energy use than ploughing Stubble: fields or areas of fields containing the cut stems of a combinable crop left undisturbed after harvest. Volunteer potatoes: potatoes that have been left or derived from a previous potato crop and have become a weed in subsequent crops. depending upon the range of weed species and their times of emergence. They also report that the selectivity of glyphosate between weeds and GMHT beet is superior to most current herbicide programmes and that yield improvements of between 2 and 5% could be achieved. When weather conditions are such that selectivity of conventional herbicides is reduced, the difference could be increased to 10% (May 2000). Another potential benefit of controlling all weeds is the reduction in the weed seed bank and possible less weed competition in subsequent crops. In the UK Farm Scale Evaluations glyphosate was applied according to a putative label based on delivering cost-effective weed control. The evaluations concluded that, used in the manner suggested by the label, there would be fewer weeds present and less weed seed rain in GM compared to conventional sugar beet fields (Heard et al. 2003a & b).
WORLD AGRICULTURE
13
14
29/9/10
15:58
Page 1
scientific ‘The early treatment of weeds in conventional beet is driven by the poor weed control activity of current conventional herbicides (May 2001). With GMHT it is possible to delay weed control until later in the season rather than when weeds are at the cotyledon to two true leaves stage’
Increased weed numbers and invertebrates early season It has long been understood that weeds must be controlled before the crop reaches the 6 to 8 true leaves stage to prevent competition (Scott et al. 1979) but that later emerging or low growing species are not always competitive. The early treatment of weeds in conventional beet is driven by the poor weed control activity of current conventional herbicides (May 2001). With GMHT it is possible to delay weed control until later in the season rather than when weeds are at the cotyledon to two true leaves stage. Dewar et al. (2003) reported the results of such an approach, but suggested that, whilst weeds could be controlled at very large growth stages such as those occurring just before the crop closes in the row, competition with the crop would already have occurred To reduce this effect, they adopted a spatial approach to weed treatment, controlling those weeds growing in the crop row early (at the 2-4 leaves stage) but leaving the weeds between the rows (i.e. those more distant from and therefore less competitive with the crop) until just before the crop canopy covered. This approach still provided good weed control, with little weed seed returned to the soil, and gave at least as good crop yield as conventional treatments. An additional benefit from leaving weeds for such a long time in the inter-row early in the season was that they increased numbers of invertebrates present (Dewar et al. 2000a, 2003). In these studies, numbers of beetles within two important groups were increased where weeds were left by management of the glyphosate sprays
14
WORLD AGRICULTURE
– carabids 3 fold and staphylinids 7 fold.
Prevention of erosion Around 25% (Tzilivakis 2005) of the UK sugar beet crop is grown on light sand or peat land that is at risk of some wind erosion. Whilst most soil movement is local (within field), some crops are at risk of severe damage if strong winds occur early in the season. Such high risk fields are usually sown with cover crops of barley before the sugar beet is drilled to protect the young beet seedlings. Broad-leaved weeds are particularly difficult to control in this situation because both the barley and beet need to be preserved. The barley is killed with a graminicide once the beet are established and at less risk of wind damage (May 2001). The use of GMHT would allow the cover crop to be controlled at the same time as the broad-leaved weeds at no extra cost, in terms of herbicide, labour or machinery.
Increase in autumn seed return The approaches described above tend to reduce the number of weed seeds produced in sugar beet crops and this was one of the concerns of English Nature (1998, 2000) and RSPB (2003). May et al. (2005) showed that the techniques used by Dewar et al. (2003) could be modified to allow more weeds to remain in the beet and set viable seeds. To achieve this, glyphosate was either applied early (at 10 to 20% cover down the rows) without further treatment or, where additional treatment was required, applied as an over-the-row application only, leaving the spatially separated, less competitive weeds in the inter-
row to survive and produce seeds. Seed rain was increased to between 1900 and 4200 seeds/mÇ in the managed GM herbicide tolerant plots compared to 250 seeds/mÇ in the conventionally treated ones.
Mitigation areas If the aim is to provide weed seeds for birds in the autumn or refugia for invertebrates, these could be achieved by leaving weedy uncropped areas in fields. Pidgeon et al. (2005) suggest that as little as 1% of fields may need to be left this way to mitigate for the differences observed in seed production between GMHT and conventional sugar beet in the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE).
Minimum tillage Minimum tillage can provide a number of advantages compared to ploughing (Blevins et al. 1977, Edwards 1975, 1978, Wild 1988) but most sugar beet fields in the UK are ploughed in the autumn or spring prior to sowing beet. One of the main reasons for this is to control weeds, especially perennial and grass weeds. The use of glyphosate tolerant beet would allow such weeds to be controlled in the beet and possibly encourage a wider adoption of minimum tillage. Petersen et al. (2002) showed that the use of GMHT in minimum tillage systems for sugar beet is also compatible with the use of cover crops to reduce erosion and nutrient leaching during the previous autumn. However, to date, no other studies have been published where minimum and inversion tillage in GMHT sugar beet have been compared for environmental impact and effects on soil structure.
15
29/9/10
15:59
Page 1
scientific Control of weed beet (conventional) and volunteer potatoes Some weeds are either very difficult (e.g. weed beet) or expensive (volunteer potatoes) to control in conventional sugar beet. Glyphosate tolerant sugar beet would allow both to be controlled at the same time as normal weeds for no extra cost. Where weed beet are present, there
would be a need to prevent seed return or pollen release from any bolters of the GMHT beet (Sweet et al. 2004). Bolters can be controlled in conventional crops by selective height application with glyphosate or other herbicide, or by repeated cutting above the crop to destroy the flower spikes, so controlling pollen flow to neighbouring fields or to areas with conventional weed beet flowering at the same time. Successful pollen receipt depends on density of source
and distance of recipient. 70% of the UK sugar beet area has weed beet present (May 2005). Dewar et al. (2000b) showed that where volunteer potatoes were controlled with glyphosate in HT sugar beet, potato cyst nematode numbers could be reduced. They suggested that this could be used in a programmed approach to potato cyst nematode control, which in some circumstances could reduce the amount of nematicide applied to potato crops.
Discussion and Conclusions A high level of weed control in sugar beet will reduce the number of weed seeds returned to the seedbank. This will have less rotational benefit to the farmer where beet is grown in rotation with winter crops and autumn germinating weeds predominate, than where the rotation includes spring cropping with spring germinating species. The reduction of weeds in the seedbank will have particular agronomic importance in following spring crops where weed control is difficult, such as where few or no effective herbicides are registered for use. In Europe, sugar production is limited by a tonnage quota so the increased yields possible where a two or three spray programme of glyphosate is applied would proportionately reduce the area of crop sown. This would decrease the total amount of inputs (pesticide, energy, labour) to grow this quota, thus reducing the environmental effect of sugar beet which, like all crops, is negative when considering inputs (Tzilivakis et al. 2005). However, in the case of beet grown in rotation with winter crops, the ‘footprint’ is positive as good habitats are provided for wildlife before, during and after the beet (Evans et al. 2004, Vickery & Atkinson 2003). Reduction of seed return in beet could have long term consequences for the arable seed bank. These have been declining for the last 100 years (Robinson & Sutherland 2002). Where agricultural fields are considered important for wildlife, as in the UK, this is considered an adverse effect, but in other countries, such as the USA, where the ratio of non-cropped to cropped land is higher, this is of lesser consequence. The technique of leaving weeds uncontrolled until late in the season (as demonstrated by Dewar et al. 2003) does not alleviate this problem. However, it does increase the number of invertebrates present at a time when birds are feeding their chicks and searching for protein (e.g. skylarks, Alauda arvensis). Some of the invertebrates recorded by Dewar et al. (2003) tend to be nocturnal but some birds (e.g. lapwing Vanellusa vanellus) often feed at night. The extra weeds present can also provide food and cover for birds and mammals as well as invertebrates. Such an approach could also provide alternative food for birds such as skylarks (Champion pers. comm.) and reduce the amount of damage they do to the young beet crop.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
15
16
29/9/10
16:00
Page 1
scientific Discussion and Conclusions (continued) Weeds present early in the season can, depending on their density and size, help prevent erosion on light soils, especially from wind. This technique could replace the barley cover crop technique used on light soils, because it is simple and has no extra cost, and it could encourage erosion protection on a greater number of fields than at present. Where weed populations were too low to provide erosion control, the use of GMHT with cover crops such as barley could provide easier and cheaper weed management than with conventional beet. Where weed seed return is important, late emerging weeds or those growing between the rows could be left to provide this resource as suggested by May et al. (2005). This would not only produce more seeds for the seedbank but, if coupled with no-tillage after harvest, leave more weed seeds for birds, mammals and invertebrates to eat during the autumn and winter following beet harvest. The benefits of such an approach need to be weighed against the agronomic disadvantages of more weeds emerging in subsequent spring crops. However, in a rotation dominated by winter crops, the technique would pose relatively low risk of compromising the agronomy of the rotation. If beet quotas can be grown on a smaller area using GMHT compared to conventional treatments, this could provide more than adequate mitigation areas to produce seeds for environmental benefits as suggested by Pidgeon et al. (2007). However, this would only provide localised improvements to the weed seed bank and the concentrated feeding area could become a focal point for predators. With the changes in the EU agricultural policy to reward farmers for improving the environment rather than paying them to produce agricultural products, there is already a change to beet fields in the UK with more headlands being devoted to wildlife than was the case a few years ago. The other reason for this change is that sugar yields from headlands are not profitable (Sparkes et al.1998). Much of the sugar beet in the UK (circa 80%) is preceded by winter wheat (Jaggard pers. comm.). The majority of winter wheat stubbles that are left overwinter are sprayed with glyphosate before they are cultivated or sown with a following crop. If the following crop was glyphosate tolerant sugar beet, there would be less need for this herbicide in the autumn prior to beet or as a pre-harvest spray in the preceding winter wheat. The cereal stubbles prior to beet are important for wildlife (Gillings et al. 2005). The benefit of any reduction of glyphosate treatment to the stubbles would very much depend on the level of weeds that result. If the cereal crops are generally devoid of weeds, it is likely that the benefit to birds and mammals would be minimal. The aftermath of beet harvest is also important for birds (Winspear 2003), especially for pink footed geese in North Norfolk, UK (Gill 1996). Adoption of minimum tillage would bring its own recognised benefits. However, a potential drawback may result from the need to control large overwintering weeds relatively early in the life of the crop in order to prevent weed competition. This treatment is likely to be much earlier than the timings suggested by Dewar et al. (2003) or May et al. (2005) (Dewar pers. comm.). Whilst adoption of GM glyphosate tolerant beet would easily control any weed beet present, care would be required to ensure that problems do not arise from creation of HT tolerant weed beet. On one level, to prevent infestation in the sown field would require GM bolters in the crop to be removed before they shed seed. This would be relatively easy with the low levels of bolting in current varieties. However, if gene spread to neighbouring weed beet growing in non-GMHT beet fields was to be prevented, it would be necessary to remove bolters before they produced pollen. This would entail more visits to the field and be more costly to the grower. The best method of preventing such pollen flow would be provision of suitable isolation distances between GMHT and non-GMHT beet. Alternatively, contractual or permit of use obligations could be used to ensure control was undertaken. Breeders already take care to ensure seed crops are grown away from areas where weed beet is present. As well as a possible reduction in potato cyst nematode populations, control of volunteer potatoes in GMHT beet would be much cheaper than the application of clopyralid, which is currently used to control volunteer potatoes in the UK. However, timing of treatment is unlikely to be compatible with the approaches suggested by Dewar et al. (2003) and May et al. (2005). Although many opposed to the introduction of GMHT crops fear that glyphosate’s ability to provide high levels of weed control would adversely affect the environment, it is precisely this aspect of the herbicide that would provide a wide range of opportunities to actually enhance the farmed environment whilst giving economic benefits to farmers.
16
WORLD AGRICULTURE
17
29/9/10
16:02
Page 1
scientific References Anon. (2009) World Sugar Statistics 2008, in: World Sugar Yearbook, F. O. Lichts, Tunbridge Wells, UK. Baylis, A.D. (2000) Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest Management Science. 56 (4), 299-308. Bennett, R.M., Phipps, R.H. & Strange, A.M. (2006) An application of life-cycle assessment for environmental planning and management; the potential environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically-modified herbicidetolerant sugar beet. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49 (1), 59-74. Blevins, R.L., Thomas, G.W. and Cornelius, P.L. (1977) Influence of notillage and nitrogen fertilisation on notillage and conventionally tilled corn. Agronomy Journal, 70, 322-326. Champion, G.T., May, M.J., Bennett, S., Brooks, D.R., Clark, S.J., Daniels, R.E., Firbank, L.G., Haughton, A.J., Hawes, C., Heard, M.S., Perry, J.N., Randle, Z., Rossall, M.J., Rothery, P., Skellern, M.P., Scott, R.J., Squire, G.R. & Thomas, M.R. (2003) Crop management and agronomic context of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society London. B. 358, 1801-1818. Coyette, B., Tencalla, F., Brants, I., Fichet, Y., Rouchouze, D., & France, N. (2002) Effect of Introducing GlyphosateTolerant Sugar Beet on Pesticide Usage in Europe. Pesticide Outlook, 13 (5), 219223. Dewar, A.M., Haylock, L.A., Bean, K.M. & May, M.J. (2000a) Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield. Pest Management Science, 56 (4), 345-350. Dewar, A.M., Haylock, L.A., May, M.J., Beane, J. & Perry, R.N. (2000b) Glyphosate applied to genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet and ‘volunteer’ potatoes reduces populations of potato cyst nematodes and the number and size of daughter tubers. Annals of Applied Biology, 136, 179-187. Dewar, A.M., May, M.J., Woiwod, I.P., Haylock, L.A., Champion, G.T., Garner, B.H., Sands, R.J., Qi, A. & Pidgeon, J.D. (2003) A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 270, 335-340. Edwards, C.A. (1975) Effects of direct drilling on the soil fauna. Pesticide Outlook, 8, 243-244. n Edwards, C.A. (1978) In: Earthworm Ecology. Ed. Satchell J. E., Chapman and Hall, London. English Nature (1998) Government Wildlife Advisor Urges Caution - Press release. http://www.englishnature.co.uk/news/story.asp?ID=139, Peterborough. English Nature (2000) Genetically modified organisms – position statement. http://www.englishnature.co.uk/news/statement.asp?ID=14, Peterborough. Evans, A., Vickery, J. & Shrubb, M. (2004) Importance of over-wintered stubble for farmland bird recovery: a reply to Potts. Bird Study 51, 94-96 Firbank, L.G., Heard, M.S., Woiwod, I.P., Hawes, C., Haughton, A.J., Champion, G.T., Scott, R.J., Hill, M.O., Dewar, A.M., Squire, G.R., May, M.J., Brooks, D.R.,
Bohan, D.A., Daniels, R.E., Osborne, J.L., Roy, D.B., Black, H.I.J., Rothery, P. & Perry, J.N., (2003) An introduction to the FarmScale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 2-16. Gill, J.A. (1996) Habitat choice in pinkfooted geese: quantifying the constraints determining winter site use. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33 (4), 884-892. Gillings, S., Newson, S.E., Noble, D.G. & Vickery, J.A. (2005) Winter availability of cereal stubbles attracts declining farmland birds and positively influences breeding population trends. Proceedings Royal Society, B, 272, 733-739. Heard, M.S., Hawes, C., Champion, G.T., Clark, S.J., Firbank, L.G., Haughton, A.J., Parish, A.M., Perry, J.N., Rothery, P., Scott, R.J., Skellern, M.P., Squire, G.R. & Hill, M.O. (2003a) Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. 1. Effects on abundance and diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 358, 1819-1832. Heard, M.S., Hawes, C., Champion, G.T., Clark, S.J., Firbank, L.G., Haughton, A.J., Parish, A.M., Perry, J.N., Rothery, P., Roy, D.B., Scott R.J., Skellern, M.P., Squire, G.R. & Hill, M.O. (2003b) Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. II. Effects on individual species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 358, 1833-1846. James, C. (2009) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009. ISAAA Briefs, 41, Preview, ISAAA, Ithaca, New York Kniss, A., Wilson, R., Burgener, P., Feuz, D., Martin, A., Rice, C., Mesbah, A. & Miller, S. (2003) Economic analysis of glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet. Proceedings of the 1st joint IIRB-ASSBT Congress, San Antonio, 91-95. Mannerlöf, M., Tuvesson, S., Stehen, P., Tenning, P. (1997) Transgenic sugar beet tolerant to glyphosate. Euphytica, 94, 8391. May, M. (2000) Efficacy and selectivity of RR and LL weed control techniques compared to classical weed control systems. Proceedings of the 63rd IIRB Congress, Interlaken, 163-170. May, M.J. (2001) Crop protection in sugarbeet. Pesticide Outlook, 12, 5, 188191. May, M.J. (2003) Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Annals of Applied Biology, 142, 41-48. May, M.J. (2004) Weed beet – the hidden menace. British Sugar Beet Review, 72 (1), 18-21. May, M.J., Champion, G.T. & Qi A. (2003) Novel weed management options in GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Proceedings of the 1st joint IIRB-ASSBT Congress, San Antonio, 77-89. May, M.J., Champion, G.T., Dewar, A.M., Qi A., & Pidgeon, J.D. (2005) Management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet for spring and autumn environmental benefit. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272, 111-119. May, M.J. (2009) Glyphosate tolerant sugar beet – a review of the potential economics in the UK. Crop Protection in Southern Britain, 115-123. Padgette, S.R., Kolacz, K.H., Delannay, X., Re, D.B., LaVallee, B.J., Tinius, C.N., Rhodes, W.K., Otero, Y.I., Barry, G.F.,
Eichholtz, D.A., Peschke, V.M., Nida, D.L., Taylor, N.B. & Kishore, G.M. (1995) Development, identification, and characterisation of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Science. 35 (5), 14511461. Petersen, J., Koche, S. & Hurle, K. (2002) Weiterentwicklung von Mais- und Zuckerrüben-mulchsaatsystemen mit der Hilfe von herbizidresistenten Sorten. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, Sonderheft XVIII, 561571. Pidgeon, J.D., May, M .J., Perry, J.N. & Poppy, G.M. (2007) Mitigation of indirect environmental effects of GM crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 274, 1475-1479. Rasche, E., Cremer, J., Donn, G. & Zink, J. (1995) The development of glufosinatetolerant crops into the market. Proceedings Brighton Crop Protection Conference – Weeds, 791-800. Robinson, R.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 39, 157-176. RSPB (2003) The Royal Society for the Protection of Bird’s concerns about GM crops. http://www.rspb.org.uk/farming/policy/t he_rspb_s_concerns_about_gm_crops.asp ? Feature ID=25703&componentID=25710#1. Scott, R.K., Wilcockson, S.J. & Moisey, F.R. (1979) The effects of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, 93, 693-709. Sparkes, D.L., Jaggard., K.W. Ramsden, S.J. & Scott, R.K. (1998) The effect of field margins on the yield of sugar beet and cereal crops. Annals of Applied Biology, 132, 129-142. Steen, P. & Pedersen, H. (1993) Gene transfer for herbicide resistance. Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 20, 267-274. Sweet, J., Simpson, E., Law, J., Lutman, P., Berry, K., Payne, R., Champion, G., May, M. & Walker, K. (2004) Botanical and rotational implications of genetically modified herbicide tolerant (BRIGHT) crop. Home-Grown Cereals Authority Project Report, 353, 242pp. HGCA London. Tzilivakis, J., Jaggard, K.W., Lewis, K.A., May, M.J. & Warner, D.J. (2005) Environmental impact and economic assessment for UK Sugar Beet production systems. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 107, 341-358. Vickery, J. & Atkinson, P. (2003) The value of post harvest sugar beet land for birds. British Sugar Beet Review, 71 (4), 27-29. Wevers, J.D.A. (2000) Herbicide tolerance and the effects on the environmental contamination. Proceedings of the 63rd Congress of the Institut International de Recherches Betteravieres, Interlaken, 178-185. Wevers, J., May, M., Hermann, O. & Petersen, J. (2005) Efficacy and selectivity of glyphosate and glufosinate in genetically modified sugar beet. In: Genetic modification in sugar beet: Advances in Sugar Beet Research, 6, 45-60, IIRB Brussels. Wild, A. (1988) Russell’s soil conditions and plant growth. Ed. Wild A, Baith Press, Avon. Winspear, R. (2003) Wild-life friendly sugar beet production.British Sugar Beet Review, 71 (3), 11-13.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
17
18
29/9/10
16:04
Page 1
economic & social
Planting Paradise – Is there an option? Tony Greer Summary A not insignificant development challenge in Southeast Asia is linked to the incredible diversity of life, both on land and in the sea. Continued and heightened international awareness of the rich fauna and flora and the rapid loss of the habitats that sustain them, places the region under a certain degree of scrutiny, fair or otherwise, as it strives to develop. What are the environmental costs to date and likely future costs of this development? To examine these issues the Malaysian State of Sabah is used with a focus on general trends and possible future scenarios, rather than exact detail. This State provides an example of transition from tropical forest to agricultural landscape, much of which has occurred within living history. While the economy of the Malaysian state of Sabah remains based on natural resource development and agriculture, what happens in these sectors strongly dictates land use patterns. Thus, it can be expected that further dramatic changes in land-use will take place in the coming decades. On the one hand the visible loss of forest habitat rich in biodiversity to agriculture in the form of oil palm plantations is of real national and international concern; on the other, it is the development and revenue generated from this land that has in part provided the economic security to better protect what remains – in the short term at least. As the State makes the transition from a natural resource based economy to a more industrialized one, a strong and diverse economy is essential in order to remove development pressures from the remaining non-performing forest areas. Plantation agriculture plays an important role here. Key words: Sabah, deforestation, biodiversity, protected areas, oil palm, sustainable agriculture
Introduction The east Malaysia state of Sabah, former British North Borneo, takes up the northeast portion of the island of Borneo. It is bounded by Sarawak to the south-west and Indonesian Kalimantan to the south. The 73,619 km2 land-mass is made up of an impressive assortment of physical landscapes by any comparison. Over three quarters of the human population inhabit the coastal plains where the major urban centers are to be found. The interior region remains sparsely populated with only the occasional settlement and smaller town. At one time the State was almost entirely covered by forests of which today about 60 to 70 per cent remains. The area covered with forest, and especially the type of forest cover, however, has changed in the last decades and will probably continue to change. The most notable trend is the dramatic reduction of undisturbed forest. Recognizing the value of forests as a natural asset, particularly with regard to the growing importance of tourism, (3.5 per cent of State GDP in 2009, of which a good portion is probably nature based), the State Government has set the ambitious target of maintaining at least 55 per cent of the land under permanent state control and forest cover – the state Permanent Forest Reserve. This paper examines some of issues, the driving forces of change, that the State must face in order to meet this target. This target is set against a backdrop of a rapidly changing landscape, the dynamics of which, if uncontrolled, can be simplified by the following pattern; from undisturbed forest to disturbed forest, thereafter
18
WORLD AGRICULTURE
disturbed forest to plantation. There are calls from the international development community to halt this process of forest conversion, or at least slow it down in order to exert greater control over the process – make it more sustainable. The International Finance Corporation, under the World Bank, recently suspended approval of new palm oil development investment in September 2009, pending a review of practices in the sector. The findings of this review and the final strategy will be announced later this year. While this is not relevant to the domestic situation in Sabah, affected parties argue that foreign direct investments to develop the palm oil industry have played an important part in fuelling the economic growth and freedom in developing nations and that in the last 30 years, oil palm planting investment has increased stability and prosperity in Indonesia and Malaysia. And that halting investments in this sector might actually bring about greater harm to the forests in the long run. Whilst many of the most rich and most accessible forests have long since been cleared, those remaining are subject to an ever increasing number of development restrictions. While the maintenance of forest cover is desirable from an environmental perspective, the dynamics of socio-economic development challenge this on the ground. The population of Sabah is still in exponential growth and has the potential to double every twenty five years or so (Fig. 1).
