Very nice and good post. I like it.
I have noticed you don’t monetize your page, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn additional cash every month because
you’ve got hi quality content. If you want to know how to make
extra bucks, search for: Ercannou’s essential adsense alternative
The insurrance companies are very keen on attracking new possibilities like mentionned above. Given the situation that large bank and insurrance companies are clossely linked to the farm organisations (COPA) there will be no opposition to this from COPA, (and this will make a new burden fot the farmer( i.e. there was always a govt action in Belgium when there was far too much rain, so farmers got money from the govt; but once this new scheme is in practice, the Belgian govt won’t give anything anymore) But I foresee a great opposition to the limit of 60.000 euros
Hello there….My name is Mr.Raghu and I’m from India… I’m an small entrepreneur here in India.. it’s very great to see and know about the facts of Czech Republic farming and about oganic farming…I’m looking forward to start a vegetable farm in Czech Republic and sell and serve inside the Czech Republic and I would like to know how it can be possible to cultivate Vegetables and start farming…I need some help..Thank you
Certainly a worthy analysis Kevin, however unfortunately the ‘enabling’ environment in Ireland is a considerable contributory factor, weighted towards the business models of the large intensive supply chains you refer to as opposed to small scale producers, whom are considered a ‘risk’. Although similar in the rest of the EU, it is significantly less controlled given the economic reality of the importance of the Agri-food sector (export) in Ireland. DAFM and Bord Bia investment / financial Supports are predominately geared towards these supply chain interests and the export market – this particularly so, post 2008. The challenge therefore is to focus the development authorities on fulfilling their statutory obligations to producers and consumers alike – in support of a sustainable agri-food industry, consistent with EU internal market regulations and the pillars referred to and not just the selected intensive supply chains as is the current strategy. I recommend you refer to the Bord Bia commissioned and Harvard authored Pathways for Growth plan – this is the strategy being pursued from 2008 in Ireland. The strategy calls for what the authors refer to as Co-opetition and Branding (Collectivisation) – the document also states Competition Authorities and Consumer Bodies would take issue and goes on to say that they would be short sighted. The Co-opetition is the cartels you will be familiar with in each sector in Ireland and the collectivisation is An Bord Bias QAS i.e. management systems whose input requirements are those of large supply chain interests – these QAS are a defacto pre-requiste and a restrictive practice. Hence your difficulty getting to market. As an ICT professional you will immediately understand the difficulty with the design of a system, whose requirements (those of the processors and large retailers) are not in the interests of those they are intended to benefit – the producer. The issue is compounded when they serve as a restrictive practice. By signing up, you take on board the management systems requirements of the dominant supply chains i.e. these schemes further cede management control from the producer to the processor – vertical integration. When development authorities facilitate this as QAS scheme owners, the future is indeed bleak for small farmers – as per design of the Pathways for Growth Plan. My work involves the internal market regulations and ISO standards which are in breach concerning the implementation of this plan. I am happy to discuss or to publish a report on Arc2020 if you are the wider community wish to understand the specifics.
Please forward me with short courses on Agroecology
WE NEED SOIL FOR VEGETABLES AND FRUIT
Thanks for the recap .. so far so good
I have been appreciatively following this website and reading Robert”s books for many years, and this is the single most unfortunate thing I have ever seen him involved with. Please note that everything in Paul Driessen”s article is about glyphosate and cancer. Now note that 99% of the massive case against glyphosate”s health dangers to humans has nothing to do with cancer. I suggest readers try googling glyphosate health and similar combinations and follow some of the leads carefully. Though the final verdict may not be in yet, an objective reader will soon begin to learn about some of the really huge issues at stake. A massive experiment on humans” health is currently being conducted due to glyphosate and the preliminary results are looking very ugly indeed. Forget the cancer red herring.