19
29/9/10
16:06
Page 1
economic & social
Forest change in Borneo Most of the world’s cropland was once forest; and as cropland and other human activities have expanded, so the forest has contracted and it has done so at an accelerating rate during the last two centuries (Mather & Chapman, 1995). Clearance for agriculture has probably been the main reason for deforestation throughout history. In recent times however, such forest clearance is more controversially associated with the tropics. The humid tropical environment of Sabah’s terrestrial environment is characterized by a complete range of forest habitats, ranging from extensive tracts of mangrove and other coastal swamp forests, though lowland rainforest, to the sub-alpine dwarf forest of Mount Kinabalu (4095 metres). It is this diverse array of habitats that provides a home for the tremendous biodiversity found in the State; the survival of which is closely linked to the continued existence of this forest cover. Malaysia is identified as one of the world’s twelve mega-diversity areas with extremely rich biological resources. Sabah is home to several critically endangered species, including the Borneon Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), the Sumatran Rhincorous
(Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) and the Borneon Pygmy elephant (Elephas maximus borneensis). In Sabah, the Sumatran Rhino is clinging to survival with maybe only as few as 20-25 individuals remaining in the wild. The lowland rainforest of northeast Borneo is one of only two places, the other being on the north of Indonesia's Sumatra island – where orangutans, elephants and rhinos still co-exist and where forests are currently large enough to maintain viable populations. Until fairly recently the impact of man and agricultural systems on the Island of Borneo was limited. Human arrivals to the island were few in number and arrived from the sea. Settlements were restricted to coastal or riparian zones whilst the then seemingly impenetrable interior provided little attraction. Forests, formidable in size could not be cleared on any significant scale and could only support low numbers of forest dwellers. The human mark on the landscape in the region only became noticeable with the increasing presence of the Europeans in the nineteenth century. European planters, initially unaccustomed to the tropical environment suffered considerable setbacks as land
became degraded by soil exhaustion and erosion. At the turn of the 1900s Sabah saw the establishment of the first agricultural estates, with crops such as tobacco and coconut palm and later rubber; and for the first time this led to the felling of the forests on a large scale. Timber production itself made little impact on the forest before 1945. With the arrival of new technology in the form of mechanized means of road clearing and hauling, the timber industry developed rapidly (Berger 1990). During the late 1950s the demand for timber to reconstruct the recovering post war economies of the world fueled the development of the market for tropical logs (Collins, Sayer and Whitmore 1991). The timber booms that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s were not a deliberate policy fostered within the Malaysian states. External economic events mainstreamed the momentum to exploit the situation and the institutional capacity and policies were not in place to cope with such events (Kumar 1986). Organizational structures fitted colonial plans to meet local agricultural and timber needs; clearly there was some catching up to do.It is only today that the tools are available to introduce controls. These includemarket driven certification systems and
WORLD AGRICULTURE
19
20
29/9/10
16:07
Page 1
economic & social ecological knowledge, introducedlong after the bulk of the forest resource has gone. The timber boom reached Sabah in the 1960s following the exhaustion of the resource in the Philippines. The process progressed to Indonesia in the 1970s. Although the region once housed a significant portion of the world’s tropical forests, it is now evident that land use change has left little in the way of untouched forest outside of the protected area system. Countries that participated early on in the logging boom are now actively involved in plantation programmes.
The forest setting Within this changing landscape a key element of the continued conservation of biodiversity is the system of protected areas, that ideally should adequately cover the full range of habitats. It has been suggested by the international conservation community that if every nation reserved about 10 per cent of national land area for inclusion into a protected area system, this would be sufficient to ensure the survival of a broad range of biodiversity. Today in Sabah, a total of 1,2 million hectares of land has protected area status, equating to about 16 per cent of the total land area (Fig. 2).
Protected areas Other Forest Reserves
Figure 2
Protected areas and other forest reserves in Sabah. Sabah is about 400 km across at its widest point. The southern border abuts Kalimantan, and on the south west it abuts Sarawak. Source: Adapted from Sabah Forestry Department (2001).
20
WORLD AGRICULTURE
Beyond the protected area system, the Permanent Forest Reserve or Estate, comprises of 3.6 million hectares of land permanently reserved by Government for commercial and noncommercial forest services. This amounts to about fifty per cent of land area. The commercial, or production, forest portion of the reserve is subject to selective harvesting but continues to provide an important habitat and some protection for many species. It is the fate of these forests that will probably determine the large scale survival for a broad range of species and biodiversity. Forest areas outside of the permanent reserve are witnessing rapid land use change and contested land use claims.It is upon these forests that most of the deforestation debate is focused. But even in these areas, policy developments increasingly provide for improved environmental planning procedures to better maintain some ecological function within the agricultural landscape setting. And it is here where some of the biggest conservation challenges occur; at the local level agricultural zoning is in conflict with biodiversity resources and the ranges of some species. Nowhere is this more obvious than the lowlands of eastern Sabah, once home to some of the most productive forest lands in the region, it now hosts land zoned as most suitable for agriculture. Expansion of palm oil plantations has contributed to increasing fragmentation of the remaining natural forest, with reduction in size and increased spatial distance between individual forest pockets. Animal movement, in the absence of suitable corridors between fragments, is impeded and is leading to human –
wildlife conflict. State land-use policy and planning has long since recognized that sufficient areas should be set aside for environmental purposes while the rest would be for plantation. However, early planning efforts did not anticipate the movement of elephants, rhinos and orangutans, so legislation was not geared towards the type of land-use planning and wildlife corridors being proposed today. While some of the larger plantations are able to set aside areas for conservation, it is now recognized that the State needs to develop a plan to accommodate such wildlife movements. It is a huge responsibility for Sabah to ensure a healthy co-existence between development and the state’s wildlife. In the short term, if it is possible to maintain protection for the existing protected area system then the goal to allocate and maintain more than 10 per cent of land area for nature conservation is eminently winnable. In the long term, the concern remains that changing socio-economic conditions may yet threaten the protected area network.
The economic setting Sabah has a small and open economy that has been susceptible to external cyclical swings. It is dependent on the export of its major primary commodities which constitute about 70 per cent of State Gross Domestic Product (GDP). From the 1970s onwards growth was sustained at a rapid pace through the use of the timber resource. In the mid 1980s Sabah derived nearly 80 per cent of state revenue from forest activities and although forests remain important, it is clear that the boom years are over. Recognising the gradual depletion of forest resources, the Government has embarked on various reforestation programmes to ensure sustainability and is actively promoting the production of higher value added wood-based products. Sustainable levels of revenue from forest products appear to be leveling out at about 10 per cent (Fig.3).
21
29/9/10
16:08
Page 1
economic & social little income in the long run unless other values and sources of revenue are realized. In terms of land use competitiveness, the forestry sector has to compete with agriculture. Based on the current scenario, average annual productivity of the oil palm industry is about 18 times more productive per hectare than the forestry sector. It is also worth noting that many historical development models show that government ownership of lands, in particular the forestry sector, decline with time.
Figure 3 Forest products revenue, oil palm products revenue and planted area of oil palm in Sabah. (Source: PORLA/Sabah Department of Agriculture 2010; State Ministry of Finance; Annual Bulletin of Statistics, various years, Sabah Forestry Department, 2010, Institute of development Studies, Sabah 2010.
More recently, large scale oil palm and cocoa plantations and the extraction of crude petroleum has succeeded the timber industry; the agriculture sector is now the backbone of the State's economy and contributes about 35 per cent of the State Gross Domestic Product. Petroleum products provide about 30 per cent of domestic GDP; reserves are estimated to last 40 years or more. Despite vulnerability, Sabah’s economy has continued to grow in real terms. Buoyant economic activities in the region may have indirectly spilled over and contributed to the State’s economic growth, but the main contributors to growth in the 1990s have been the agriculture and manufacturing sectors with oil palm and its products dominating; and the area of land being converted to this use is ascending gradually. Large tracts of land outside of the forest estate have been converted to oil palm plantations (See Plates 1-4, Page 38). And this structural shift is expected to continue in the years ahead, albeit at a reduced rate. Currently 2.1 million hectares of land is zoned for agriculture, to be converted from forest to a different land use, of which today about 1.4 million hectares has already been converted to oil palm (Figs. 4 & 5). The fate Sabah’s forests does not lie with the 2.1 million hectares of land
currently assigned for agriculture, but rather with the future of the permanent forest estate and protected area system. In the short term these forests may be secure; but it is the long term that is of concern. With increased lev-
Figure 4 – Current land use in Sabah (approximate areas). Protected areas also comprise of some forest reserves.
Figure 5 – Figure 5 Percentage of revenue generated from major export commodities. Institute of Development Studies, Sabah 2010
els of development land is increasingly valued by utility and at a practical level this will be the amount of revenue the land can generate. It is an untenable that such large areas of land generate
A land ready for oil palm While the physical features of Sabah’s landscape provide much beauty, the many hills and ridges represented a barrier to the expansion of settlements and development of land for agriculture. To prepare land for plantation at an industrial scale requires mechanised land clearing and a crop that can endure on often quite poor soils and conditions in the newly cleared areas. As a plantation species, the oil palm does well in growing environments found in the lowlands humid tropics, 15° North or South of the equator with an evenly distributed rainfall of 1,800 to 5,000 mm per year. Globally 13.5 million hectares of oil palm exist, primarily in South East Asia, in Malaysia and Indonesia, of which these two countries today produce 90 per cent of the world’s palm oil. It is an efficient crop, yielding up to ten times more oil per hectare than soyabeans, rapeseed or sunflowers. On five per cent of the world’s vegetableoil farmland it produces 38 percent of the output. Any substitute would need more land. While the rapid expansion of palm oil plantations makes sense from an economic point of view, environmental groups regard it as a danger not only to Asian wildlife but also to the health of the planet. Such matters are increasingly difficult for buyers of palm oil to ignore. ‘Companies are changing their buying policies in response and paying more attention to the distant reaches of their supply chains. Environmental responsibilities have never been more public.’ (The Economist 2010)
WORLD AGRICULTURE
21
22
29/9/10
16:09
Page 1
economic & social Sustainable oil palm? The rapid expansion of plantations has naturally put pressure on the environment and on societies where the palm is grown. While better managed plantations and oil palm smallholdings serve as models of sustainable agriculture, in terms of economic performance as well as social and environmental responsibility, there is concern that not all palm oil is being produced sustainably. Since 2004, concerns about palm oil have been contained within an organization called the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). The RSPO involves growers, processors, food companies, investors and NGOs. With a vision to ensure that palm oil contributes to a better world and a mission to advance the production, procurement and use of sustainable oil palm products, the RSPO is having a noticeable impact throughout the supply chain (http://www.rspo.org) . It is increasingly difficult to proceed with a ‘business as usual’ scenario. However, better environmental and social standards come with a cost and while larger operations with the capacity to bring about change are able to do so, the challenge of moderating smallholders remains significant. Smallholders in Sabah today number about 30,000 with 154,000 hectares of land planted.
Discussion Future options In the short to medium term, it is not unreasonable to expect that the agricultural development requirements, currently provided for, will exceed the 2.1 million hectares. The conservation question concerns - where will be the source of this additional land? With much of the forest resource base gone or altered what are the development options that remain? Under law, the Permanent Forest Estate, except under exceptional local circumstances, will remain as such.This excludes agricultural crops such as oil palm. It is intended that these forests will be managed under some form of long term sustainable forest management, whereby trees are selectively harvested, based on a cycle determined by their capacity to regenerate. Such cycles allow for selective harvesting every forty to sixty years or so. It should be noted that tropical management systems, although theoretically sound, have yet to stand the test of time. Whilst fifty per cent of land providing 80 per cent of state GDP is rea-
22
WORLD AGRICULTURE
sonable – the same land area producing only 10 per cent is less so. For these lands to remain under forest management, continued innovation is required to secure or increase productivity. Sabah has been an active and welcoming host for a broad range of forestry projects. New global service initiatives may provide an opportunity here, but it is also worth noting, that Sabah, a pioneer in the carbon business has yet to receive any financial benefits from its efforts. Despite 18 years of involvement, none had actually materialized into ‘real’ carbon revenue. In all likelihood it can be expected that lands will eventually start to be excised from forestry ownership and converted to agricultural or other titles.
Plantation agriculture Is it possible therefore to present the case of plantation agriculture as being an important development partner for conservation success? In part this success may be attributed to the buffering role that oil palm has played in the State economy. In any national setting, for the formal protected area to be secure, requires economic security. Only once this achieved can conservation efforts extend beyond protected
Conclusions The right balance? There is a complex relationship between environment and development. Population pressure and the demand for land is a powerful agent of change. The links between environment, economy and society – each of which is highly complex, must be considered and acknowledged. Opponents of agricultural development need to consider this question; ‘at what level of development should countries be asked to hold economic development?’ A scenario of limited or zero economic growth set against a background of rapid population growth does not bode well for the environ-
References Berger, R. Malaysia’s Forests: A Resource Without a Future. Chichester. Packard Publishing Limited, 1990. Collins, N. M., J.A. Sayer and T.C. Whitmore. The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia and the Pacific. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991 Kumar, R, The Forest Resources of Malaysia: Their Economies and Development. Oxford: Oxford University
areas and into the landscape setting. Economic security also provides for political security. This in turn provides for more effective policy and planning which are essential to guide and coax industry through this period of environmental change. Conservation management is not the core business of commercial agriculture. Sabah has also maintained an open door approach to engagement with national and international - government and non-government initiatives. Although it has not been smooth sailing all the way, what is now emerging from this engagement may be considered a model framework for sustainable development. Points from the above discussion may be extended across the humid tropics where emerging palm oil producing markets will lead to an acceleration of demand for forest conversion to feed the expansion of oil palm plantation. The Amazon basin, the largest global continuous rainforest system, is under acute and imminent threat, owing to such expansion plans with over 2,000,000 km2 considered suitable for oil palm cultivation (Butler & Laurance, 2009). With the appropriate policies and planning tools in place, positive outcomes are possible. ment and is as damaging as bulldozers themselves. What hope does it offer the peoples? The alternative – sustainable options need to be sufficiently robust to see through times of crisis, lest reserved forests and protected areas fall under renewed cycles of pressure. Sabah has maintained an open door approach to engagement with national and international government and non-government initiatives. Although it has not been smooth sailing all the way, what is now emerging from this engagement may be considered a model framework for sustainable development. Planting paradise or at least part of it, may be necessary in order to maintain it.
Press, 1986 Mather, AS and Chapman, K (1995) Environmental Resources, Longman Scientific, England. ‘The other oil spill’ The Economist June 26th- July 2nd pp 73-75 Rhett A. Butler & William F. Laurance 2009. Is oil palm the next emerging threat to the Amazon?. Tropical Conservation Science Vol. 2 (1):1-10. http://www.rspo.org/ accessed 9 August, 2010
23
29/9/10
16:09
Page 1
economic & social
New Horizons for Small-scale Farming in East Africa Paul L Woomer Summary Small-scale farming in East Africa is in transition from a subsistence to a market-based agriculture, as households recognize that many of their needs cannot be satisfied directly from the land. This is the latest phase in a passage from pastoral migration through tribal settlement, colonial domination, national independence and economic stagnation and recovery. Smallholders are responding to rising aspirations through participation in self-help and producer organisations to develop new farm enterprises and access better information, improved technologies and fairer markets. Adjusted approaches by development agencies also reflect smallholders’ aspirations, particularly the promotion of markets which add value by considering farm input supply and more productive farming practices. Opportunities opening to smallholders include access to improved crop cultivars and seed, mineral fertilizers, information on management of pests and diseases, increased use of biological nitrogen fixation and collective marketing. The ideal of establishing “sustainable small-farm economies” built upon food security for the individual family and “green” environmental management skills alone is too restrictive, as it fails to recognize farmers’ aspirations. The realisation of broader, more socially equitable approaches to rural development depends on the flexibility of farmers to respond to changing production techniques and market opportunities. Key words: agricultural value chain, Kenya, maize-based cropping, rural development
Origins of Smallholder Farming in East Africa Smallholder farming systems in East Africa are undergoing a profound transformation from provision of family subsistence to a mixed-enterprise, market-oriented agriculture. This transition may be abrupt, as when smallholders join organized ventures which contract farmers to produce a specific commodity, offer a guaranteed market, assume responsibility for quality control and often extend credit to assist farmers to meet their contractual obligations. In most cases, however, the transition is subtle as households recognise that their needs cannot be satisfied by farming in isolation, and they make stepwise adjustments to improve their production and marketing skills (Woomer et al. 1998). Permanent and intensive cultivation of small areas of land has developed relatively recently. Africa, especially eastern and southern Africa, has undergone a series of pastoralist migrations from West and Northern
Africa (Oliver 1982). Once new lands suitable for livestock and farming were secured, these migrants cultivated small areas of land, and practiced long-term, grazed fallow rotation. (Boonman 1993). Households raised a wide variety of indigenous crops and gathered traditional green vegetables and fruits (Maundu et al. 1999). Livestock were viewed as wealth and complex patterns of communal grazing and gift exchange developed around them. As population increased, a larger proportion of land was placed into cultivation and fallow intervals decreased until, in the most densely populated areas, fallowing and communal grazing ceased (Woomer et al. 1998). At the earliest stages of European and Arab contact, new crops, particularly maize, beans, groundnut and cassava, were introduced and adopted rapidly as land use intensified. The invasion of white colonialist farmers interrupted this process in many parts of East and South Africa. Some colonialists displaced Africans from the
best agricultural lands and, in many cases, forced them to become labourers on large plantations (Odin 1971). This invasion was short-lived, ending for the most part with independence, although it has left behind a mixed legacy of new cash crops, farming methods, infrastructure and land tenure. Many traditional crops and farming practices were lost and land reallocation was somewhat irregular. It was against this backdrop that today’s smallholder farming developed in East Africa.
Decades of Disadvantage Newly independent African governments often sought to stimulate their economies through the development of state regulation of agricultural products (Eicher 1999). Produce boards were intended to improve access to markets and be a basis for raising taxes from smallholding agriculture. Their highest priority was to reinforce export crops, such as coffee
WORLD AGRICULTURE
23
24 a
29/9/10
16:10
Page 1
economic & social and tea, to secure foreign currency for industrial development, but many of the basic needs of smallholders were overlooked. (Alexandros 1997). This lack of commitment to the poorest is partly responsible for the failure of the so called Green Revolution to take root in Africa in the 1970s (Okigbo 1990), leading to the chronic food insecurity and episodic famine which characterizes much of recent African history. Governments established agricultural extension services, marketing boards, farmers’ associations, credit schemes, faculties of agriculture and national research institutes. These have principally benefited the larger farms. The services of these bodies were weakened by budget deficits and inflation during the 1980s. Many produce and marketing boards fell into mismanagement (Alexandros 1997). Donor institutions imposed structural adjustments that resulted in dismantling or privatising these bodies and liberalisation of national agricultural economies in the early 1990s. Unfortunately many of these reforms did not achieve the desired growth as private sector investment failed to materialize, leaving little to fill the rural services vacuum (Eicher 1999). Following independence in the 1960s, little changed for the vast majority of smallholder farmers, except that their numbers increased greatly, their farm sizes diminished and their soils degraded, so that seasonal food shortages intensified. Governance may be improving in Africa as a result of democratisation and market reform during the 1990s, but few of these benefits have yet to penetrate to small-scale farming households. Some smallholders became demoralized, others relocated to urban areas seeking menial employment, but the majority sought to make the best of their situation, often forming local marketing groups to access better information and take collective action. A profile of such smallscale farm households in west Kenya is presented in Table 1 (derived from Sanginga and Woomer 2009).
Opportunities The future of these small-scale farming households largely rests on their ability to innovate and seize new production and marketing opportunities. National planners and development agencies can also support farmer cooperation. There are hindrances beyond small-
24
WORLD AGRICULTURE
holders’ control, notably poor rural roads and scarce utilities, which increase input and marketing costs. The provision of agricultural advice is sporadic and attempts at reform of the agricultural extension services are largely ineffective. The increase in the number of small farms and large number of potential clients makestraining and farm visits difficult. The frontline extension services lack sufficient resources to assist their nearby clients (Lynam and Blackie 1994). Improved information services via internet service providers may partly redress this situation, but require a huge investment in hardware and training. One emerging success story is the collection and availability of price data through cellular phone Short Message Service (SMS; Mukhebi et al. 2007; Nambiro et al. 2008). Smallholders do not accept their disadvantages passively, nor do they respond by thoughtlessly destroying
their agricultural resource base (Tiffen et al. 1994; Woomer et al. 1998) as is sometimes suggested (see Bursch et al. 1997). Owing to the weakness of formal agricultural extension services many farmers have formed community based organisations to improve access to information on new farming techniques and products. Farmers recognize the benefits of improved cultivars, the need to improve soil fertility, and to make modest investments in their farms according to the availability of cash and credit as Table 1 illustrates. Too often this cash comes as remittances from family members, usually young adults working in menial jobs in distant urban areas. Their absence also erodes the availability of labour and youthful enthusiasm for farming. Nonetheless, most smallholders have adjusted their farming to become more diversified toward local markets and more integrated by making better use of limited resources
25
29/9/10
16:11
Page 1
economic & social
such as crop residues, legume rotations and organic fertilizers (Gachene and Kimaru 2003), as well as small amounts of purchased inputs (Crowley and Carter 2000; Woomer 2007). There are signs of real advances and potential improvement in the lives of small-scale farming households. There has been a 2.2-fold improvement in agricultural output over the past decade (Omamo 2006) which has reduced the trend of agricultural stagnation in East Africa. Other advances include greater access to improved cultivars, better soil and pest management (Conway and Toenniessen 2003), expansion of services to members of farmer associations (Stringfellow et al. 1997) and the emergence of collective marketing networks which address basic food commodities, export markets and specialty crops such as organic produce (Muturi 2001).
Improvements Improved cultivars, seed production and distribution systems are becoming increasingly available to African smallholders as seed markets are liberalized and private sector investment increases. Disease resistant cereals, legumes and root crops that were developed by collaborating research organisa-
tions have now passed through national regulators and are available for commercial release through a variety of mechanisms (Speilman et al. 2007). Particularly significant traits include resistance to maize streak, cassava mosaic (DeVries and Toenniessen 2001) and groundnut rosette viruses, and the promiscuously nodulating soybean, that does not require rhizobial inoculants to establish effective nodulation under most African field conditions (Mpepereki et al. 2000; Sanginga et al. 2002). These complement the existing field school networks offering expertise on integrated pest management (Okoth et al. 2006). In some cases, improved cultivars stimulate accompanying technologies, such as the deployment of herbicide-resistant maize for control of the plant parasitic weed striga (Kanampiu et al. 2002; Woomer et al. 2008). Other indicators of improvement include the cultivation of higher value vegetable crops, establishment of woodlots and orchards, improved rearing of farm animals and the formation of value-added cottage industries (Savala et al., 2003). Improving decision making for planning and allocation of resources within households is another important indicator that farming is seen as a business rather than a survival strategy (Kaaria et al., 2008). This adjustment contrasts greatly with divisive views that consider men and women in farming households operate in separate spheres of coercive interdependency (Evers and Walters 2000). There are also promising signs of economic reform and policy change. One exciting development is the consensus to improve links between farmers, input
suppliers and commodity buyers. This motivates farmers to invest in new technology and intensify farm management through access to more profitable markets (Hazell et al. 2007). This approach follows disappointing experiences of developing and promoting seemingly appropriate production technologies, only to have them rejected by poor, risk-adverse farmers (Eicher 1999; Kelly et al. 2003). Improvements to the input supply chain through networks of local stockists can increase demand for improved seeds and fertilisers (Kelly et al. 2003). Incentives to raise demand for farm inputs include community banking, ‘smart subsidies’ through the distribution of vouchers for key inputs and improving credit within farmer organizations. Community cereal banks provide members with access to higher priced markets during periods of crop surplus but ensure that staple food will be locally available later in the season. Rural development policies have increasingly assumed more holistic approaches, leading to the Millennium Development Goals (Juma 2006). These include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, empowering women, reducing child mortality and improving maternal health and disease. The attainment of these goals is being evaluated by monitoring a network of Millennium Villages, resulting in significant but mixed success (Cabral et al. 2006). Extension can also be improved as qualified rural development project managers may now be drawn from national universities which recognise the combination of skills required to stimulate rural change. The necessary degree curricula have been restructured (Patel and Woomer 2000). Another novel approach is the identification of local leading innovators and Early Adopters as ‘master’ farmers. These are provided with periodic training and topical practical information that stimulates farmer-to-farmer dissemination of less knowledge-intensive technologies (Sanginga and Woomer 2009).
WORLD AGRICULTURE
25
26
29/9/10
16:11
Page 1
economic & social Fertiliser needs The Africa Fertilizer Summit recently adopted the Abuja Declaration on Fertilizer for an African Green Revolution. This plans for a six-fold increase in fertiliser use in Sub-Saharan Africa over the next decade (Africa Fertiliser Summit 2006). The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has initiated a well-endowed African Soil Health Initiative to help meet this goal by promoting Integrated Soil Fertility Management (Vanlauwe 2004; Sanginga and Woomer 2009), and linking it to improved seed systems, produce markets and extension information. The World Bank recently published a set of good practice guidelines to stimulate fertilizer supply and demand (Morris et al. 2007). One key to achieving these targets is the increase of biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) by grain legumes (Giller 2001). Large amounts of nitrogen are required by African soils because the nutrient is widely limiting and is continuously lost in harvest produce, erosion and leaching (Smaling et al. 1997). Grain legumes are extremely important within smallholder systems as sources of protein and fodder but their nitrogen fixing systems typically under-perform, annually providing only 38 kg N/ha (see Giller 2001). Alternatively, increasing BNF to 84 kg N/ha is an achievable option but requires investment in other fertiliser sources, particularly phosphates available throughout the continent and fertilizer blends that ensure nitrogen is not limiting (Van Straaten 2002).
Escaping Poverty The drive towards sustainable agriculture in Africa was the ideal for households to be food and nutritionally secure and independent of external farm inputs (Tripp 2006). From the donor and national planning perspective, these may represent desirable and achievable aspirations. However, from the perspective of the individual household, this represents a poverty trap which reduces aspiration and leaves households with insufficient spare cash to secure education and health services and modest amenities such as bicycles, electricity, radios or telephones. These households are sustainable in an agro-ecological context but not from a socio-economic perspective. A more robust definition of small-
26
WORLD AGRICULTURE
holder prosperity is forming that more effectively meets the needs and aspirations of rural households (UN Statistics Division 2005). Food security is obtained through the production of staple crops, while income is generated from cash crops, livestock and value-added processing (Crowley and Carter 2000; Savala et al. 2003). In many cases, the staple and cash crops may be the same, for example, dried grains which can be processed, stored and marketed when prices are favourable. Timely access to key farm inputs and the availability of fair markets are essential parallel conditions to this prosperity. One aim of the Millennium Development Goals is to reduce the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty (on less than $1 per day) by 50% between 2005 and 2015. Between 1990 and 2005 the number of extremely poor was reduced by 25% in Asia and Latin America but it increased in SubSaharan Africa (Cabral et al. 2006). Basic food security is achieved at a very low level of income (Woomer 2006, 2007). For example, in west Kenya, it requires only US $0.08 per person per day to consume 100 kg of maize and 30 kg of beans per year (Fig. 1; Low external input technologies, LEIT). This diet is complemented by edible leaves and seasonal fruits. In contrast, a basic livelihood including meat, eggs and milk requires about
$0.54 per person per day including $50 per household per month for medicine, school supplies and clothing. Daily income beyond $0.54 is then available for home and farm improvements, investment in new enterprises and modest savings. This analysis was performed using a smaller set of farm households with similar, but slightly fewer, resources than those described in Table 1. Large households (9+ members) on small farms (> 0.4 ha) find it nearly impossible to meet livelihood goals through mixed agriculture (Woomer, 2006). From this analysis it is also clear why so many households practicing subsistence agriculture must rely upon higher value crops, off-farm employment and remittances from absent family members (Table 1). The relationship between innovative farm technologies and income is presented in Fig. 1. LEIT require environmentally sustainable but labour intensive practices, such as contour planting, short term improved fallows and biomass transfer (Graves et al. 2004). These are effective at empowering households to achieve food security. In most highly weathered tropical soils, adoption of improved seeds has a small effect unless combined with nutrient application. Further gains are achieved by fine tuning the inputs and control of striga on maize through herbicide resistance, but these gains also require increased investment by the
27
29/9/10
16:12
Page 1
economic & social Conclusions
household (Woomer 2007). Currently available technologies applied at realistic levels to staple crops, such as the Africa Fertilizer Summit target of 50 kg/ha of plant nutrients, are able to secure about 67% of the household’s basic livelihood, leaving about 0.5 ha devoted to higher value crop and animal enterprises for additional income. The Millennium Villages Project combines both agricultural resource conservation and farm input approaches in its efforts to meet its goals within five years, spending approximately $0.30 per person per day (Cabral et al. 2006). Smallholder economic sustainability involves three segments, input supply, crop production and produce marketing (Fig. 2). This considers technology providers, farmers, produce buyers and consumers. Innovations such as better quality farm inputs at lower prices, more effective farmer organisations, better quality produce, proactive marketing and the preferential purchase of smallholder products by retailers and consumers are needed to benefit the poorest African farmers. Currently, most African smallholders are faced with an incomplete range of often over-priced inputs and
distorted, difficult to access markets. Analysis of the agricultural value chain identifies several important problems, including the availability of suitable technical innovations, credit, information and branding that must be solved before consistent high levels of crop production can be achieved by smallholders (Fig. 2). The availability of infrastructure such as roads is also an essential prerequisite to delivery of novel technologies to the farm and efficient produce marketing. The willingness to adopt improved technologies and new enterprises usually results from a stepwise process of farmer education (Table 2). Farmers whose worldviews are conditioned by poverty continue to practice subsistence agriculture, using continuously cropped, traditional cultivars without applying organic or mineral fertilizers. However, even the most risk adverse farmers’ practices change as they become more aware of the benefits of alternative management techniques. Bridging differences between innovative farmers and their risk adverse neighbours remains an often unrecognized challenge to rural transformation.