You may also be interested in this soil and farming series we’re running at the mo (your comment is on an article from a while back, whereas this is a live debate. In fact, get in touch if you’d like to make a contribution) https://www.arc2020.eu/tag/soilmatters/
In regards to the critique posted by Frank Armstrong, for a system that “doesn’t scale” there are now over 50 mill hectares of range land on 5 continents using holistic management. Here’s a more recent article by Barry Estabrook, who listened to both sides of the debate, and then witnessed for himself Holistic Management in practice on a ranch. Low and beholds, HM works. Here’s Estabrook’s article: http://www.eatingwell.com/article/290723/this-man-wants-you-to-eat-more-meat/ For those people who claim there is no science backing up Savory’s claims, read Teague, Wong, Rowntree, Stanley and other people’s research supporting HM. A growing body of research exists. Though articles like this one by Slate seem to always miss it.
Hi Camilla, would you like to do a more detailed post on this topic for our soil debate?
Hi, what is the role of manure for the soil quality, humus and biological Life? At the moment 10% of Swedens manure is seen as waste or fuel since it comes from horse stables. This is for me a tremendous loss. We need to close the loop with agriculture, instead large scale burning for “renewable” energy is starting to solve the problem of the stables.
What ails the Irish farmers. They operate for production not food. They feed their families from the supermarkets. Such people are not worth their name on a farm deed as they have no mas on their peoples history especially the Famine.
Hi Laurent, I think the issue is that miscanthus is not that much of a tool in the specific EFA context. EFAs are supposed to be the gold standard for biodiversity.
So sth that’s good for biodiversity isn’t enough actually.
Moreover, the weighting should reflect this.
Having farmed organically here NE Scotland we have been telling people for years that there has been a large scale reduction of insects and birds especially in the lest 15-20 years,the problem is that people have not noticed the change and are becoming used to the “new normal”and think you are scare mongering for us it is a tragedy and sometimes makes us dispair.Good to see this report from Germany I would think that it is the same over much of Europe
Sad to read once again the false argument that miscanthus is no tool for biodiversity. Miscanthus and SRC provide shelter to birds and mammals. Combined with appropriate strips (flower, food), it can contribute to a sustainable biodiversity gain in the countryside by fragmenting large surfaces of monocultures.
Dear Sir, Madam,
Warm Greetings from Nepal. I am Bel Bahadur Gurung working as program Officer at SADP=Nepal Sustainable Agriculture Development Program Nepal. I have been associated with this organization since 2005 till date.
I completed permaculture Design Course PDC from Nepal Permaculture in 2004. Similarly, I completed Eco-Village Training from Findhorn Foundations Scotland UK in 2005. I have been always striving and working for the promotion of organic farming and the evolution of ecological movement. my seal interest of learning more about organic farming.
My organization works for the promotion of organic farming. It provides trainings and volunteer services to the local farmers and the people who are interested to learn about organic farming and sustainable living way. Also we provide seeds to the local farmings.
As I went through the website of your organization, I found it quite suitable for me to attend the trainings/ seminar in the upcoming events. I therefore would like to request you to provide me some more information so I could participate in your prestigious organization.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Bel Bahadur Gurung
P.O. Box 220
Thank you for this succinct, if depressing, analysis of why Ag policies are the way they are. There are many parallels with the water sector, which is also stuck in 20th Century big-business policies (big dams, a message of water scarcity, and cooption of the sustainability and poverty frames to justify everything). The approach some of us are taking to counter this is to employ the frame of Ethics as a way of revealing the tacit values that are being advanced by the conventional actors. Calling out the values and exposing those values to the light of democratic forces (social and environmental NGOs), and finding common cause with Indigenous Peoples’ water sovereignty struggles (e.g., DAPL), as well as organized religions (e.g., the Vatican’s recent hosting of a “water values” conference) is part of this strategy. But the core feature, which I think might be relevant to the Ag sector, is the development of a global Water Ethics Charter currently in progress (http://waterethics.org/the-water-ethics-charter/), and even more broadly, framing the topic of “water ethics” as a necessary sub-field of water governance, just as bioethics has become a recognized dimension of health governance. Perhaps it’s time for a Charter of Agricultural Ethics, and developing a corresponding sub-field of Ag Ethics, that would go beyond the right-to-food (just as water ethics is much bigger than the human right to water) to provide a framework of the ethical interactions of agriculture with environmental, social, cultural, and governance values, in addition to the economic dimensions. There is a robust literature of agricultural multifunctionality to draw upon, as well as a myriad of local initiatives.