Despite modest successes, rural transformation in Africa poses a massive challenge. It requires that proven farm technologies, and market innovations coalesce through farmer, private sector, donor and government action. SubSaharan Africa currently imports approximately 12m tonnes of staple foods/ year, of which 2 million are donated as food aid. Millions of farm households continue to experience seasonal hunger and are situated only one poor growing season away from famine. The empowerment of smallholders to resolve their pressing production and marketing constraints remains more a puzzle than a programme but at least the pieces are falling into place. Some major issues remain unresolved. It is difficult to replicate isolated pockets of success due primarily to the heterogeneous nature of the agricultural and social settings. A greater understanding of these settings and how the projects can be adapted to specific situations is required. Some parts of the African regulatory environment remain irresolutely opposed to genetically engineered crops. Despite this, developments continue in anticipation of future need and wider public acceptance (Thomson 2006). How small-scale farmers will adapt to climate change is not well understood (Jindal 2006). Technical barriers exist toward their fuller participation in mitigating its effects (Noble and Scholes 2001; Richards 2003). Donor and development agencies seem to offer vacillating leadership and ineffective incentives for change, too often based upon incompletely formed ideologies cycling between environmental sustainability, farming systems, research and the emerging African Green Revolution (Conway and Toenniessen 2003). There is a danger that smallholder landscapes will become massive periurban slums as the rural population grows and farm size declines further. These areas typically contain many of the social ills, but few of the economic opportunities found in cities. Incentives must be identified to retain the most competent and ambitious members of the rural community as new entrepreneurs and service providers, so avoiding a loss of their skills to urban areas. Nonetheless, a growing sense of optimism exists among planners, donors and farmers in East Africa as modest but long-awaited gains are realized by poor rural households and new opportunities unfold.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
27
28
29/9/10
16:13
Page 1
economic & social Acknowledgements John K. Lynam, Jonas Chianu, Franklin Mairura and Musa N. Omare provided useful suggestions for improvement of this work and are thanked. Much of the data were developed through collaboration with the African Agricultural Technology Foundation during the recently-concluded Striga Management Project in west Kenya. Other information was obtained from the N2Africa Project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
References
Africa Fertilizer Summit. (2006). Africa Fertilizer Summit Proceedings. International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development (IFDC), Muscle Shoals, USA. 182 pp. Alexandros, N. (1997). Agricultural development in the economy-wide context: approaches to policies and strategies. pp. 257-293. World Agriculture towards 2010, A FAO Study. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. Boonman, J.G. (1993). East Africa’s Grasses and Fodders: Ecology and Husbandry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 343 pp. Bursch, R.J., Sanchez, P.A. and Calhoon F. (eds.) Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No. 51. Madison, Wisconsin. 251 pp. Cabral, L., Farrington, J. and Ludi, E. 2006. The Millennium Villages Project – a new approach to ending rural poverty in Africa. Natural Resource Perspectives 101, Overseas Development Institute, London. Conway, G. and Toenniessen, G. (2003). Science for African food security. Science 299:1187-1189. Crowley, E. and Carter, S. (2000). Agrarian change and the changing relationships between toil and soil in Marigoli, Western Kenya. Human Ecology 28:383-414. DeVries, J. and Toenniessen, G. (2001). Securing the Harvest: Biotechnology, Breeding and Seed Systems for African Crops. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 208 pp. Eicher, C.K. 1999. Institutions and the African Farmer. CIMMYT Economics Program Third Distinguished Economist Lecture. CIMMYT. Mexico. Evers, B. and Walters, B. (2000). Extrahousehold factors and women farmers’ supply response in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 28:1341-1345. Gachene, C.K.K. and Kimaru, G. (2003). Soil Fertility and Land Productivity: A guide for extension workers in the eastern Africa region. RELMA Technical Handbook Series 30. Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), Nairobi. 146 pp. Giller, K.E. (2001). Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems. Second Edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Graves, A., Mathews, R. and Waldie, K. (2004). Low external input technologies for livelihood improvement in subsidtence agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 82:473-555. Hazell, P., Poulton, C., Wiggins, S. and Dorward, A. (2007). The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth. 2020 Discussion Paper 42. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C. 38 pp. Jindal, R. (2006). Carbon Sequestration Projects in Africa: Potential Benefits and Challenges to Scaling Up. EarthTrends Environmental Essay. EarthTrends 2006 World Resources Institute, London. Juma, C. (2006). Universities in economic renewal: Enlisting new sources of development. In: The Role of African Universities in the Attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya. Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., Abenakyo, A., Delve, R. and Sanginga, P. (2008). Assessment of the enabling rural innovation approach: Case study from Malawi and Uganda. Natural Resource Forum 32:53-63. Kelly, V., Adesina, A.A. and Gordon, A. (2003). Expanding access to agricultural inputs in Africa: a review of recent mar-
28
WORLD AGRICULTURE
ket development experience. Food Policy 28:379-404. Lynam, J.K. and Blackie, M.J. (1994). Chapter 7. Building effective agricultural research capacity: The African Challenge. pp. 106-134. In: Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community, Anderson, J.R. (Ed.). CAB International. Wallingford, UK. Kanampiu, F., Ransom, J., Gressel. J., Jewell, D., Friesen, D., Grimanelli, D. and Hoisington, D. (2002). Appropriateness of biotechnology to African Agriculture: Striga and maize as paradigms. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 69:105110. Maundu, P. Ngugi, G.W. and Kabuye, C.H.S. (1999). Traditional Food Plants in Kenya. Kenya Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi. pp 270. Morris, M., Kelly, V.A., Kopicki, R.J. and Byerlee, D. (2007). Fertilizer Use in African Agriculture: Lessons Learned and Good Practice Guidelines. The World Bank, Washington D.C. 144 pp. Mpepereki, S., Javaheri, F., Davis, P. and K.E. Giller. (2000). Soyabeans and sustainable agriculture: Promiscuous soyabeans in southern Africa. Field Crops Research 65:137-149. Mukhebi, A., Kundu, J., Okalla, A., Wambua, M., Ochieng, W. and Fwamba, G. (2007). Linking farmers to markets through modern information and communication technologies: The case of KACE in Kenya. Presented to The African Association of Agricultural Economists, 19 August 2007, Accra, Ghana. Muturi, S.N. (2001). Marketing of Smallholder Produce. A Synthesis of Case Studies in the Highlands of Central Kenya. RELMA Technical Handbook Series 26. Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), Nairobi. 56 pp. Noble, I. and Scholes, R.J. (2001). Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol. Climate Policy 1:5-25. Nambiro, E., Omare, M. and Nkemleu, G.B. (2008). Agricultural Growth, Poverty Reduction and Millenium Development Goals in Africa: Outcomes of the AAAE Conference. African Association of Agricultural Economists, Nairobi. 24 pp. Odingo, R.S. (1971). The Kenya Highlands: Land Use and Agricultural Development. East Africa Publishing House, Nairobi. 229 pp. Okigbo, B.N. (1990). Sustainable agricultural systems in tropical Africa. pp. 323-352. In: C.A. Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R. Miller and G. House (eds.) Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Akeny, Iowa. Okoth, J., Braun, A., Delve, R., Khamaala, H., Khisa, G. and J. Thomas. (2006). The emergence of Farmer Field Schools networks in Eastern Africa. Research Workshop on Collective Action and Market Access for Smallholders, 2-6 October 2006, Cali, Columbia. Oliver, R. (1982). The Nilotic contribution to Bantu Africa. Journal of African History 23:433-442. Omamo, S.W. (2006). Back to the Future: Reversing Recent Trends for Food Security in Eastern Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C. Patel, B.K. and Woomer, P.L. (2000). Strengthening agricultural education in Africa, The approach of the Forum for Agricultural Resource Husbandry. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 16 (3):53-74. Richards, M. (2003). Poverty reduction, equity and climate change: Challenges for global governance. Natural Resource Perspectives No. 83. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Sanginga, N., Okogun, J.A., Vanlauwe, B. and Dashiell, K. (2002). The contribution of nitrogen by promiscuous soybeans to maize-based cropping in the moist savanna of Nigeria. Plant and Soil 241:223-231. Savala, C.E.N., Omare, M.N. and Woomer, P.L. (eds.). (2003). Organic Resource Management in Kenya: Pespectives and Guidelines. Forum for Organic Resource Management and Agricultural Technologies, Nairobi, Kenya. 184 pp. Smaling, E.M.A, Nandwa, S.M. and Janssen, B.H. (1997). Soil fertility is at stake! In: Buresh, R.J., Sanchez, P.A. and Calhoun, F. (eds). Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. SSSA Special Publication No. 51. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. pp 4761. Speilman, D.J., Hartwich, F. and von Grebmer, K. (2007). Sharing science, building bridges and enhancing impact: Public-private partnerships in the CGIAR. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00708, IFPRI, Washington D.C. Stringfellow, R., Coulter, J., Lucey, T., McKone, C. and Hussain, A. (1997). Improving the access of smallholders to agricultural services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Farmer cooperation and the role of the donor community. Natural Resource Perspectives Number 20. Overseas Development Institute, London. Tiffen, M.M., Mortimore, M. and Gichuki, F. (1994). More people, less erosion: environmental recovery in Kenya. ACTS Press, Nairobi and Overseas Development Institute, London. Thomson, J. (2006). GM Crops: The Impact and Potential. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. Tripp, R. 2006. Is low external input technology contributing to sustainable agricultural development? Natural Resource Perspectives 102. Overseas Development Institute, London. UN Statistics Division. (2005). Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals between 1990-2005. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The United Nations. New York. 7 pp. (seehttp://www.unstata.un.org/) Van Straaten, P. (2002). Rocks for Crops: Agrominerals of sub-Saharan Africa. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya. pp 338. Vanlauwe, B. (2004). Integrated Soil Fertility Management research at TSBF: The framework, the principles and their application. pp 25-42. In: (A. Bationo, ed.) Managing Nutrient Cycles to Sustain Soil Fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Academy Science Publishers, Nairobi. Woomer, P.L. (2006). Pathways to food security and rural transformation. pp 2641. In: The Role of African Universities in Attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Woomer, P.L. (2007). Costs and returns of soil fertility management options in Western Kenya. In: (A. Bationo, B. Waswa, J. Kihara and J. Kimetu, eds.) Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer Press. pp. 881-890. Woomer, P.L., Bekunda, M.A., Karanja, N.K., Moorehouse, T. and Okalebo, J.R. (1998). Agricultural resource management by smallhold farmers in East Africa. Nature and Resources 34 (4):22-33. Woomer, P.L., Bokanga, M. and Odhiambo, G.D. (2008). Striga management and the African farmer. Outlook on Agriculture 37:245-310.
29
29/9/10
16:13
Page 1
economic and social
Making Livestock Services Accessible to farmers in Africa Christie Peacock
Summary Improving the production and marketing of livestock kept by smallholder farmers in Africa has the potential to be a route out of poverty for millions of families. However farmers’ ability to improve livestock production is constrained by access to key services such as veterinary and breeding services. FARM-Africa has pioneered an approach to establishing dairy goat enterprises on small farms that places all key services in the hands of farmers and the private sector. An example of this approach implemented in a project in Kenya is described. The approach has been extremely successful and is already spreading across East Africa. Total milk production and incomes have increased ten-fold within 5 years. Farmers are starting to sell fresh milk to supermarkets in Nairobi. With greater investment the model could reach many more families. FARM-Africa is planning to expand the breeding and animal healthcare model through a franchising business model. Key words: Africa, smallholder farmers, goats, veterinary services, livestock services, breeding, poverty reduction Abbreviations: Animal Health Assistant, AHA; Community Animal Health Worker, CAHW; Meru Animal Health Workers’ Group, MAHWG
Glossary Anthelmintic: a chemical agent that is destructive of gastro-intestinal worms;
Background
The problems facing farmers living on small farms in Africa are many. Most farmers continue to rely on growing staple crops for survival combined with a few crops for sale. The decline in the real prices of many traditional cash crops, e.g. coffee, tea and tobacco, combined with uncertain markets, all contribute to the growing and deepening poverty seen in rural Africa today. Child malnutrition rates continue to rise in many
Haemonchus contortus: also known as red stomach worm, or wire worm, is a very common nematode parasite and one of the most pathogenic nematodes of ruminants. Adult
worms are attached to the abomasal mucosa and feed on the blood. This parasite is responsible for anaemia and death of infected sheep and goats in humid climates.
parts of Africa despite increased investment in health services. The stark reality is that smallholder farmers have few options to improve their lives and the lives of their children. A decline in farm size with each generation inheriting land further decreases available household options. Intensification of crop production may be an option for some farmers but many farm plots used for generations are expe-
riencing declining yields. The impact of climate change is only likely to make a difficult situation worse. Livestock play a critical role in supporting families in most parts of rural Africa and can be the basis for families escaping poverty. Peacock (2005) described the multiple roles played by goats in Africa and the reasons for the current interest in more intensive systems of livestock production.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
29
30
29/9/10
16:15
Page 1
economic & social
Problems of access to livestock services One of the main problems faced by farmers in Africa is the lack of access to reliable inputs previously delivered by the state. Since independence most African governments have reduced subsidies to the rural community owing to growing government fiscal deficits during the 1980’s and ‘90’s. These policies attempted to reduce costs of running large state organisations such as Ministries of Agriculture. This put a stop to subsidised services and attempts were made at dismantling the government agencies responsible for providing services to farmers and livestock keepers. The hope was that these services would be delivered by the private sector (World Bank 2007), however the state only partially withdrew, inhibiting the emergence of private sector services in all but the lucrative areas. Access to quality and affordable livestock services is constrained by many factors including limited numbers of service providers, physical distance, price, information and socio-cultural barriers. Poorer areas may receive help from a weakened and under-resourced government service or from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). However, most farmers receive little or no service at all. The broad range of services required by 21st century livestock keepers in Africa is diverse and includes – veterinary, feed, fodder, breeding, credit, insurance and marketing. Livestock keepers also need reliable advice and up to date information on marketing opportunities and new technologies. The emerging opportunity for livestock owners to receive payments for environmental services will require new and detailed advice. The changing role of the state opens up new business opportunities for the private sector, including farmers groups. However there are many constraints to private sector development including access to finance, business development services as well as a progressive and supportive regulatory
30
WORLD AGRICULTURE
environment. A new vision for livestock service provision is needed in Africa so that the roles and responsibilities of state and non-state actors are well-defined. Fundamental to this is a clear definition of what constitutes a public and private good, so that state and nonstate actors co-operate and do not compete. The FARM-Africa goat improvement model – community-based breeding and private veterinary services The difficulties facing smallholder farmers make switching to more intensive goat farming systems attractive (Peacock 2005) and one of FARMAfrica’s most successful interventions has been the development of an intensive dairy goat system for poor farmers in densely populated parts of East Africa. It is based on the delivery of all services through a unique mix of farmer-managed and private sector service delivery. It places the delivery of breeding services in the hands of farmers and the delivery of vital veterinary services in the hands of selfemployed veterinarians running private practices who, working in partnership with animal health assistants, (who in turn support trained farmers) deliver affordable basic veterinary care. This innovative system has been working in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda for 14 years. It delivers affordable services that have opened up new opportunities to farmers who would otherwise
have been ignored.
Animal Health system This three-tiered community-based animal health care system is financially viable and delivers affordable health care even to the poorest livestock keeper. Qualified veterinarians, running their own private practices, train a network of farmers called Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) to treat simple diseases. The training covers diseases affecting both goats and other species of livestock so that CAHWs can offer advice to farmers on how to prevent their livestock getting ill by the use of vaccination, good feeding, and management. In order to supply these CAHWs with drugs, a middle tier of veterinary paraprofessionals, often called Animal Health Assistants (AHAs) are helped to set up small rural drug shops, normally in market centres, easily accessible to CAHWs and other farmers. The AHAs purchase their drugs from the private veterinarians who are helped to establish good links with reliable drug companies. The volume of drugs purchased by the veterinarian on behalf of their ‘network’ helps to ensure a good discount on the price of drugs, keeping costs low and prices affordable to farmers. This linked network of animal health care has proven to be financially viable for the service providers and offers a means by which farmers can have
Table 1. Roles and responsibilities of the key participants for community based goat improvement programmes
31
29/9/10
16:16
Page 1
economic & social means by which farmers can have access to affordable treatments and reliable advice. It also offers a referral system whereby CAHWs can refer difficult cases to AHAs, and AHAs can consult a qualified veterinarian for the most difficult cases. As mobile phone coverage expands, this system will become even more effective. The significant added advantage of this system is the role CAHWs can play in reporting notifiable diseases to the relevant government authorities, thus helping them to take appropriate control measures in a timely manner. CAHWs require training from a qualified veterinarian and equipping with a kit of drugs and basic equipment. Careful consideration needs to be given to the level of fees they will charge to make sure they have sufficient incentive to be active and yet charge a price that is affordable to farmers. In Kenya and Tanzania CAHW training is approved by relevant professional bodies. Where a national standard exists it should be followed. The FARM-Africa training package not only conforms to, but also exceeds, all the national standards currently found in East Africa. Housing goats reduces the amount of energy they waste looking for food and redirects that energy into production. It also keeps animals healthier by reducing contact with other goats, which might carry diseases, and considerably reduces their exposure to internal parasites (esp. Haemonchus contortus) acquired during grazing on common land contaminated by other livestock. Infection with internal parasites is probably the single biggest health problem of goats in Africa.
Role of farmer organisations Farmer-managed organisations are established to co-ordinate and extend services during and after the intervention period. This has been found to generate significant and sustained economic, social and environmental benefits to both households and communities. The model may be targeted at particularly vulnerable households
such as those affected by HIV/AIDS or households headed by women. In addition to the technical elements of the model additional activities can be added to enhance the model such as adult literacy training, support for savings and credit funds, or small enterprise development. The model has generated sufficient economic benefits to enable families to invest in new onand off-farm enterprises. However, the model is not a quick-fix solution, it takes two-five years to yield the full range of benefits. The FARM-Africa Goat Model consists of several inter-linked components that need to be implemented together for the model to have its full impact, it is this synergy that is the strength of the model. The model must be adapted for local needs and participatory techniques are used to make sure that the way each component is implemented is tailored to local circumstances. This synergy is not limited to goats and depending on local need the goat group can become the focal point for savings and micro-finance, or training in health, HIV/AIDS and human nutrition etc. If women are targeted they may be trained in understanding their legal rights and if illiterate, supported to access literacy and numeracy training.
Case study of goat project in, Meru and Tharaka-Nithi Districts Kenya 1996-2006 At the request of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, FARM-Africa planned a Dairy Goat and Animal Healthcare Project in Meru and Tharaka-Nithi districts of Kenya in 1994. The project design, on which the Goat Model is based, ensured that at the end of the project farmers would have everything they needed to ensure the sustainability of all project interventions and would not be reliant on the government, or on any outside provider, for any key inputs. The project began as a
partnership between FARM-Africa and Government of Kenya extension staff. This was important to ensure that farmers received the support they needed from staff already based in the field, and it reduced the overall cost of the project by harnessing under-used government staff.
Beneficiary selection and group formation Participants were selected based on poverty. Community leaders used quantitative methods to identify who was to be included in the project. The selected farmers, over 8,000, (61 per cent women 39 per cent men) were formed into 162 groups of 20-25 members that elected a committee and registered with the Ministry of Social Affairs. Non-goat owning members were provided with two Galla goats.
Breed improvement Breed improvement was through cross-breeding local goats owned by group members with a pure Toggenburg buck at a buck keeping station. The Toggenburg goat has been found to be ideal as an improver breed. The foundation stock of 130 British Toggenburg goats was imported in three batches from the UK during the first three years of the project. The first cross-bred was crossed again with a pure Toggenburg to produce a 75 % Toggenburg goat, named the Meru Goat. Replacement bucks were bred at a small number of Breeding Units consisting of four females and one Toggenburg buck, these were managed by a farmer nominated by their group. The group selected individuals to be trained to become buck keepers and CAHWs. Training was provided to farmers on improved goat management, group dynamics, breed improvement and goat health. Buck keepers were trained how to manage the Toggenburg bucks, use them effectively, record their performance and promote their use in their community.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
31
32
29/9/10
16:16
Page 1
economic & social Animal health care The health care system consisted of a network of CAHWs (33 per cent women, 67 per cent men) treating goats and other species supervised by Animal Health Assistants (AHAs) — 50 per cent women — supported to obtain loans from the Co-operative Bank to establish rural drug shops in local market centres. In each of the two districts a young newly qualified veterinarian (one woman, one man) was helped to obtain a loan from Barclays Bank to establish a private veterinary practice, consisting of a drug shop at the district headquarters, transport, drugs and equipment. These veterinarians would oversee the network in their district, supply drugs and treat cases referred to them. It was not easy to obtain loans from Barclays Bank -FARM-Africa was forced to act as guarantor for part of the loan.
The results The project has been successful and generated huge interest from farmers within the project area and all over East Africa (Olubayo 2003). Farmers involved but ‘outside’ the project far out-number those originally targeted, but the technology has spread rapidly and continues to do so. It has spread spontaneously from the original five divisions to 13 divisions, and breeding goats have been sold to 71 districts in Kenya, as well as to Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda. It is hard to measure the total impact and benefits from the original project investment because it has passed from farmer to farmer so rapidly, and continues to do so, that it has become impossible for the project team to track the adoption and performance of ‘adoptees’ outside the project area (Laker and Omore 2004).
Economic benefits The introduction of Toggenburg goats to Kenya has been of great benefit to farmers. The improved performance on farmers’ incomes is dramatic, increasing them from $93 per annum to $995 per annum. The value of the goat stock owned increased in value from $156 to $918. This tenfold increase in incomes and asset value represents a
32
WORLD AGRICULTURE
significant step out of poverty for the thousands of families benefiting from the project. Many farmers have been able to invest in their farms, for example by buying land, and some have invested in small businesses in rural centres (Laker and Omore 2004).
Benefits of improvement programme
buck per year was 120. Average income from buck service charges was $79/year and from manure $55/year, making a total income of $134/year. Due to his role the buck keeper becomes a focal point of village life and source of advice for farmers bringing their goats for mating which gives them great status in their community and other social benefits.
Buck keepers
Breeding unit
The average number of services per
Over 120 breeding units have been
33
29/9/10
16:17
Page 1
economic & social The MGBA officials are under huge pressure to sell breeding stock with the risk of jeopardising the viability of the Toggenburg goat population in Meru itself. MGBA has already sold breeding stock to Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and 75 districts in Kenya. It currently has a waiting list for over 3000 goats. The Meru Animal Health Workers’ Group
established under the project. They produce pure Toggenburg goats for new buck stations and new breeding units. Their performance is crucial to the success of the whole project. Breeding units need to be managed by outstanding livestock keepers as the units place a great demand on labour and skills early in the project. Breeder unit managers derive significant benefits early in the project as they quickly have a significant supply of milk for home consumption and sale. CAHWs’ performance
CAHWs are farmers working part-time as CAHWs treating an average of 11 cases per month and charging an average of $2/case. Annual incomes average $264 p.a. . CAHWs offer treatment for all livestock and also offer advice and training on how to keep livestock healthy, becoming valuable extension workers in their communities. Animal Health Assistants (AHAs)
AHAs are the vital link in the animal health system and are the main source of drugs for CAHWs and farmers. Of the eight AHAs, most earn their income from clinical services (41per cent), drug sales (27 per cent) and AI (31 per cent). All AHAs successfully repaid their loans obtained from the Co-operative Bank and are investing in their businesses mainly to obtain motorbikes increasing their mobility and coverage (FARM-Africa 2003). Veterinarians
Veterinarians oversee the AHAs and
CAHWs, they are based in urban centres and serve as the main supplier of drugs, as well as providing surgery, (mainly to cattle) and AI services. The two veterinarians supported by FARMAfrica set up their veterinary business and repaid their loan to Barclays Bank on time. After FARM-Africa’s departure, one veterinarian recruited from government service returned to it, while the other, is expanding her business. Vets obtain most of their income from drug sales (48 per cent); clinical services (25 per cent) and AI services (23 per cent). Farmer organisations and associations The Meru Goat Breeders’ Association (MGBA)
This farmer-based organisation serves many functions and its role is changing as the project proceeds. It controls the maintenance of the breed by setting breed standards and supplying breed information as well as recording the performance of the goats. It is responsible for registering the goats with the Kenyan Stud book and the members act as judges at shows. The members are involved in the marketing and processing of the milk and organise field days and auctions. The interest in the project has placed so much demand on the leaders of the MGBA that they are currently charging $60 for visits to interested groups. MGBA is currently the only supplier of pure Toggenburg goats in East Africa, which presents an immense challenge for such a small and relatively inexperienced farmers’ organisation.
The growing project needed some coordination of the health care providers and in the year 2000 all those involved in goat health set up the Meru Animal Health Workers’ Group (MAHWG). MAHWG aims to : Act as a forum to exchange ideas for all service providers working in the project area; Organise training for their members; Represent members in scientific meetings and workshops and inform members of latest practices; Develop linkages with important partners – drug suppliers and government bodies. The group is allowed to lend money to members wishing to develop their business in some way. Examples include: one veterinarian who has opened a second drug shop and one AHA who has paid for their drug shop attendant to train as an AHAt. MAHWG itself has won a contract from the government to deliver AI services throughout Meru district and MAHWG plans to build its own diagnostic laboratory.
Environmental benefits In addition to the direct performance of the goats there are significant benefits to the environment from the project. Goats are housed and are not out grazing, thus making easy the collection of urine-enriched manure. This manure is highly valued as fertiliser by coffee and vegetable growers. Over 200,000 leguminous trees, mainly Calliandra, have been planted, together with several miles of elephant grass strips on the edges of farmers’ fields, protecting and stabilising the soil.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
33
34
29/9/10
16:17
Page 1
economic & social
Conclusions Cohesive action by the selected households is important to the operation of the health and breeding components of the Goat Model. Once a new group is formed, or an existing group has decided to adopt the goat model all the members of the group need to be made fully aware of their roles and responsibilities. The group needs to select members for training as a buck keeper, a breeding unit manager and as a CAHW. The group must be trained to function as a group, 20-25 has been found to be the ideal number for a group. The group leader needs to be trained in leadership skills, responsibilities, stewardship of group resources, record keeping and conflict resolution. All farmers need to be taught how to look after the cross-breed goats to maximise the goat’s potential. The procedure is considerably different from local practices and all farmers need to be educated in the structure and functioning of the goat model. The ways in which farmers can improve the feeding of goats by growing fodder crops and using wild plants need to be explored and tested by farmers at a local level. Good experience needs to be shared within the group. Conserving feed, from one season for feeding in another needs to be explained clearly and tested by farmers. The heart of the goat model is the development of a reliable health care system to which farmers can turn for guidance to prevent their goats becoming ill, and by which they can obtain help if they do fall ill. Due to the success of the project it was tempting to deviate from the strict breeding protocol. Any repeat project must ensure an adequate supply of breeding material for the size of the project. As this was not properly addressed in this first instance it is now a matter of very great urgency for Toggenburg goats to be bred in viable units throughout East Africa if the gains of the project are not to be eroded and subsequent development is not compromised. These Breeding Units which comprise of three females and one buck need to be established at the community level to ensure a continuous supply of bucks for buck stations. It is not necessary to have a Breeding Unit for every farmer group. The units need to be located strategically throughout the area of the project and managed well because they contain valuable breeding stock of benefit to the whole community for generations to come. The goats provided to the breeding unit are given on credit. The same number and sex ratio are repaid to the provider, as weaned kids, to enable a new breeding unit to be set up in a new location. The most cost-effective method of organising mating systems is to form Toggenburg bucks stations where the buck lives and is accessible to all group members. To avoid inbreeding the bucks do not remain at one station for longer than 18 months so there is no danger that they will mate with their daughters. This buck rotation is an essential part of the model that needs to be well coordinated. The buck station keeper who feeds and manages the buck must be trained to record buck services, collect fees, and promote the bucks use in the community. The keepers also need to be trained in basic skills so they can act as a source of advice and training to the whole community. The importance of the MGBA and MAHWG was known to be vital from the start of the project but FARM-Africa underestimated the scale of the role they would be required to undertake. They oversee the breed improvement component by co-ordinating the buck rotation, establishing new buck stations, and setting up new breeding units. In future projects the size and scope of the equivalent organisations will depend on the scale of the goat model set up. The associations will need representatives from each farmer group and will need to prepare a constitution and elect a committee to manage their affairs. The system of delivering services to goat keepers described above is effective, as it not only supports the introduction of a new system of production, but also it stimulates its growth and expansion to many new families, districts and even countries. The key to this is that all necessary inputs are in the hands of farmers and the private sector working as a unit. The breeding and animal healthcare system is now ready to scale-up and FARM-Africa is exploring the potential of using a franchising business model for that purpose. Franchising offers the potential for economies of scale and quality assurance systems.
34
WORLD AGRICULTURE
35
29/9/10
16:19
Page 1
economic & social A goat breeding group in Kitui area. Credit: FARM-Africa
References FARM-Africa (2003) Delivering affordable and quality animal health services to Kenya’s rural poor. FARM-Africa, Nairobi. Laker, C. and Omore, A. (2004) Documentation of the institutional and technical processes from the Meru dairy goat breeding programme. External consultants’ report, FARM-Africa, Nairobi. Olubayo, R. (2003) Impact Assessment Report of Meru and Tharaka-Nithi Dairy Goat and Animal Healthcare Project.
External consultant’s report FARM-Africa, Nairobi. Peacock, C.P. (1996) Improving goat production in the tropics. A manual for extension workers. Oxfam/FARM-Africa, Oxford. Peacock, C.P. (2005) Goats – a pathway out of poverty. Small Ruminant Research 60 (1-2), 179-186. World Bank (2007) World Development Report. World Bank, Washington.ts – a pathway out of poverty. Small Ruminant Research 60 (1-2), 179-186. World Bank (2007) World Development Report. World Bank, Washington.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
35
36
29/9/10
16:18
Page 1
economic & social Kitui farmers Lio and Rael Nzilu with some of their family. They are about to benefit from FARM-Africa’s dairy goat project. Credit: FARM-Africa
Milking a crossbred goat in Kenya.Credit: FARM-Africa
Acknowledgements This paper presents an overview of the work and achievements many people. I would particularly like to acknowledge the exceptional work of Camillus Ahuya, Boniface Kaberia and Patrick Mutia
36
WORLD AGRICULTURE
37
29/9/10
16:20
Page 1
economic & social
World Food Supply and Biodiversity J. Perry Gustafson, Norman E. Borlaug and Peter H. Raven Summary The current world population of around seven billion is projected to reach nine billion in forty years or less. The UN projects agricultural output will need to increase by 70% just to maintain current dietary standards – which includes more than one billion malnourished people. Current agricultural production is increasing at a rate insufficient to reach the goal set by the 2009 World Summit on Food Security to reduce by one half the number of malnourished people in the world by 2015. In spite of declining poverty rates, achieving this reduction in the number of malnourished people, even by 2040, will be very difficult as it is likely that the projected two billion additional people will be amongst the poorest of the poor. Food imports, worldwide, are expected to increase despite projected increased production. The required increase in world food production is possible on the area of land currently under production, whilst our fragile environment is protected. Key words: World food, food production, biodiversity
Glossary BT: a billion metric tonnes, i.e. 1012 kg; cM: a unit of recombination where one map unit = 1 centimorgan (cM)
Introduction It took until approximately 1932 for the human population to reach three billion people; it then took from 1932 to 1999 to reach six billion people. The latest United Nations-Food and Agriculture Organization (UN-FAO) projection is for the world to reach around nine billion people in 2040 (UN-FAO FAOSTAT, 2010), placing tremendous pressures on increasing world food production of all kinds. The UN projects that by 2050 agriculture will need to increase production by 70% (UN-FAO FAOSTAT, 2010) in order to maintain the same dietary standard we have today, but the world will still have more than one billion severely undernourished people and more than 100 million living near starvation.
S
ince 1990, the undernourished population has risen by around 9% on a global scale in spite of a 12% increase in world food production per capita (Barrett, 2010). Unfortunately, agriculture production is projected to increase by approximately 1.3% per year over the period including 2030 (Mann, 1999), therefore agricultural output will not come close to reaching the 2009 World Summit on Food Security goal of reducing by 50% the number of hungry and malnourished people in the world by 2015 (UN-FAO FAOSTAT, 2010). If true, the number of hungry and/or undernourished people in the
world will not change, or most likely will increase. The World Bank (2008) estimated that in 1990 approximately 1.13 billion people worldwide were living on less than $1 per day. In spite of all our technology and agricultural improvements, in 2010 roughly one billion people still face hunger on a daily basis. However, one must look very closely at the numbers involved. Many claim that there is no longer a major food problem, as currently evidenced by improvements in developing countries’ middle classes and a decrease in the percentage of poor people. This is true if we look at the percentages, but instead, we need
to look at the numbers, since there are approximately one billion (14%) impoverished people today when the world population is approximately seven billion but when the world population reaches nine billion people it is projected that there will still be more than 1 billion poor people (11%) – doubtless an underestimate. Even with the projected increase in food production, food imports on a world scale will continue to increase; for example, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) imports are projected to increase from 30 to 75 million tonnes (MT) by 2020 (Pingali and Rosegrant, 1998). It is clear that most of the two billion people who will be added to the
WORLD AGRICULTURE
37
38
1/10/10
13:38
Page 1
Planting Paradise – Is there an option?
Tony Greer
Plates 1-4 Tropical rain forest is characterized by a full canopy and rich biodiversity.
The canopy of forests subject to mechanical selective harvesting is more open with gaps appearing where trees have been felled and roads created. Selectively logged forests maintain the capacity to support much of the original forest diversity – up to a point. If gaps and disturbance are too many and too frequent, the habitat may become degraded and biodiversity declines.
Lands outside of the protected areas system and permanent forest reserve may be designated for conversion to agriculture. Any remaining forest is removed and the land shaped to accommodate the planting, maintenance and harvesting of oil palm. This is greatly facilitated by terracing, as palm fruit bunches are still harvested manually.
Once established, oil palms grow quickly and develop a near full canopy, however, the biodiversity to be found within a plantation is no more than can be expected for any agricultural landscape. Oil palm is replanted every 25 years or so.
38
WORLD AGRICULTURE
39
29/9/10
16:21
Page 1
economic & social world population in the next three decades will probably be among the poorest of the poor (Bruinsma, 2003), and hence the situation will become worse unless extraordinary improvements in food production are achieved in the near future. Some 10 500 years ago, the human population consisted of about three to four million people. With the development of agriculture, first in the ‘Fertile Crescent’ of the eastern Mediterranean and then independently in other parts of the world, the human population began to grow rapidly. Domestication of the major food crops is the main reason for the emergence of human civilization as we know it today. In a period of just over 400 generations the majority of changes that we now regard as the core of human civilization took place. Considering that human beings have inhabited the Earth for approximately two million years, it is clear that we have been the dominant species for only a very small fraction of the history of our planet. As agriculture intensified, the human population grew as it transformed from a world of hunter-gatherers to one in which towns, cities, and countries competed with one another for food supplies and arable land. Plants, once domesticated, have been continually improved by selecting those most productive for sowing. The UN-FAO (UN-FAO FAOSTAT, 2010) has been documenting the improvements in agricultural food production since 1963 when about 2.63 billon metric tonnes (BT), including both plant (2.49 BT) and animal (0.14 BT), were produced. The latest UN-FAO data showed a phenomenal increase in world food production over the past 44 years to about 8.22 BT of total food production including both plant (7.07 BT) and animal (1.15 BT) in 2007 on basically the same amount of land (USDA-NASS, 2010). The dramatic increase in world food production, which supplies feed for animal production and food for human consumption, has mainly come from improved crop cultivars, technological advances, and management practices. Over the next 40 years around 80% of the required increase in world food production is projected to result from yield increases (67%) and higher cropping intensities (12%), with the remaining 21% coming from a
minimal expansion of arable land under crop production (World Bank, 2008). The main objectives in feeding the world’s population include, first, the task of increasing world food production and improving dietary standards of the chronically undernourished and the expanding population. Second, even if agriculture can accomplish the daunting task of increasing production, we will have to deal with the overwhelming task of equitably distributing food to all regions of the world to offset the current consequences of population growth and increasing world hunger. We will never see a lasting solution to the world food/hunger and poverty problem without a strong balance between food production and distribution – in other words – social justice. Third, agriculture needs to accomplish these objectives with a minimum impact on the world’s biodiversity and our fragile environment. Fourth, the increased food production needs to be accomplished without significantly expanding existing levels of land under cultivation. Approximately 11% of the world’s landmass is used for crop production, with an estimated 22% more used for pasture, most of which is natural grassland and manifestly unsustainable for crop production. No more than 10% of additional arable land is potentially available even for limited crop production (Bruinsma, 2003). The massive increase in food production between the years 1963 to 2007 was accomplished utilising about the same amount of land currently under production (USDA-NASS, 2010). For example, world grain yields more than doubled from 1.3 MT per hectare in 1961-63 to 2.77 MT per hectare in 1997-99, at the same time as the amount of land required to produce the grain actually declined by approximately 56% (World Bank, 2008). There is clear scope for potential increases in world food production on existing agriculture land, and these increases should be feasible utilising existing and newly developed technology. It has been estimated that in parts of Southeast Asia the average rice yields are only 60% of their average maximum climate-adjusted yields (Godfray et al. 2010). In
addition, 11 countries are producing 37% of the total world wheat yield on predominantly rain-fed production conditions, well under their attainable yield potential (World Bank, 2008). If farmers around the world were able to produce closer to their potential yield, the world’s production levels should significantly increase without any additional land being brought into cultivation. This increase in production should equal about 23% of the current world production. As has been shown in the past 50 years, any local/national improvement in cultivars and management will spill over into the rest of the world. The world needs to understand that agriculture is not a local/national industry and what changes are made on a local/national level will have global impacts. On the other hand, the droughts in Australia and Argentina seem tied to global climate change, as does the irregularity of the monsoon season in India. However, food production increases will surely be subject to a number of additional constraints yet to be defined. Even though this discussion indicates the potential for major increases in world agricultural production on existing cultivated land, based on existing and newly developed technology there are at least three impediments that could limit increased world food production. First, the technology and management improvements required for advancing yield levels might not be accessible or applicable to all crops, regions, and farmers of the world. Second, advanced technology and management inputs in agriculture could spread into areas of the world where they could accelerate environmental problems and have an adverse impact on biodiversity. Third, the public understanding of agriculture certainly needs to be vastly improved for productivity to be increased. Major yield increases will be based mainly on the improvement of productivity on land that is already being cultivated. To obtain the 8.22 BT of food produced in 2007 using 1963 cultivar/management technology, which generated a yield of roughly 2.63 BT in that year (UN-FAO FAOSTAT, 2010), would have required more than an additional 1.6 billion hectares of new land to be brought under cultivation, which would have had a profound detrimental impact on
WORLD AGRICULTURE
39
40
29/9/10
16:21
Page 1
economic & social the world’s environment and biodiversity. Intensifying agricultural technology on existing lands, therefore, has had and will continue to have a major role in preserving biodiversity and maintaining the sustainability of our fragile global environment overall. One vital need to eliminate hunger and poverty involves the preservation of sufficient genetic diversity in plants and their relatives to ensure that breeders have the capacity to create cultivars capable of resisting biotic and abiotic stresses and adapting to new environmental conditions. Existing and newly developed biotechnological tools alongside traditional technology will play major roles in improving world food production in the same manner as the ‘Green Revolution’ that occurred from the 1960s through the 1980s. This will amount to what Gordon Conway (1999) termed “the doubly green revolution.” The main problem will be the degree to which individual countries, industrialised and developing, can manage new technologies to adapt and improve their production with advantageous changes in agronomic practices and production costs without any adverse effects on the world’s environment and biodiversity. The domestication and development of crops over the past 10 500 years has involved progeny selection from the most productive individuals based on their phenotypes. Modern biotechnology is taking plant improvement to new heights with the potential of greatly improving food quality and production (Federoff et al. 2010). New agricultural technologies are composed of individual systems that pivot around both public and private breeders’ plant selection programmes and involve many technologies including: first, tissue culture, in which plants can be broken down into cell suspensions that are manipulated, followed by regenerating plants, bypassing the traditional approaches to seed production. Second, the utilisation of anther
40
WORLD AGRICULTURE
culture coupled with various chromosome-doubling techniques, to successfully create double haploid populations, greatly reducing the time required to produce commercial cultivars. Third, modern approaches to mutation technology have been and continue to be successful in creating additional genetic variation necessary for crop improvement programmes. Fourth, and most recently, the utilisation of molecular marker-assisted selection, where various types of DNA marker systems are linked to traditionally difficult to screen value-added traits of interest that have already been successfully used in cultivar improvement programmes. Types of DNA marker system include; restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) (which at the present time are not being widely used for marker-assisted selection), simple sequence repeat or microsatellite repeat (SSR), single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), diversity array technologies (DArT), etc. which are more commonly used (for an excellent review see Tester and Langridge 2010). Fifth, involves the application of genome-wide selection which is mainly used for selection involving quantitative traits in both animals and plants (Goddard and Hayes, 2009; Mayor and Bernardo, 2009). However, genome-wide selection requires the availability of a massive number of very cheaply available molecular markers (up to 20 markers per cM), or high-density marker chips designed specifically for the species being manipulated (which can be very expensive technology). Also, when selecting on a genomewide scale, one has to consider the presence of considerable linkage drag or undesirable gene complexes linked to the value-added traits of interest. Sixth, the application of genomic sequencing of individual plant genomes to expose the location and potential function of the entire genetic composition of an organism which can
be used in conjunction with other technologies to assist cultivar improvement programs. Seventh, plant transformation technology creates genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which involves transferring genes from one organism to another bypassing the sexual process, and has already been successful in several crops on a world scale. Most of the traditional and newly developed technologies have been adapted to work efficiently in a more land- and labour-intensive form of agriculture improvement. It is clear that traditional organic farming applications are neither capable of producing enough to feed nor of improving world dietary standards of the existing population, let alone the projected increase to nine billion people by 2040. It has been estimated that a world population of approximately four billion people could be sustained if organic nitrogen farming systems were in place on a global scale (Buringh and van Heemst, 1977; Conner, 2008; Evans, 1998; Smil, 2001 and 2004), though requiring significantly more land under production to generate the required organic nutrients.
‘It is clear that traditional organic farming applications are neither capable of producing enough to feed nor of improving world dietary standards of the existing population, let alone the projected increase to nine billion people by 2040’
41
29/9/10
16:22
Page 1
economic & social Discussion Existing data indicate that agriculture is capable of feeding the projected world population increases on approximately the same amount of land that is currently under production (World Bank, 2008). However, it will take all of the available technologies and plant breeders’ skills to achieve the desired goal of eliminating hunger. In addition, integrated pest management, water management, precision farming, limiting chemical input and many other techniques, including the expansion of the infrastructure within many countries, must be wisely applied simultaneously to maximise yield from existing farmland. Only the coordinated application of all of these techniques will improve the productivity of the lands currently cultivated to the degree needed. Significant progress has been made over the past several years in advancing our knowledge of biological science which can be applied to technology adaptable to improving agricultural production. We do not know the direction current research will take, but we can assume that any commercial application is going to be determined by world economic and social factors. The private sector and many funding agencies are increasingly addressing developing countries’ agricultural needs. The assertion that a “back to nature” or
Conclusions The continued long-term health of world food production is one of the foundations of world security. A stable future for humanity, our environment, and our biodiversity is intimately tied to the improvement of crop production.Adequately feeding the world’s population is clearly one of the most important challenges facing the world today and in the future. Existing data indicate that agriculture is capable of feeding the projected increased world population on approximately the same area of land as that currently under production (World Bank, 2008). However, it will take all the available, relevant and reliable technologies, and the unwavering dedication of all involved to achieve the desired goal of eliminating hunger.