I think that Michael Gove should be judged by his actions. He has already spoken against live exports, which is excellent from an animal welfare point of view. And has taken first steps to withdrawing the UK waters from the common fisheries policy, which has been disastrous for fish stocks. It is UK government action, beyond EU rules, that has brought the cod back in the North Sea — as proved by the failure of stocks to recover in the Irish Sea and elsewhere, where UK initiatives were not implemented (see Charles Clover, the Times 6 July).
Carbon Dioxide does encourage plants to grow, and increased rate of forest growth will help mitigate CO2 emission increases.
Although New Zealand is not a good model in itself (market forces only, not enough environmental policy), neither is the CAP.
I fear Miles King’s article is a knee-jerk reaction against a policy maker, who may well make the right policies (the most effective in practice), but who does not stick to the green lobby script. If so, good on him: there are many who stick to the green NGO script, supporting politically correct policies that are actually counter-productive: most wind turbines will never repay their CO2 cost, and the environmental damage caused in their construction; hydro-electric has caused massive irreversible environmental damage. The country which has reduced carbon emissions most in the world is the USA through the shale gas revolution, but no ‘respectable’ green can say that. If truth is the victim of political correctness, then the green NGOs ability to influence policy will be (and is) undermined. I say this as a green NGO staffer and conservationist myself, not part of any conventional agriculture lobby group.
Interesting article. I am also interested in WWOOFing as a way to provide organic farming knowledge, as I study the provision and transmission of farming knowledge through social interactions, collective work or peer-to-peer. If you are WWOOFer or host, please fill my survey (open until the 25th of July) https://glos.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/wwoofingknowledge
More info: http://www.ccri.ac.uk/wwoofing/
Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI) Gloucester, UK
1. IARC has declared almost everything they look at to be a potential carcinogen. If you avoided everything they (or “the State of California”) claim is carcinogenic, you probably would have to live inside a solid glass cube.
2. The IARC declaration has been refuted by many, many scientific review boards. Glyphosate is inert in the human body, and quickly excreted. There is no biological mechanism whereby glyphosate can cause cancer at low doses.
3. The few published studies that conclude that there is a correlation between non-Hodgkins lymphoma and glyphosate exposure are statistically underpowered and have design flaws. The U.S. Agricultural Health Study, covering over 50,000 agricultural workers and their families, does not show a unambiguous correlation between NHL and glyphosate exposure.
4. To summarize, the scientifically verifiable evidence and biological knowledge supports the claim that glyphosate is harmless to humans (and all mammals) at the exposures experienced by farm workers, home gardeners, or food consumers.
I have read this extensive article on excess food produce as opposed to food waste as it is only waste when it must go for disposal as was the case prior to food banks coming to the fore.
Food Cloud Ireland’s huge success story in taking ownership of excess food produce from supermarkets, did so by becoming an ‘Online Excess Food Broker’. Now although themselves are a charity they are paid by the Supermarkets to take ownership of this excess food online through their App, only then is the food donated by Food Cloud and not the supermarkets. In fact the charities collect much of this food themselves once they accept the offer made online by Food Clouds App. In the beginning of Food Cloud I attended one of Iseult Ward’s Trinity College speaches on their system. I put it to her that if the food was being donated then where was there a profit for Food Cloud, Iseult then told me they were paid to take ownership of it by the supermarkets.
Now I applaud what Food Cloud has done along with Bia but I get quite annoyed with supermarkets getting free PR on making statements of donating excess food.Now its possible that there may be some donations offered by supermarkets in addition to what they pay to have removed. Remember before ‘Online Food Waste or Excess Food Brokers’ came online, commercial waste companies were paid to dispose of that perceived waste stream.
I agree with this entirely. We run a food redistribution service in Exeter, and despite taking a lot of supermarket waste and making the supermarkets look good, they have refused to contribute to our running costs!
Growing soil is even more simple than growing vegetables crops flowers
Well planned replicating Nature’s long proven protocol as shown in following Nations deserts reversed in a few years. All self funded under UNFCCC COP3 100year rule. Simple crops yrs 2-3 serious forest 5-7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbI8YZmBP8g
Hello Darundee Tan,
you can contact the authors of the report directly over: http://www.globalagriculture.org/contact.html
Thank you for your inspiring IAASTD report.