“pure organic” approach can feed the world’s people is only a theory that clearly does not take into account the current world population and the scale of human suffering from malnutrition and starvation. Embracing social justice is the only way that people can really survive and prosper, and we need to utilise all of our resources to accomplish the goal of feeding humanity. All crops will continue to be improved by traditional and biotechnological approaches to advance their yield potential. Building adaptable gene complexes into crop varieties for the future is something that we must do, especially in the face of global climate change and the world’s increasing population. This process will require a much larger number of cultivars with different genetic backgrounds to be spread around the world than was the case in the past. In spreading new varieties, including transgenic crops, it is very important that we consider their potential impact (to the degree it is possible to predict an impact) on the world’s natural environment and biodiversity. Such concerns are being addressed, but as with most human endeavours, these issues must be dealt with on an individual crop and environmental basis. In future crop development several factors seem especially important. First, we need to understand the characterisation of the
References
Barrett, C.B. (2010) Measuring food insecurity. Science, 327, 825-828. Buringh, P., & van Heemst, H.D.J. An estimation of world food production based on labour-oriented agriculture. Centre for World Food Market Research, Amsterdam. 1977. Bruinsma, J. (ed.) World Agriculture: Towards 2015-2030 An FAO Perspective. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2003. Conner, D.J. (2008) Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field Crops Res., 106, 187-190. Conway, G. The doubly green revolution: food for all in the twenty-first century. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1999. Evans, L.T. Feeding the Ten Billon. Plants and population growth. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998. Federoff, N.V., Battisti, D.S., Beachy, R.N., Cooper, P.J.M., Flischhoff, D.A., Hodges, C.N., Knauf, V.C., Lobell, D., Mazur, B.J., Molden, D., Reynolds, M.P., Ronald, P.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Sanchez, P.A., Vonshak, A., & Zhu, J.-K. (2010) Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century. Science, 327, 833-834. Godfray, H.C., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., & Toulmin, C. (2010) Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327, 812-818. Goddard, M.E., & Hayes, S.J. (2009) Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breed-
genome structure, gene function and regulation, and evolution at macroand micro-geographic scales of all crops. Second, we need to combine single- and multi-gene value-added traits to produce a higher degree of cultivar development. Third, crop genetic systems must be analysed to determine the genetic flexibility of various species in diverse ecological contexts, according to their breeding systems, mutation rates, genome recombination properties, genomic distribution, and function of structural genes (primarily abiotic and biotic stress genes). Fourth, we need to characterise the interface between developing agricultural ecological dynamics and adaptive ecosystems in order to manipulate genome composition and limit the potential for gene contamination. In the past, when modern agriculture competed with the traditional subsistence forms of agriculture, local landrace cultivars were often discarded in favour of the new high yielding cultivars. Recently, massive efforts have been undertaken to preserve crop diversity, which has resulted in the retention of more old and new crop diversity of all kinds in agriculture than was retained 50 years ago. National and international seed banks are, and will continue to be, critically important to agriculture and the maintenance of the world’s biodiversity. ing programmes. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 381-391. Mann, C.C. (1999) Future Food: Crop Scientists Seek a New Revolution. Science, 283, 310-314. Mayor, P.J., & Bernardo, R. (2009) Genomewide selection and marker-assisted recurrent selection in doubled haploid versus F2 populations. Crop Science, 49, 1719-1725. Pingali, P.L., & Rosegrant, M.W. (1998) Supplying wheat for Asia’s increasingly westernized diets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 954-959. Smil, V. Feeding the world: A challenge for the twenty-first century. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001. Smil, V. Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production.Cambridge, MIT Press, 2004. Tester, M., & Langridge, P. (2010) Breeding Technologies to Increase Crop Production in a Changing World. Science, 327, 818-822.The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT. (2010) (http://faostat.fao.org/site/368/Desktop Default.aspx?PageID=368#ancor) The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT. (2010) (http://faostat.fao.org/site/550/Desktop Default.aspx?PageID=550#ancor) The United States Department of Agriculture-National Agriculture Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2010) http://www.nass.usda.gov/World Bank. World Development Report: Agriculture for Development. Washington, D.C., The World Bank, 2008.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
41
42
29/9/10
16:23
Page 1
Green field in the sunset
42
WORLD AGRICULTURE
43
29/9/10
16:23
Page 1
opinion & comment
The Myths of Organic Farming Dick Taverne Summary Organic farming has no scientific basis. It depends upon a false distinction between synthetic chemicals (‘bad’) and ‘natural’ chemicals (‘good’) and its rules are inconsistent and irrational. Claims that it is safer, more nutritious and better for the environment have not been substantiated and its inefficiency compared with conventional and other methods of farming make it unsuited to the needs of the developing world. All plant life is organic. Therefore the term “organic” farming is tautologous: there can be no such thing as inorganic farming, or inorganic food. The word “organic” has been appropriated, however, by a movement which supports an eccentric method of farming that is as cavalier about science as it is about terminology. Indeed its origins owe more to mysticism than to science. One of the founders of the movement was the German philosopher Rudolf Steiner, who advocated feeding the soil and a process of bio-dynamic cultivation. He believed that cosmic forces entered animals like cows and stags through their horns and that we should plant by the phases of the moon and nourish the soil with cow horns stuffed with entrails. This may seem remote from the modern practice of organic farming, but even today the Director of the Soil Association, the main body that controls organic farming in the United Kingdom, faced with scientific findings that show no evidence to support some of its claims, has argued that science is not sufficiently developed to detect the virtues of organic farming and that we must look beyond science to its spiritual dimension (Holden, 1999).
O
ne of the basic principles of the organic creed is that synthetic chemicals are bad and natural ones are good. This distinction has no basis in science. It ignores the fact that a molecule is a molecule, whether it is made by a man-made synthetic process or by a natural one. Any number of synthetic chemicals, such as anti-bacterial drugs, are highly beneficial, while any number of natural chemicals, arsenic, ricin and aflatoxin for a start, are highly poisonous. Not surprisingly, the rules that farmers must observe for their produce to qualify as “organic” lack rhyme or reason. For example, organic farmers are not allowed to use the synthetic copper-containing fungicide Mancozeb to treat potato blight, but may use the inorganic compound copper sulphate instead. Mancozeb is practically non-toxic to human beings, unlike copper sulphate, which has caused liver damage in European vineyard workers. Mancozeb has low toxicity for earthworms, birds and mammals, whereas copper sulphate is toxic to all three (Trewavas 2004). On every
count the synthetic fungicide that is banned by the Soil Association is vastly superior. Leaving aside its mystic elements and the arbitrariness of its rules, does organic farming nevertheless produce food that is safer, more nutritious and better for the environment than conventional farming, as its champions claim? Each of these claims needs to be examined in some detail.
Is organic food safer than conventional food? Opinion polls have found that the main reason people buy organic food is that they believe it to be free from harmful pesticide residues (Health Which? 1999). In particular, there are widespread fears that synthetic pesticides cause various kinds of cancer and that we are suffering from an epidemic of cancer. These fears have no evidential basis. Since pesticides have been used more widely, the incidence of cancer has declined, even when smoking-related cancer is eliminated.
This is so despite the fact that the incidence of cancer increases with age and people now live much longer (Coggon and Inskip 1994). Furthermore, farmers, who are more exposed to pesticides than the rest of the population, have lower than average rates of cancer. Significantly rates of stomach cancer too have declined by about 60% in the last 50 years and the stomach would be especially exposed to any carcinogenic effects of ingested pesticides (Trewavas 2004). The organic movement ignores the fact that that we consume many thousands of times more natural pesticides than synthetic ones, as the distinguished biologist Bruce Ames has shown, since plants make their own pesticides to ward off predators (Ames and Gold 1999). Those who stress the need for a diet free of pesticide residues also forget the lesson taught by the Swiss physician Paracelsus many centuries ago, that it all depends on the dose. Every mouthful we eat and every sip of water we drink contains poisons, but in amounts that normally cause no harm. In fact, regulations set safety levels so high that
WORLD AGRICULTURE
43
44
29/9/10
16:24
Page 1
opinion & comment they are between 100 and 1000 times above the concentrations at which harmful effects might be expected. Lord Krebs, the former head of the UK Food Standards Agency, the independent body set up to protect the interests of consumers and examine evidence about the safety of food, observed that one cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal at least to a year’s worth of synthetic carcinogenic residues present in a normal diet (Krebs 2002). It should also be noted that evidence suggests that a diet rich in fruit and vegetables is one of the best protections against cancer (Block et al. 1992). Chefs, life-style magazines and supermarkets constantly urge people to buy organic food. Yet encouraging people on lower incomes to eat more expensive food grown organically rather than cheaper food grown conventionally may in fact reduce their consumption of fruit and vegetables and increase the risk of developing cancer.
Is organic food tastier and more nutritious than conventional food? There is no doubt that many people strongly believe that organic food tastes better and is better for their health. The problem is that evidence for such beliefs depends on comparisons that are not often made. Organic fruit, for instance, tends to be fresh (unless it is imported, as most organic produce is in Britain) and fresh fruit tends to taste better than stored. Blind tests suggest that when people compare equally fresh organic and conventionally grown fruit, they cannot tell the difference (Hansen 1981). In fact the composition of the two kinds of produce is not materially different (Trewavas 2004). That was also the conclusion of the Food Standards Agency which, greatly to the annoyance of the organic movement, has persistently rejected claims that organic food is more nutritious and has declared that organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced The most thorough and comprehensive study of the nutritional differences between organic and conventionallygrown food, carried out for the Food Safety Agency, which analysed all relevant articles in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008, found that
44
WORLD AGRICULTURE
there was no good evidence that eating more organic food would benefit individuals consuming a normal varied diet and that differences in nutrient content were unlikely to be relevant to consumer health (Dangour 2009). One of the difficulties involved in comparing the quality of particular kinds of produce is that it depends on the conditions under which it is grown, on the quality of the soil, the local climate and above all the skill of the farmer managing the farm. A valid test therefore requires comparison between conventional and organic produce farmed by the same farmer on the same farm over a prolonged period of time. This is particularly true for investigations into effects on the environment. Surprisingly, some leading apologists for organic farming do not seem to believe in objective comparisons. They recommend running two entirely separate research teams to investigate GMOs and organic farming and imply that the same is true of research into organic and conventional farming (Watson and Atkinson 2002).
Is organic farming better for the environment? Based on proper comparisons, one of the most impressive tests of the relative merits of different farming systems was performed over a period of ten years at Boarded Barns in Essex, England, where the same farmer in the same area cultivated crops in three different ways, by conventional farming, organic farming and using a system known as integrated farm management that specifies large field margins and high standards of animal welfare and hedgerow maintenance (Higginbotham et al. 2000). The actual system used was found to be the least important factor affecting biodiversity and the effects of pesticide application on the cropped area were of little significance. Some 80 – 85% of wild life existed in the field margins and hedgerows. In general, there was more preservation of wild life in fields cultivated by integrated farm management, especially where no-till farming was practised. Organic farming used more energy, and its only comparative benefit was its profitability, since it commands premium prices. A research report from the Manchester Business School for the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs in 2006 concluded that not enough evidence is available to state that organic agriculture will have fewer harmful effects on the environment than conventional systems. There are two factors, however, that make organic farming less, not more, environmentally friendly than other systems. First, it relies on the tractor and the plough and controls weeds by frequent mechanical weeding. This damages worms and insects in the soil, causes soil erosion, releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, disturbs nesting birds and is in every way less good for the land than no-tillage or low-tillage. By contrast both these practices can be facilitated by the cultivation of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Since herbicide-tolerant crops were introduced in the United States, more than a third of the soya bean crop grown there is now grown in unploughed fields, and overall no-till farming has increased by over 35% (Fawcett and Towery 2002). If the Soil Association is seriously concerned to “feed the soil”, it would abandon the tractor and the plough and instead of opposing genetic modification would become its leading advocate. Secondly, organic farming makes less efficient use of land than other systems. That is one reason why its products cost more. Its advocates often quote misleading figures to show it can prove as efficient as conventional farms, but omit to mention that it uses more land to achieve the same yield and that comparisons must be made over a period of years, since most organic farms need a ley period in which no crops are grown except grass, or clover or alfalfa to allow nitrogen fixation in the soil. Overall, various studies suggest that the yield of most organic crops is some 20 – 50% lower than the yield from conventional farming (Trewavas 2004). In the light of this evidence, it is not surprising that whenever claims made for the superiority of organic farming have been tested in Britain by an independent body, they have failed. Apart from the conclusions of the Food Standards Agency already mentioned, the UK Advertising Standards Authority in July 2000 required the Soil Association to withdraw leaflets claiming that organic food tastes better, is healthier and better for the environment, because it found the claims could not be substantiated (ASA Adjudications 2000).
45
29/9/10
16:25
Page 1
opinion & comment Organic farming and the developing world In prosperous European countries, organic farming is a luxury consumers can afford if they wish to pay higher prices. However, it is inexcusable for the organic movement to seek to export its practices to developing countries and to urge them to reject the modern technology that has saved millions of people from starvation, despite the huge increase in the population of world. Furthermore, it has the effrontery to denounce the Green Revolution that saved hundreds of millions of lives in the developing world by applying modern farming methods that included the use of synthetic fertilisers. It denounces the technology that enabled twice as much grain to be produced in 2005 from the same acreage as in 1968 and spared agricultural land on a vast scale (Ridley 2010). Over a billion people still do not have enough to eat. Furthermore, in the next few decades the population
of the world is likely to increase by another three billion, most of whom will live in cities. Eating habits will change. With rising standards of living people will eat more meat and vegetables (and will keep more pets that are unlikely to become vegetarian). To meet these needs food production will have to double, at the least. Yet the Green Revolution is running out of steam because there is a growing shortage of good agricultural land and of water for irrigation. Besides, climate change threatens to increase droughts and turn ever more areas of the world into arid regions. How can organic farming help reduce poverty and hunger, when the world desperately needs more efficient agriculture and better use of land? In many places the only way farmers who lack modern technology can feed a growing population is by cutting down more tropical forest. GM technology holds out the hope that we can eliminate the pests and diseases that destroy half the crops in Africa and before long grow crops in
arid or salty regions where no crops grow today. The organic movement offers nothing comparable, except a return to out-dated methods of farming that preceded the Green Revolution. As C.J. Prakash, a biotechnologist who advises the Indian Government, observed: “the only thing sustainable about organic farming in the developing world is that it sustains poverty and malnutrition”. Thanks to the application of modern science to farming most people today are better fed, and live healthier and longer lives than ever before. We need every available new technology to continue this progress. Belief in organic farming is part of the current widespread mood of suspicion and even hostility towards science and technology. It smacks of nostalgia for a golden past when in some imaginary Arcadia man was at peace with nature and simple farmers led a simple life. It looks to the past not the future.
References Ames, B.N. and Gold, L.S. 1999 Pollution, pesticides and cancer misconceptions. in Fearing Food Eds: Morris J. and Bate R. Pub. Butterworth Heinemann. ASA Adjudications 12 July 2000 www.asa.org.uk/adjudications. Block, G., Patterson, B. and Subar, A. 1992 Fruit, vegetables, and cancer prevention: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Nutrition and Cancer, 18, 1-29. Coggon, D. and Inskip, H.1994 Is there an epidemic of cancer? British Medical Journal. 308, 701-708. Fawcett, R and Towery, D. 2002 How New Technologies Can Improve the Environment By Reducing the Need to Plow. Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology, www.ctic.purdue.edu
Hansen, H. 1981 Comparison of chemical composition and taste of biodynamically and conventionally grown vegetables. Qualitas Plantarum Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 30, 203-211. Health Which?, 1999 House of Lords Select Committee, Organic Farming and the European Union, p17. Higginbotham, S., Leake, A.R., Jordan, V.W.L. and Ogilvy, S.E., 2000 Environmental and ecological aspects of Integrated, organic and conventional farming systems. Aspects of Applied Biology, 62, 15–20. Holden, P., 1999 House of Lords Select Committee, Organic Farming and the European Union, Q 38. Krebs, J. 2002 Why natural may not
equal healthy. Nature, 415, 117. Manchester Business School, Food Production and Consumption, a Research Report for DEFRA, December 2006 Ridley M. The Rational Optimist, Fourth Estate 2010, p143 Trewavas, A.J., 2004 A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture. Crop Protection, 23, 757-781. Watson, C.A. and Atkinson, D. 2002 Organic Farming: The appliance of science. Proceedings of the UK Organic Research Conference. March, Aberystwyth. p13-17.
Rural landscape with tractor road in wheat field
WORLD AGRICULTURE
45
46
29/9/10
16:25
Page 1
opinion & comment
Organic farming myths and reality Nicolas Lampkin Summary Organic farming represents a promising, if still imperfect, approach to improving the sustainability, quality and health impacts of agriculture. Production standards have become highly codified and regulated to protect consumers and enable producers to benefit from specialist markets. Certified organic farming is now widely adopted in many countries. While the regulations make the concept appear unduly rigid to some, the underlying scientifically-based, agro-ecological understanding and principles are fundamental to the development and management of successful organic systems, having wider applicability beyond certified organic production. Research studies have demonstrated that organic management practices and systems have, to varying extents, direct and indirect impacts on soil ecosystems, plant and animal health, productivity, food quality and the environment, both in industrialised and developing countries. At the same time, the lower yields associated with organic systems in industrialised countries present a challenge both to find ways of better assessing the total productivity of farming systems, including ecosystem services, and to develop improved systems to close the productivity gap and enhance organic farming’s potential contribution to sustainable food security. Key words: Organic farming, agro-ecology, agricultural sustainability, food quality
Introduction Since the early 1990s, organic farming has grown significantly. It now accounts for close to 5% of European agricultural land use, with levels approaching 10% in Wales and Southwest England, and 20% in Sweden and Austria. Globally, certified organic farming in 2008/9 involved 1.4 million producers on 35 million ha and a market retail sales value of more than US$ 50 billion (Willer and Kilcher 2010). There is also a significant area of uncertified land managed organically, often by subsistence farmers, for which no statistical data are available. Despite its long history and current scale, organic farming continues to be controversial, with myths and misconceptions in abundance on both sides of the debate. Given the extent of public and private investment in organic farming, it is pertinent to ask what lies behind it and does it deliver any benefits?
Glossary Eutrophication: degradation of water quality owing to enrichment by nutrients, primarily nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), which result in excessive plant (principally algae) growth and decay. Ecosystem services: Environmental benefits which sustain and enhance human activities and the general environment.
46
What is organic farming? Organic farming is commonly misconceived as being simply about the non-use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture. While this is (up to a point) a characteristic of the approach, it says nothing about what organic management involves and why certain technologies and practices are preferred over others. Simply not using synthetic inputs and doing nothing else (organic farming by default) is likely to be a failure in productivity, financial and environmental sustainability terms. The idea that organic farming is how all farming used to be, or at least agriculture before the mid 20th Century, is also a long way from reality. Organic farming can be defined as an
WORLD AGRICULTURE
approach to agriculture where the aim is to create integrated, humane, environmentally and economically sustainable production systems (Lampkin, 2003). This encompasses key objectives relating to achieving high levels of environmental protection, resource use sustainability, animal welfare, food security, safety and quality, social justice and financial viability. Maximum reliance is placed on locally, or farm-derived, renewable resources (working as far as possible within closed cycles) and the management of self-regulating ecological and biological processes and interactions (e.g. biological nitrogen fixation and biological pest control via agro-ecosystem management (Altieri 1995)), in order to provide acceptable levels of crop, livestock
47
29/9/10
16:26
Page 1
opinion & comment and human nutrition, protection from pests and diseases, and an appropriate return to the human and other resources employed. Reliance on external inputs, whether chemical or organic, is reduced as far as possible in order to promote a self-reliant, selfsustaining system. The term 'organic', first used in this context in the 1940s, refers not to the type of inputs used, but to the concept of the farm as an organism (or system in modern terminology), in which all the component parts – the soil minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, insects, plants, animals and humans – interact to create a coherent and stable whole. In many European countries, organic agriculture is known as biological or ecological agriculture, reflecting the emphasis on biology and ecosystem management rather than external inputs. The ideas and principles underpinning organic farming as a coherent concept go back almost 100 years (e.g. to King 1911; see also Lockeretz 2007). Since then, different issues have come to the fore at different times, from soil conservation and the dustbowls in the 1930s (Howard 1940; Balfour 1943), to pesticides following Silent Spring (Carson 1962), energy following the 1973 oil crisis (Lockeretz 1977), and subsequently to current concerns about animal welfare, biodiversity loss, climate change, resource depletion and food security. These ideas are also reflected in the four fundamental principles of organic farming – health, ecology, fairness and care – defined by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM, 2005). The definition of organic farming and the debate surrounding it is further influenced by the development of the market for organic food since the 1970s, a relatively recent development in the history of organic farming (Lockeretz 2007). In order to maintain the financial viability of organic systems in the absence of government policy support, producers looked to consumer willingness to pay higher prices for the perceived benefits
of organic food. In some cases, this reflected more altruistic environmental, animal welfare and social concerns; in others more ‘selfinterested’ concerns relating to food quality and safety, in particular issues relating to pesticide residues and health. To protect consumers and bona fide producers, the development of the organic market involved the development of production standards. As the market developed and grew, many countries, including the USA and those in the EU, introduced legal regulation. The original EU regulation (EC 1991) was substantially revised in 2007 (EC 2007), in particular to include a clearer statement of the underlying principles of organic farming that might be used in future as a basis for determining acceptability, or otherwise, of specific practices. For many, these regulations have become the standard definition of organic farming, even though they contain some black/white distinctions, when in practice shades of grey may be more appropriate.