May I ask your permission to translate the 2016 report into Thai and post it in my blog (http://wari-wari2011.blogspot.com/).
Here in Thailand, we are working on a voluntary basis to support an ongoing voluntary process, called “P.R.Model”. In some way, it can be seen as a solution to the immense problems addressed in the IAASTD report. P.R.Model is a modification of the sufficiency economy philosophy of our late beloved King. We’ll be happy to exchange our experiences and learn from yours.
For your interest, you may google search for “P.R.Model”. There are some videos on YouTube.
A beautiful vision for the transition of the CAP. A new paradigm is definitely needed. I have worked more than 20 years in NMS and in accession countries and the CAP instrumentarium has not been appropriate, and even in several countries contra productive to development of rural economies, where maybe 98% of the income support is harvested with the help of imported combined harvesters by 2% of the farmers on the expense of the vast majority. The paradigm still needs to be developed and made operational. Short value chains do not evolve by them selves. Paying willingness of the consumers is important. The sales of organics continue to increase in Denmark despite higher prices on organic products than on conventional (in average). But prices should reflect the real costs of production including all the externalities. Then the consumers will be even more attracted filling their cart in the shop or their basket in the local green market with local, traditional, organic or bio dynamic products. The more we can make this paradigm operational and make it a feasible and viable life for family farms and smallholders, the better. If I can help somewhere, let me know.
Current direct payments, that account for most of CAP budget, are clearly a case of environmentally perverse subsidies, and need to be scrapped as soon as possible. Public money should be paid only for the provision of very clearly defined public goods.
The French speaking part of the country (Belgium) rejected Ceta, so the Belgian government can’t accept Ceta (it’s in our constitution).
we agree of course that there is great value in these initiatives you mention. (we highlight and promote them all the time!). the phrase used was more in reference to how the Commission views Pillar 2 activities. Organic farmers for eg get paid for having a lower stocking rate because this is “income forgone”. Similarly with the other issue of the fig leaf – once a MS has plenty of farmers signed up to RD, it can ignore the negatives of Pillar 1 as its ‘doing something’. So I think we agree, its just the phrase we used above was for/from a particular perspective.
Hi there, when you say that ‘today rural development schemes are still the figleaf for bad farming policies and operate primarily as compensation for economic losses’, I think you underestimate the role of major schemes like LEADER, High Nature Value or Agro-Environmental & Climate. In many rural places, should these EU second pillar measures not exist, there would be more desertification and abandoned landscapes.
Legislate a floor set price for milk to go directly to farmers and make sure it is generous. The manufacturers and retailers can then take their profit.
Pillar I direct payments are actually a case of environmentally damaging subsidy, so dropping these would not harm the environment, rather to the contrary. Some of the other ideas of the the new UK DEFRA minister are indeed scary, especially separating “sheep farming” and “butterfly farming”…
We must protect our soil for the next generation
thank you Hannes,
certainly the most lucid text I’ve read since uk referendum ;-)
we need a ‘daring’ Europe.
there is still of course the fact that the 27 will, in essence, form their own team (without the UK) to negotiate with the UK…ie that the UK will inevitably be left out of this part of the process.
I am grateful to Alan for the clarification and welcome his reassuring words of wisdom.
Peter is absolutely right to highlight the importance of Article 50 to the process of a UK exit from the EU. However, I think it is overstating the case to say that “there is no role for the UK government to play in discussing the terms of the settlement that will be negotiated by the 27 remaining members of the European Union.”
Professor Renwick explains the situation in the blog post that Peter quotes as follows:
“Writing in Prospect magazine last month, Bronwen Maddox said, ‘Clause 4 says that after a country has decided to leave, the other EU members will decide the terms—and the country leaving cannot be in the room in those discussions. Repeat: we’d have no say at all on the terms on which we’d deal with the EU from then on, and no opportunity to reconsider.’ That isn’t right: Clause 4 says only that we wouldn’t be in the room when the EU decides its position in the negotiations; but of course we would be in the room when the EU is negotiating with us. Furthermore, the UK is a country with clout, and it could use that to extract some advantage.”
It may be cold comfort for those of us who view the referendum outcome as the wrong decision for both the UK and the EU but, should Brexit go ahead, it does open the possibility for a settlement that would try to minimise the damage for both sides, holding out the hope that under a new generation of political leaders the UK would seek re-admission at some point in the future.
This is terrible! TTIP should be rejected, corporate US interests are contrary to the wellbeing of individuals, the environment and governments in Europe.
Agroecology /agricology should harmoniously bring together all those involved such as agriculturists, chef, scientists, human rights etc.
Very good paper! Indeed, as the author puts it “reducing or eliminating the sanctions would expose the lack of consistency of the EU’s foreign policy.” Europe must move beyond farming model being dependent on product exports (and import of raw materials) towards true food sovereignty – that is the only way to solve problems of the farmers in the long term.
Although I have always been pro European perhaps BREXIT is the best in the end just to get away from CETA and TTIP toxic trade deals! However, if Tories remain in power, they will do whatever they can to fast-track bilateral deals with Canada and the US. We’re damned if we stay and damned if we go. It’s the WHOLE system that has to change. We are being ruled by Big multinational Corporations who are causing untold damage by by-passing our laws that are there to protect our workers, our welfare system, the NHS and our environment, flora and fauna. All this will eventually affect every single citizen and their well being.
By the way, CETA & TTIP will be irreversible once signed. Corporate Europe or UK, here we come! I hope not!
just to say scottish government announced 33% food waste reduction target last week http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Make-things-last-and-save-22da.aspx
For a longer critique of Allan Savory’s (and Sheldon Firth’s) read this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.html
Awesome article Ben!
Thanks for your comment Paul Price.
Sorry, that previous article was not a good Zimov article to refenence. I have found a much better one specifically about megafauna biomass:
I do not know why you concluded that Zimov’s estimates are based on “modern horse numbers”, as this article indicates they are based on surveys of mammoth bone densities in the permafrost of many sites across northern Siberia.
I consider Zimov’s data to be more reliable than the studies you cite because it is based on physical evidence from the pleistocene, not theoretical extrapolations of ecological principles which were derived from observations of post-Quaternary ecosystems which are well acknowledged to be dramatically different than pleistocene ecosystems.
You should read the new article I just linked, I find it far more convincing than any of the articles you have cited.
” We calculate, based on animal skeleton density in frozen soils of northern Siberia, that mammoth-steppe animal biomass and plant productivity, even in these coldest and driest of the planet’s grasslands were close to those of an African savanna. ”
And for those of you reading these comments, I encourage you to browse through all of the articles being referenced with a critical eye. Reading them FOR YOURSELF is the only reliable way to know which of us is more likely to be right. Unfortunately estimating Pleistocene biomass levels is HARD. The question is not which estimate of biomass is correct, the question is which is MORE LIKELY to be correct. For me, I choose the Zimov article cited in the comment. I trust the methodology much more.
What about that article cited by Barnosky? (http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf) Did you even read it? There is not even a single attempt at estimating pre-Quaternary animal biomass levels or compare them to modern day biomass levels in that study. So it is entirely irrelevant to the current topic of conversation.
I completely disagree with the Sheldon Frith’s comments regarding Barnosky’s 2008 PNAS paper, “Megafauna biomass tradeoff as a driver of Quaternary and future extinctions”. It is absurd to suggest that estimates of modern animal populations are “totally useless for estimating Pleistocene population levels”(in his opinion “for many obvious reasons”). In fact, his own Zimov reference does exactly the same by justifying their animal density on the basis of a self-reference assessment on modern horse numbers. By your own logic, the basis of Zimov too then is ‘totally useless’.
Also, the Silva and Downing paper that Sheldon Frith disparages gives a highly detailed analysis of the scaling of density and body mass for terrestrial animals that is clearly relevant evidence for biomass of any era. In contrast it is notable that the Zimov & Zimov paper lacks such references and seems more self-referential than one would like to make the assertion that Pleistocene biomass was equivalent to today’s.