The role of science in organic farming Organic farming is sometimes challenged as being unscientific, or worse ‘anti-science’. This is far from the case. The scientific method has a fundamental role to play in understanding how agriculture and ecosystems work, and in understanding how they can be managed to help sustain food production and other ecosystem services on which our existence depends. As such, science has played, and still does play, a particularly important role in the development of organic farming concepts and their validation, and is central to research on organic farming (e.g. Niggli et al. 2008). The scientific method that has delivered so much to the development of human knowledge and understanding is central to that process, although we may still struggle at the frontiers of methodology, particularly with respect to the understanding of complex systems.
Technology, on the other hand, so often closely intertwined with science, is a different matter. The acceptability or otherwise of a particular technology, such as renewable or nuclear energy, GM or non-GM plant cultivars, or the fertilisers, pesticides and agricultural mechanisation that drove the Green Revolution, however well founded in science, should depend on careful assessment of costs and benefits, encompassing economic, environmental, health, social, cultural and ethical aspects. Science may well be essential to help us make these assessments, to test the evidence with respect to different options. However, different individuals, with their different life experiences and perspectives on the importance of the various costs and benefits, may well come to different conclusions about the appropriateness of a particular technology. That is the nature of discourse and debate and not necessarily a pro- or anti-science perspective. The wide range of issues reflected in the development of organic farming as a concept also explain why it is possible to find some inconsistencies in the way the idea of organic farming is presented by its proponents. Many of these are lay people who may not always have the same facility with scientific understanding, or communication, as trained scientists, but that should not necessarily invalidate their contribution to the debate.
Impacts of organic farming practices Minimising external inputs
While it is true that organic standards prohibit most synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, the reasons for this do not include the idea that there is a difference between syntheticallyderived and naturally-derived molecules. Although it may be sometimes clumsily expressed by lay proponents, the idea of ‘chemical-free’ food is also nonsense, as all food (not to mention all organisms and elements) contain chemicals.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
47
48
29/9/10
16:26
Page 1
opinion & comment The main reasons for the exclusion of, or reduced reliance on, synthetic inputs in organic standards relate to the desire to conserve non-renewable resources and to apply the precautionary principle with respect to potential environmental impacts. This is reflected in the ideas of: a) trying to work with locally or farmderived renewable resources, as far as possible within closed cycles, in order to conserve resources and enhance self-reliance; and b) trying to work where possible with the agro-ecosystem to deliver ecosystem services and sustain productivity. However, this can also impact on soil ecosystem and plant and animal health, because the form in which nutrients are applied does make a difference. This is most easily illustrated with respect to nitrogen inputs. All plants (and for that matter animals) require nitrogen – it is a basic component of proteins amongst other things. Nitrogen normally exists as nitrogen gas in the atmosphere, but cannot be taken up by plants in this form – plants take up virtually all their nitrogen in solution as either nitrate (NO3-) or ammonium (NH4+) ions (not molecules). Nitrogen gas can enter the soil ecosystem and be available for uptake in a variety of forms through a process of fixation requiring significant energy inputs, which may happen atmospherically (via lightning, to a limited and uncontrollable extent), industrially (in the Haber process, typically but not exclusively using fossil energy), and biologically (often in a symbiotic relationship where the energy source is solar energy captured by photosynthesis). Biological fixation is preferred in organic farming, as it is consistent with the ecosystem management approach and use of non-renewable, fossil energy inputs is reduced. Pathways of fixed nitrogen through the soil ecosystem (see e.g. Brady 1984) vary depending on the form in which nitrogen has been fixed. In particular, nitrate ions, often a form in which industrially fixed nitrogen is applied, are very prone to leaching, while biologically fixed nitrogen is initially bound in the protein of soil
48
WORLD AGRICULTURE
organisms and plants, eventually being broken down through the mineralisation process to form ammonium ions which can be taken up by plants. However, as a positive ion, ammonium may also be held by negatively charged clay particles and humic acids in the soil and therefore it is not leached to the same extent as nitrate, although it may be oxidised to nitrate form if not held in the soil or utilised by plants. Surplus ammonium taken up by plants cannot be stored, whereas plants can store surplus nitrate ions in the sap. The stored nitrate can act as a nutrient reserve for pests (e.g. aphids) and pathogens, enabling more rapid growth and reproduction, potentially leading to the development of plant health problems (Huber and Watson 1974). Excess nitrate content of vegetables has been a significant focus for food safety standards too, owing to concerns about potential impacts on human health. It is also often claimed that there is no difference between nitrogen as plant food obtained from mineral fertiliser or from organic manures. However, with organic manures, nutrients are applied to the soil together with organic matter, providing a source of energy (stored in carbon compounds) for the soil ecosystem that is not available with mineral fertilisers. While soil organisms will seek to utilise the nutrients supplied by either source, they also need an energy source for respiration, growth and reproduction. In the mineral fertiliser case, soil organisms seeking to utilise the nutrients applied will need to break down existing soil organic matter, contributing to the declining soil organic matter levels that have been associated with intensive cropping systems (Boardman and Poesen 2006). So, while all plants require nitrogen, whether provided organically or not, there are potentially significant environmental, resource use, quality and health issues related to the way in which nitrogen is captured, and the form in which it is applied, that the organic approach seeks to address and consequently impacts (Reganold et al. 1987; Reganold et al. 1993; Mäder et al. 2002).
Production methods and food quality It is well established that plant and animal breeding can lead to quality differences, as for example between Jersey and Holstein dairy breeds and between milling and feed wheat cultivars. Management practices can also make a difference, for example the timing/quantity of nitrogen fertiliser inputs is known to be critical to the management of protein levels in cereals and sugar levels in sugar beet. The impacts of soil mineral deficiencies on plant nutritional value and animal/human health are also well known. There is therefore no question that the way food is produced can, and often does, influence its quality and there is therefore a reasonable basis for positing a scientific hypothesis that there may be differences in the quality of food from organic and non-organic systems (whether for better or for worse is another issue). The problem in making an overall assessment of organic food quality, however, is that there is a huge variation in organic systems globally, ranging from intensive horticulture to extensive mountain sheep ranging, and from tropical to Nordic climatic and geographical conditions, with wide variations in underlying soil types and genetic materials. Apart from a quite general finding that organic products tend to have lower pesticide residue levels (the significance of which can be debated), it is virtually impossible to reach a positive conclusion that organic food is always better quality than non-organic. There have now been a number of reviews of organic food quality in peer-reviewed journals and more systematic reviews (e.g. Woese et al. 1997; Brandt and Molgaard 2001; Bourn and Prescott 2002; Williams 2002; Benbrook et al. 2008; Dangour et al. 2009). Each of these reviews contains its own strengths and weaknesses, but all provide some evidence of differences even though for example Dangour et al. (2009) conclude the differences are unimportant. However, rather than attempt the impossible to prove overall superiority, it may be more helpful to focus on
49
29/9/10
16:27
Page 1
opinion & comment A field of potatoes
examples where clear differences have been shown and the mechanisms leading to the differences have been understood, so that all producers, whether organic or not, can benefit from understanding how to improve the quality of their products. For example Temperli et al. (1982) found that organic lettuce typically had lower nitrate levels than nonorganic, but when produced in winter, the differences disappeared. In summer, under conditions of high light intensity, the available nitrogen was fully utilised by the organic crops, but not by the conventional. However, lower light intensity levels in winter meant that in neither case was there full use of the available nitrate taken up by the crop. This indicated that modifications to fertility management practices, which needed to be adapted to seasonal conditions, could influence quality. In an earlier study, Schuphan (1975) examined nitrate and vitamin C levels in spinach and found that increasing levels of mineral fertiliser use led to higher nitrate and lower vitamin C contents as well as declining total sugar levels. Williams (2002) reported on studies of a more general consensus of comparisons in which mineral fertilisation resulted in higher nitrate and lower vitamin C levels, that Benbrook et al. (2008) attribute to plant physiological processes. The impacts on sugar levels are consistent with the more general understanding in sugar beet production of the need to restrict nitrogen fertiliser levels in order to maintain sugar content. Various recent studies have demonstrated that organic milk has higher Omega 3 levels than nonorganic milk (Bergamo et al. 2003; Robertson and Fanning 2004; Ellis et al. 2006). However, not all studies show similar results. In practice, the major reason for the difference in Omega 3 content can be attributed to the balance between grass and concentrates in the diet. Milk from cows fed on a high forage, low concentrate diet will have a higher Omega 3 content (Dewhurst et al. 2003). While organic producers tend to work with less concentrates in line with organic principles, this is not always the case where organic standards are pushed to their limits in order to boost production. In conclusion, it is clear that the way food is produced can affect its quality,
and that some aspects of organic practice do have specific impacts on food quality. However, it is not possible on the basis of current evidence for a general presumption in favour of organic products. That does not mean that some quality issues relating to organic food are not worthy of further scientific investigation – the results could have much wider agricultural and public health relevance.
Productivity and food security Throughout its (post-1940s) history, the organic approach has been challenged that lower yields will result in reduced food security. Earl Butz, Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, declared in 1971: ‘before we go back to an organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million Americans we are going to let starve or go hungry’ (Lockeretz 2007). In the 1980s, the
agricultural input manufacturers in the UK placed full page advertisements in the national press showing the cricket fields of England having to be ploughed up if organic farming became more widespread. With food security once again high on the political agenda, these concerns have resurfaced. There is no question that organic yields are often lower than non-organic, with the extent of the difference related to prevailing levels of nitrogen fertiliser use. Where conventional N input use is high, for example for wheat in the UK, the yield difference may be as high as 40-50% (Moakes and Lampkin 2010). However, in other situations where conventional input use is low, for example wheat in the USA, yield differences may be only 1020% or non-existent, as with grain legume crops (Mäder et al. 2002; Pimentel et al. 2005; Badgley et al. 2007). While some might compare current yields with pre-1950 yields to make a point, these comparisons are
WORLD AGRICULTURE
49
50
29/9/10
16:27
Page 1
opinion & comment irrelevant as organic farming has benefited from many of the advances in breeding and production techniques that have taken place since then. UK organic wheat yields currently average 4-5t/ha (Moakes and Lampkin 2010) with some producers achieving twice that, while global average wheat yields are still at around 3t/ha. The combination of lower yields with the need for a fertility building break in organic rotations is used by some critics to argue that to produce crops organic farming needs three times as much land as is needed for nonorganic. However, this analysis does not take account of the livestock feed, biofuel feedstocks and other ecosystem services that may be generated from the clover/grass leys; total system productivity needs to be considered when making such comparisons, not just individual crop yields. Similarly, higher stocking rates for livestock on conventional farms are more often related to increased reliance on purchased feedstuffs (from productive land elsewhere in the world) than on differences in grassland output. A preliminary, unpublished assessment by the author of productivity data for different farm types obtained from Moakes and Lampkin (2010) indicate that for most UK farm types involving livestock, the overall productivity gap is only about 10%. The ability to achieve this with reduced reliance on non-renewable inputs (see below) means organic systems actually have a potential contribution to make to sustainable food security, even in industrialised countries. However, larger differences exist for cropping and horticultural farm types, indicating a need for these organic producers to consider how better use might be made of the fertility building phase of their rotations, for example by using the biomass produced as a bio-fuel feedstock. Despite this, the issue of food security is much bigger than the question of the relative productivity of organic and non-organic systems in the UK. Factors of distribution and access to food (food sovereignty), diet, waste in processing, retailing and domestic consumption are all relevant
50 WORLD AGRICULTURE
and should be addressed before we engage in the pursuit of more food production. With energy, society is finally beginning to learn the lesson that conservation and reducing demand is as important as new generating capacity. If we are to ensure a food system that can be sustained into the long term then we need a similar approach. So far, this discussion assumes that people have the financial resources to buy food that is available on world markets, or to buy the inputs needed to generate high levels of productivity. In some cases, producers in developing countries can even take advantage of the premium price organic export markets for cocoa, coffee and tropical fruit and vegetables (ITC 2004). However, in many developing countries resource poor, subsistence farmers have neither the ability to purchase inputs, nor the ability to buy food at the prices represented by global markets. Food sovereignty, the capacity to meet food requirements locally in a manner appropriate to specific communities, is a key issue. There are now many examples or organic/agro-ecological approaches being successfully implemented to increase (not decrease) the levels of productivity these producers can achieve, by making better use of their existing resources through improved knowledge and technical ability (Scialabba and Hattam 2002). A study by ICROFS and IFPRI scientists (Halberg et al. 2006) concluded that, while yields in Europe and North America would be reduced, this would be offset by increases in self-sufficiency and decreased net food imports in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. This outcome would owe to the potential improvements in yields from (non-certified) organic/agro-ecological approaches, compared with current low input systems, provided that the change is supported by capacity building and research.
Farmland biodiversity and ‘natural’ inputs Organic farming practices have both direct and indirect impacts on the environment, in particular on
biodiversity. This in part arises from the very significant reduction in the use of biocides in arable and horticultural production, so that not only in field margins, but also within the crop itself, greater species diversity can be found. Indirect benefits may result, for example, from the prohibition on herbicides leading to a more even distribution of winter and spring cereals in organic rotations for weed management purposes, in turn providing better over-wintering conditions for farmland birds. There are, however, a (very) small number of pesticides and fungicides that continue to be permitted under organic standards, including ‘natural’ pesticides such as pyrethrum and ‘traditional’ copper-based fungicides. This does not reflect a view that because they are ‘natural’ they must be ‘alright’, but more that for certain problems it has so far proved difficult to develop alternative solutions that more closely reflect organic/agroecological principles. Where they exist, the health and environmental risks of these products are well recognised and their use has been restricted, and kept under review (e.g. rotenone) or prohibited (e.g. nicotine).In most cases (apart from vineyards and orchards) their use is infrequent. In the case of copper sulphate and other permitted copper-based fungicides, the negative impacts are acknowledged and there is an intensive programme of research to identify alternative management approaches so that their use can be brought to an end. Unlike the food quality debate, there is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the benefits of organic farming (e.g. Stolze et al. 2000; Shepherd et al. 2003; Bengtsson et al. 2005; Fuller et al. 2005; Hole et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2009; Gabriel et al. 2010). Where comparisons have been made, organic systems often outperform integrated farming systems, but both represent improvements on intensive conventional systems. This does not mean that there will not be studies where organic systems fare worse under some parameters, for example the Rhone-Poulenc sponsored Boarded Barns comparison of conventional,
51
29/9/10
16:28
Page 1
opinion & comment organic and integrated systems in the 1990s (Higginbotham et al. 2000). These individual studies, while giving pause for thought, do not invalidate the overall body of evidence in favour of organic farming. However, as with the food quality comparisons, there is a very wide range of organic systems practiced. Within each farm type individual farms will achieve environmental outputs to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the priorities, knowledge and expertise of the farmer. It is therefore difficult to guarantee a consistent level of environmental outputs from systems approaches, such as organic or integrated farming. All agriculture involves disturbance of the ‘natural’ environment with some negative environmental impacts. No system can achieve a perfect level of sustainability, so it is more relevant to focus on relative performance between systems and incremental improvements that move agriculture in the right direction.
Profitability and efficiency of resource use The usual definition of productivity in terms of output per unit of land ignores productivity (or efficiency) in response to other potentially limited inputs. As these other resources become scarcer, this is an important issue. In general terms, organic systems use less non-renewable resources (in particular fossil energy and mineral fertilisers) per hectare than do conventional systems (Stolze et al. 2000). In many cases the differences are such that the use of these resources per unit of food produced is also lower (Pimentel et al. 2005; Lampkin 2007). Even in the case of land as a resource, improvements in soil quality and reductions in soil erosion associated with organic management are important factors in ensuring soil conservation and maintaining the land available for agriculture. While the perception is that organic farming involves increased mechanisation for soil cultivation and weed control, intensive tillage occurs less frequently in organic systems (because continuous arable cropping is not practiced) and the fertility building phase in organic crop rotations restores soil carbon levels, soil biological activity and soil quality following cultivation (e.g. Reganold et al. 1987; Mäder et al. 2002). There are also active efforts to develop
decreased tillage systems compatible with organic standards. With water, oil, soil, biodiversity and mineral resources (in particular phosphates) all increasingly under pressure, systems that can improve productivity with respect to these resources may be as, or even more, important than those that achieve high productivity with respect to land area alone. The issue of which of these resources is most seriously limiting for food security is one which still needs more debate. The intensive use of resources such as oil and mineral nutrients is associated with downsides from emissions and environmental pollution, notably greenhouse gases and eutrophication. Organic systems have demonstrated benefits that mirror the reduced reliance on nonrenewable resources (e.g. Stolze et al. 2000; Schader 2010). However, this might involve a trade-off between improved performance in some areas and reduced performance in others. For example, with organic milk production, increased methane emissions per litre milk are likely because of lower yields per cow, but these increases may be counterbalanced by reduced nitrous oxide emissions owing to the restrictions on nitrogen fertiliser use, yet resulting in an overall improvement with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (Lampkin 2007). Owing to the lower yields associated with organic farming in industrialised countries, it is often assumed that organic farming involves reduced profits. Increasing yield has always been a key strategy of farmers to help spread overhead costs and reduce costs of production in response to falling prices, so this view is understandable. By significantly reducing the use of inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides, there is some potential for cost savings, but this is usually insufficient to compensate fully for the reductions in crop yields. The 50-100% premium prices for crops obtainable in the UK organic market (determined mainly by supply and demand interactions) are therefore essential to close the gap, but these prices generally more than compensate for the remaining differences, leading to higher gross margins per hectare (Lampkin and Padel 1994; Offermann and Nieberg 2000; Pimentel et al. 2005; Lampkin et al. 2008; Moakes and Lampkin 2010). Owing to the use of legumes,
‘Owing to the lower yields associated with organic farming in industrialised countries, it is often assumed that organic farming involves reduced profits’ differences in output from grassland are smaller than for other arable crops, and there is more potential for cost savings on inputs, especially nitrogen fertiliser, to make up the difference for cattle and sheep enterprises. This is important, as price differentials tend to be lower than for crops (10-25% in the UK). However, the organic certification requirement to use organic purchased feeds can add to costs despite the lower quantities used. For pigs and poultry, the requirements to use free range systems, longer finishing periods and organic feeds can add substantially to costs and may not be covered by the prices received. When similar farm types are compared, labour, machinery, power, rent and interest and other general farm costs do not differ significantly (Offermann and Nieberg 2000; Moakes and Lampkin 2010). While some have claimed significant increases in labour requirements for organic farming, in practices the differences are not large – the main differences occur where high value horticultural, processing or directmarketing activities are introduced and the increased labour costs can be justified by these activities. However, similar fixed costs per farm often translate into higher fixed costs per tonne owing to the reduced output. The overall effect of output reductions, cost savings from reduced inputs, similar fixed costs and agrienvironmental policy support is that organic farms make similar or slightly higher incomes than their conventional counterparts (Offermann and Nieberg 2000; Moakes and Lampkin 2010). In a European context, both entrepreneurial marketing activities and agrienvironmental policy support are important factors in maintaining similar relative incomes (Offermann et al. 2009; Stolze and Lampkin 2009; Schader 2010).