I contacted Anthony Barnosky by email who replied saying, what must surely be obvious to most readers:
“Megafauna biomass is many times higher today than it was before humans grew their population to billions and concurrently multiplied the biomass of domestic large animals. See also work by Vaclav Smil paper attached”
The Smil paper is here: Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact
VaclaV Smil http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf
Smil details the extreme effect of human agricultural productivity in increasing biomass.
I think that Sheldon Frith would do well to look again at the evidence regarding terrestrial biomass. As per Barnosky Fig 3, the current biomass of humans, megafauna and livestock (increasingly fed over recent decades by fossil fueled grass and grain agriculture) is many times greater than in the Pleistocene.
Also, A commenter from twitter posted a link to this article: http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/barnosky/Barnosky%20PNAS%202008.pdf
which seems to indicate that megafauna biomass levels were actually much lower than they are today. A little digging (aka. actually reading the article) reveals that the biomass estimates are not reliable.
From the article:
“Number of individual animals per species was estimated in the following way. in the following way. First, there is a correlation between body mass and population density,thatis, individuals per km2 (24–26). To estimate density, I used regressions from ref. 25: for large
herbivores, density $ %0.44 & log(kg body mass) ‘ 1.01; and for large
carnivores, density $ %1.31 & log(kg body mass) ‘ 1.22.”
So the biomass estimates were really based on this article: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~downing/tier%202/jadpdfs/1995%20Allometric%20scaling…%20704-727.pdf
And the density estimates in this second article are derived from estimates taken of MODERN ANIMAL POPULATIONS, which is totally useless for estimating Pleistocene population levels, for many obvious reasons. It is no wonder that the first article magically arrives at prehistoric biomass levels almost identical to modern wild animal biomass levels, since that is where the population estimates came from in the first place!
Here is the reference for that:
Zimov S, Zimov N. Role of Megafauna and Frozen Soil in the Atmospheric CH4 Dynamics. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e93331. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093331.
“If our calculations of animal densities in the Pleistocene are correct (or at least close), it appears that wild nature solely on recycled resources managed to sustainably maintain biomass higher than the entire biomass of modern civilization (humans and all domestic animals) …”
I think your points are all over the map. There is places on this planet where crops can not be grown and animal agriculture is essential. I find you very unrealistic in your approach to not ever eating meat and making peace with what exactly? You probably would not hesitate to swat a mosquito but you do not want to eat a pig or a cow? In my mind this is flawed logic.
Hello Mr Firth, I enjoyed your article but Im uncomfortable with some of the facts. Could you direct me to the studies comparing total megafauna biomass to current livestock.
Why are so few people talking about soil as a climate change solution? Its actually very simple the answer………they cannot see, feel or otherwise be made uncomfortable by the present patterns or information. Douglas Adams would call it s ‘SEP’ Somebody Else’s Problem. Not enough first world homes or lifestyles are impacted……just look at how many farmers are still making a good living by chemical inputs killing the soil etc and us!
I noticed they had an Oppenlander youtube clip. Losing the credibility fast on that side of the debate aren’t we. This is the same dude who was the ‘statistic advisor’ for ‘Cowspiracy’ and is someone (in his abolitionist vegan lectures on youtube) who also mocks local food systems and the word sustainable while advocating for highly processed vegan protein energy bars. Bars that have palm oil in them, which is also responsible for a lot of environmental damage. And ‘sustainable palm oil’, really isn’t when you look into it. There is a lot of good evidence on Regenerative Grazing. But let’s look at the health benefits. Paleo/Low Carb ways of eating are great for people with Typ 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes and metabolic syndrome. With 280 Ausies a day getting Typ 2 diabetes, I think that may not be too good for our World. And the funny thing is you get less hungry eating that way, so you can eat less than a vegetarian and a lot less than a vegan. Another misconception is that people who eat this way eat a lot of meat. This is not true either. They eat adequate amount of meat or eggs etc and fat, and heaps of veg. Sounds pritty good to me. It is quite easy to eat this way and source local sustainable food. Please watch this Catalyst episode. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/lowcarb/
“Why are so few people talking about humus rich soil with Biochar as a climate change solution?”
Just check out the search on this arc2020 website…
Member of the International Biochar Initiative
Associated with: the Biochar Journal
I’m afraid not, but you could try Greenpeace HU?