WORLD AGRICULTURE
51
52
29/9/10
16:28
Page 1
opinion & comment Conclusions It is certainly valid to argue that some of the differences identified between organic and conventional systems can be attributed to specific management practices that can be adopted by any farmer whether organic or not. However, it is important to remember that the organic approach represents an attempt to combine several practices in a way that will deliver broad sustainability, health and quality objectives. It is the combination of these different components/practices that defines the organic system, and it is the interactions between these practices that make comparisons at systems level relevant. A practice that has advantages in one respect but disadvantages in another may have those disadvantages offset by another practice in the bundle. The need for more rigid definitions of these ‘bundles’ of practices comes if there is an attempt to realise a market premium. Conceptually, this is not different from similar attempts to define (different) ‘bundles’ of practices that make up integrated farming systems (Higginbotham et al. 2000) and to achieve a market premium for them, for example as LEAF Marque in the UK (LEAF 2010). Neither is the concept different from other approaches to improve agricultural sustainability, including the Sustainable Agriculture standard currently under development in the USA. However, while the organic market has played a very important role in maintaining the financial viability of organic systems, there is a real danger that it can become an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, that of supporting the development of more sustainable farming systems. ‘Minimalist’ organic systems, designed to just comply with organic standards by substituting permitted ‘organic’ inputs for prohibited ‘non-organic’ inputs may not deliver the expectations of consumers, citizens or policy-makers. In addition, the regulatory system, particularly at international level, may become so rigid because of the difficulties involved in getting international consensus for change, that the development of concepts and improved practices in response to new scientific understanding may be constrained. There is therefore a need, scientifically and otherwise, to continue working outside the box and to continue challenging long held views. Genuine efforts are being made by organic producers and those working with them in the scientific community to improve the sustainability, quality and health impacts of food production in the context of the current institutional and legal framework within which they operate. Rather than denigrate them, it would be better if we could engage in open dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses of all the different farming approaches currently open to us and assess their relative contributions. In facing the coming challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, resource scarcity and food security, we need to keep all options open to us – an evolving approach to organic farming remains one of them.
References
Altieri, M. Agroecology – the scientific basis of alternative agriculture, 2nd edition. London, Intermediate Technology, 1995. Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Jahi Chappell, M., AvilesVazquez, K., Samulon, A. & Perfecto, I. (2007) Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22, 86–108. Balfour, E.B. The living soil. London, Faber and Faber, 1943. Benbrook, C., Zhao, X., Yanez, J., Davies, N. & Preston, A. New evidence confirms the nutritional superiority of plant-based organic foods. Boulder, The Organic Centre, 2008. Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. & Weibull, A.C. (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 261-269. Bergamo, P., Fedele, E., Iannibelli, L. & Marzillo, G. (2003) Fat-soluble vitamin contents and fatty acid composition in organic and conventional Italian dairy products. Food Chemistry, 82, 625-631. Boardman, J & Poesen, J. (eds.) Soil erosion in Europe. Chichester, Wiley, 2006. Bourn, D. & Prescott, J. (2002) A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42, 1-34. Brady, N.C. The nature and properties of soils. New York, Macmillan, 1984. Brandt, K. & Molgaard, J.P. (2001) Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods? Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 81, 924-931. Carson, R. Silent Spring. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Dangour, A., Dodhia, S., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., Lock, K. & Uauy, R. Comparison of composition (nutrients
52 WORLD AGRICULTURE
and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature. London, Food Standards Agency, 2009. Dewhurst R.J., Fisher W.J., Tweed J.K.S. & Wilkins R.J. (2003) Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 1. Production responses with different levels of concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science, 86: 2598-2611. EC (1991) Council Regulation (EEC No 2092/91) of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities, L198 (22.7.91), 1-15. EC (2007) Council Regulation (EC No 834/2007) of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Communities, L189 (20.7.2007), 1-23. Ellis, K., Innocent, G., Grove-White, D., Cripps, P., McLean, W.G., Howard, C.V. & Mihm, M. (2006) Comparing the fatty acid composition of organic and conventional milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 19381950. Fuller, R.J., Norton, L.R., Feber, R.E., Johnson, P.J., Chamberlain, D.E., Joys, A.C., Mathews, F., Stuart, R.C., Townsend, M.C., Manley, W.J., Wolfe, M.S., Macdonald, D.W. & Firbank, L.G. (2005) Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa. Biology Letters, 1, 431-434. Gabriel, D., Sait, S.M., Hodgson, J.A., Schmutz, U., Kunin, W.E. & Benton, T.G. (2010) Scale matters: the impact of organic farming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecology Letters, 13, 858-869. Higginbotham, S., Leake, A.R., Jordan, V.W.L. & Ogilvy, S.E. (2000) Environmental and ecological aspects of integrated, organic and conventional farming systems. Aspects of Applied Biology, 62, 15–20. Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, P.V. & Evans, A.D.
(2005). Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 113-130. Howard, A. An agricultural testament. London, Oxford University Press, 1940. Huber, D.M. & Watson, R.D. (1974) Nitrogen form and plant disease. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 12, 139-165. IFOAM. The principles of organic agriculture. Bonn, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movemements, 2005. ITC. World markets for organic fruit and vegetables: Opportunities for developing countries in the production and export of organic horticultural products. Geneva, International Trade Centre, 2004. King, F.H. Farmers of forty centuries: permanent agriculture in China, Korea and Japan. Madison, King, 1911.Lampkin, N.H. (2003) Organic farming. In: Soffe, R.J. (ed.) Primrose McConnell’s Agricultural Notebook. 20th edition. Oxford, Blackwell Science, pp 288-303. Lampkin, N.H. Organic farming’s contribution to climate change and agricultural sustainability. Paper presented at Welsh Organic Farming Conference, Builth Wells, October 2007.Lampkin, N.H., Measures, M., & Padel, S. (eds.) 2009 Organic farm management handbook. (8th edition) Aberystwyth University, 2008. Lampkin, N.H. & Padel, S. (eds.) The economics of organic farming: an international perspective. Wallingford, CAB International, 1994. LEAF (2010) The LEAF Marque. Stoneleigh, Linking Environment and Farming. http://www.leafuk.org/leaf/farmers/LEAF marquecertification.eb accessed 02/09/10. Lockeretz, W. (ed.) Organic farming: an international history. Wallingford, CAB International, 2007. Lockeretz, W. (ed.) Agriculture and energy. New York, Academic Press, 1977. Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D.,
53
29/9/10
16:29
Page 1
opinion & comment References
Gunst, L., Fried, P. & Niggli, U. (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296 (5573), 16941697.Moakes, S. & Lampkin, N.H. Organic farm incomes in England and Wales, 2008/9. Report to Defra. Aberystwyth University, 2010. Niggli, U., Slabe, A., Schmid, O., Halberg, N & Schlueter, M. Vision for an organic food and farming research agenda to 2025. Brussels, TP Organics (www.tporganics.eu), IFOAM EU Group and ISOFAR, 2008. Norton, L., Johnson, P., Joys, A., Stuart, R., Chamberlain, D., Feber, R., Firbank, L.. Manley, W., Wolfe, M., Hart, B.; Mathews, F., Macdonald, D. & Fuller, R.J. (2009) Consequences of organic and non-organic farming practices for field, farm and landscape complexity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 129, 221-227. Offermann, F. & Nieberg, H. Economic performance of organic farms in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, 5. Stuttgart, University of Hohenheim, 2000. Offermann, F., Nieberg, H. & Zander, K. (2009) Dependency of organic farms on direct payments in selected EU member states. Food Policy, 34, 273279.Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D. & Seidel, R. (2005)
Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55, 573581. Reganold, J.P., Elliott, L.F. & Unger, Y.L. (1987) Long-term effects of organic and conventional farming on soil erosion. Nature, 330, 370-372. Reganold, J.P.; Palmer, A.S.; Lockhart, J.C. & Macgregor, A.N. (1993) Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. Science, 260 (5106), 344-349. Robertson, J. & Fanning, C. Omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic and conventional milk. University of Aberdeen, 2004. Schader, C. Cost-effectiveness of organic farming for achieving environmental policy targets in Switzerland. PhD Thesis. Frick, Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau, 2010. Schuphan, W. (1975) Yield maximisation versus biological value. Qualitas Plantarum, 24, 281-310. Scialabba, N. & Hattam, C. (eds.) Organic agriculture, environment and food security. Environment and Natural Resources Series, 4. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2002. Shepherd, M., Pearce, B., Cormack, W., Philipps, L., Cuttle, S., Bhogal, A., Costigan, P. & Unwin, R. An assessment of the environmental impacts of organic
farming. London, Defra, 2003. Stolze, M. & Lampkin, N. (2009) Policy for organic farming: rationale and concepts. Food Policy, 34, 237-244. Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Haering, A., & Dabbert, S. The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, 6. Stuttgart, University of Hohenheim, 2000. Temperli, A., Künsch, U., Schärer, H. & Konrad, P. (1982) Einfluss zweier Anbauweisen auf den Nitratgehalt von Kopfsalat. Schweizerische Landwirtschaftliche Forschung, 21, 167196. Willer, H. & Kilcher, L. (eds.) The world of organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends, 2010. Bonn, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements and Frick, Forschungs-institut fuer Oekologischen Landbau, 2010. Williams, C.M. (2002) Nutritional quality of organic foods: shades of grey or shades of green? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61, 19-24. Woese, K., Lange, D., Boess, C. & Boegl, K.W. (1997) A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods – results of a review of the relevant literature. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 74, 281-293.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
53
55
29/9/10
16:29
Page 1
instructions approximately 250 words, that includes the issues posed, the subject covered and the conclusions drawn.
of the table; avoid column lines. Excessive numbers of columns should be avoided.
The Introduction should set out the background to the subject. This is to be followed by the main body of the article in sections each of which is headed by terms defined by the nature of the paper, for example: Background, Review of evidence, the Present situation, Problems to be confronted and Resolution.
Illustrations in the form of text figures, line drawings, and computer generated figures and graphs with their captions should all be comprehensible without reference to the text. Ideally, these should be submitted in pdf format. All photographs should be half tone or colour, have a high definition (>5 million pixels/photo) and the software should be IBM/DOS compatible. Each photograph should be adequately identified with the author, paper and plate number. Photographs submitted electronically must be in separate jpg files with the essential information included in the properties box for the file. Alternatively, photographs may be posted to the Editor on disk (request address by e-mail). The plate number, authors and an indication of the paper title should also be given in a separate electronic file. Electronic-mail is satisfactory for correspondence, text and tables.
The paper should conclude with a Discussion and/or Conclusions section and finally References. Layout of headings should follow the guidance below: Title, bold 16 point Author name and affiliation Main headings central bold Arial 14 point font Secondary headings: left justified, bold Arial 12 point font Tertiary level: left justified, Arial 12 point font Quaternary (if necessary) left justified, Arial 12 point italics
Tables, figures, line drawings, photographs and graphs Figures, Tables and Photographs should not be embedded in the text but should be placed in a separate set of files from the text (indicate in text desired location, e.g. with the phrase Table xx near here on a separate line in square brackets if possible). All figures and tables should be of high resolution. If possible figures and tables should be submitted in Excel (same table(s) could be in Word, in addition) and also if possible submit the data from which the figure has been produced. Make sure all the denominations are according to international standards and the legends are clear. Tables with suitable titles must be numbered using Arabic numerals in sequence and be understandable without reference to the text. Use a horizontal line to separate column headings from data and at the bottom
Standard deviations, standard errors of the means and “n”, the number of observations associated with each mean, should all be presented. Figure and photograph headings should identify the Figure number in Times New Roman 12 point, with the title italicised.
References and citations Papers should be fully referenced using the Harvard system in the format: author(s), each followed by their initials, the year of publication, the title of the paper, the journal title in full and in italics, the Volume number in heavy type, the Issue number, the first and last page numbers. Examples: Regan, D. & Smith, A. (1979) Electrical responses evoked from the human brain. Scientific American, 241, 134-52. Klass, D. W. (ed.) Current practice of clinical electroencephalography. New York, Raven Press, 1979 ISBN. Citation of authors in the text should appear in the form: Smith et al. (2005)
or (Smith et al. 2005). More than one author should be cited in chronological order as: (Marcus 2004; Cinti 2005). If the same authors are quoted twice in a year, but in two papers the terms: (2005a; 2005b) should be used. If the same first author is quoted in two papers in a year, but with different co-authors then a list of a sufficient number of them should be given to make it clear to which paper the reference relates: (Smith, Atkins, Jeans et al. 2005), (Smith, Atkins, Sparks et al. 2005).
Communications with the Editor for publication Comments & Opinion and Letters to the Editor by e-mail will also be considered for publication. These should be concise and submitted for the purpose of making objective comments on published articles, or on important subjects that have not been covered.
Submission, Editing and Acceptance Manuscripts should be formatted to A4 justified using MS Word and 12 pt Times New Roman font. Authors’ names, qualifications, honours and affiliations should be included and submission will assume that the author accepts the conditions laid down in these Instructions to Contributors and that copyright is held by World Agriculture: problems and potential. Manuscripts should be submitted to the Editor by electronic mail, with the address of: editor@worldagriculture.net. Articles that are accepted by the editorial board will be edited and the Editor reserves the right to modify statements made by the author, or to ask for a revision, although the edited versions will be sent to the author for his or her agreement before publication. The author’s response must occur within 96 h. Moreover, during the revision process it is essential that authors respond quickly and reliably to requests for amendments, otherwise the publication deadline will be forfeited.
WORLD AGRICULTURE
55
54
29/9/10
16:29
Page 1
instructions
World Agriculture: problems and potential Instruction to contributors
T
his international Journal publishes articles based upon scientifically derived evidence that address problems and issues confronting world agriculture and food supplies. All will be subject to review by two or more scrutineers before acceptance. Authors are encouraged to take a critical approach to world-wide issues and to advance new concepts. Those wishing to submit an unsolicited article should in the first instance send a short summary of their intended paper in English by electronic mail to the Editor. The journal will publish suitable articles on agriculture and horticulture and their climatic, ecological, economic and social interactions. Relevant aspects of forestry and fisheries as well as food storage and distribution will also be acceptable. The Journal is not available for communication of previously unpublished experimental work, although original deductions from existing information are welcome. Statements must be based on sound scientifically derived evidence and all arguments must be rational and logically derived. Typical articles will be between 1 000 – 3 000 words, with photographs, and figures, line drawings and tables, where relevant. Articles outside these lengths may be acceptable, if the length can be justified. Articles that pose questions and raise issues for which answers are needed will be accepted if they meet the necessary criteria. Such questions may for example, describe an economic or husbandry problem in a developing country or ocean, resulting from climate change or some unintended consequence of policy, for which no clear solution is at hand. World Agriculture will produce one volume each year with Issue numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 occurring within each
54
WORLD AGRICULTURE
volume. Page numbers will run consecutively throughout each volume from page one onwards.
Sections The Journal has three main Sections: (1) Scientific, (2) Economic & Social, and (3) Comment & Opinion. It also accepts Letters to the Editor and includes Book Reviews and Editorials. Scientific, Economic and Social Statements of fact in the first two Sections must be based on evidence from peer-reviewed publications which must be fully referenced. Comment and Opinion Submissions must be based on considerable experience and be logically argued. Articles that pose questions and raise issues for which answers are needed will be accepted if they meet the necessary criteria following rigorous examination. Such questions may for example, describe an economic or husbandry problem in a developing country or ocean, resulting from climate change or some unintended consequence of policy, for which no clear solution is at hand. References are not essential, although they should be used to justify statements where appropriate.
Layout and typing instructions SI units and the English language must be used, the spelling being generally that of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Ed, so that words such as fertilizer should use ‘ise’ rather than the American ‘ize’ spelling. Times New Roman 12 point font should be justified for normal text and Arial should be used for headings. Standard abbreviations (e.g. Fig. and Figs) are acceptable, but specialist abbreviations and terms should be defined in a short Glossary, immediately beneath the
Summary. Additionally, key words should also be included beneath the summary. Full stops are not used in commonly accepted abbreviations (e.g. USA, UK) and should not be used when an abbreviated word ends with the same letter as the complete word (e.g., Florida as FA and cultivar as cv.). Latin terms such as circa should be italicised and ca is the abbreviation. Commercial chemicals should be referred to by their approved common names, but where a proprietary name is relevant and unavoidable it should be used with a capital initial and the manufacturer named at the first mention. Concentrations and rates of application should be clearly expressed and unambiguous, using, for example, mg/litre, or mg/L, mg/kg (not ppm). Dates should be expressed as day, month, year, as for example, 18th May 2010 The full Latin name of an organism should be given at the first mention, e.g. Heterodera avenae; an abbreviated name of the organism may be used for subsequent mentions, e.g. H. avenae. Always use numerals for specific units of measurement (e.g. 14 m, 2 d, 3 wk). For other quantities up to and including nine, spell out in full (e.g. four plots, two experiments, nine larvae). Use numerals in all instances for ten or over (e.g. 20 fields). Large numbers should be separated by spaces every 000, rather than by use of a comma, e.g., 10 000. Hyphens should be avoided if possible, for example use ‘cooperate’ rather than co-operate’.
Sequence of headings Each paper should commence with a short concise, accurate and informative Summary, normally of
56
29/9/10
16:30
Page 1
looking ahead
World Agriculture: potential future articles Professor Brian J Ford In vitro cultured meat, in a broad agricultural context Isobel Tomlinson Organic Agriculture: The farming system fit for the 21st Century, Soil Association Professor Allan Buckwell The economics of British agriculture, County Land & Business Association Dr John Sheehy Rice research, International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines Dr John Beardmore Adaptation of fish stocks to changing climate, University of Swansea Professor James Crabbe Oceanic adjustments to climate change and the food cycle, University of Buckingham Professor Vaclav Smil The N-cycle and climate change, University of Manitoba
Subject areas that World Agriculture will cover: Crop protection Disease control Animals – immunity, disease control Crop innovations Developing technology Waste in storage and in transport Pest control Fuel crops Water economy Greenhouse gases – removals/emissions
56
WORLD AGRICULTURE
Published by Wharncliffe Publishing, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS
inside back page
29/9/10
16:31
Page 1
Dear readers,
If you wish to receive regular Issues of this Journal please complete the strip and post it to: Circulation Department, Wharncliffe Publishing, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS or fax it to the publishers on 01226 734478. Or fill in the form online at www.world-agriculture.net If you wish to place an advertisement in future Issues please in the first instance contact the Publishers by e-mail editor@world-agriculture.net or by post: World Agriculture, Wharncliffe Publishing, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS. If you wish to submit an article for consideration by the Editorial Board for inclusion in a Section of World Agriculture: a) Scientific b) Economic & Social c) Opinion & Comment, or d) a Letter to the Editor, please follow the Instructions to Contributors printed on Page 46 of this Issue and submit by e-mail to the Editor at the address given at the end of the Instructions. For further information about World Agriculture please go to the following web address: www.world-agriculture.net Yours faithfully, David Frape
Name .......................................................................................................... Business Address ......................................................................................... ................................. Email .......................................................................... Contact number .......................................................................................... Job title ........................................................................................................
Back
14/10/10
15:32
Page 1