Is this article available in Hungarian?
A thourough insight into rustic organic life style ! Just started a wwoof meeting yesterday to discuss possible setbacks and the way forward for Cameroonian and african farmers in general. Once more , thanks.
Quite salient points which equally go true for african countries.
Lets together build on our efforts and make the world a better place for all citizens.
Wonderful job done.Its beneficial to us farmers of the world.
What I found particularly inietestrng is the general wish to become more self-sufficient, i.e. less dependent on imports. What is the main driver behind that? Is that an economic one, preventing rural areas from desertion and keep economic activity in rural areas, or is it a food one’; is it considered more sustainable when a country within the EU is able to feed itself?I see this dilemma in some of the Eastern member states as well, where governments struggle to make a clear vision/decision on how to move forward.And if it is mainly an economic motive: do farmers have to produce mainly where Greece is best/competitive in? Or, if the driver is food oriented, does a country have to produce a wider variety of food stuffs and increase self-sufficiency for a large number of products (which can be more expensive than importing)?
Hi Dee!We don’t currently breed cenkchis but are getting set up to possibly do so in the future. I agree about the unknown quality of chicks from hatcheries, especially when I want eggs from pastured organic soy and corn free hens. We have some hens and roosters of a few different breeds that we are growing and would love to have 2nd and 3rd generations of properly fed chicks. This is of course unheard of in this day and age. We have recently slowed things down on our farm and have sold off a large bunch of our cenkchis and cows and kept what we need for ourselves. It got too busy/stressful trying to save the world at this time! LOL But I still have every intention of making these products possible in our area, I just need some time so my family, kids especially, don’t take a back seat and pay the price of mommy being too busy to give them what they need. Thanks so much for your support! It is nice to hear from others involved in the same thing we are!!
De Schutter relies on alogecoorgy, which claims to be the application of ecological science to sustainable agriculture. However, alogecoorgy is unable to contribute to two apparent paradoxes of global food production: 1) most of our food, from small plots of rice to vast fields of soyabean, comes from monocultures supposedly biologically unstable; 2) most food, certainly Latin America and Africa, comes from introduced, and not native, crops. But alogecoorgy would suggest that local crops are locally adapted, and therefore somehow better than introduced crops.Until alogecoorgy can explain these two paradoxes it should remain a harmless academic study, rather than an untried and dangerous approach to feeding people.
9. Laughing out loud. Really, numerous rpeorts? Were they also published in 2006 and prior? Yields have increased significantly over the years with correlation to booming technology and PESTICIDES. Do you know how many more crop eating insects are out there today compared to five, ten or fifteen years ago? How about the Asian aphids that almost wiped out the majority of the soybean crop? Without pesticides many family farmers (including my family) would be living on welfare. Then we can listen to all the city folk bitch about farmers robbing the government through welfare. Commodity markets are tough enough to make a decent living and now you’re saying we can’t use pesticides to prevent little bugs from eating our paychecks? It’s great when people don’t take a macro perspective before jumping to conclusions. Let me ask you, what would you do if you had an insect infestation in your restaurant? Would you let them harvest on your expensive organic inventories, drive away business and lose your reputation? I assume you would fumigate to kill the insects. You people that bash agriculture practices disgust me. The funny thing is when you shop at your organic food store to boycott, you lose! Most of those foods are actually manufactured by the large industrial farms, a polar opposite to the small family farm displayed on the package! It’s great that you and many others point out a huge problem for the health of society, yet I am puzzled no one can provide a feasible solution . . .
Protect nature ; protect all wildlife. No pesticides and no GM crops.
Thanks for your thoughts and link to the lecture. Indeed, Romania seems to follow the same paths of agroindustry, land concentration with far reaching impact on its peasant and agroecological farming society.
Here at Eco Ruralis (www.ecoruralis.ro) we are developing campaigns and programs which address the roots of this problem and hopefully with these kind of collaborations with EU civil society, we could shed light on destructive practices and also propose an alternative agricultural and development model.
To keep yourself updated, I welcome you to read also other articles which myself and my colleagues wrote here on ARC2020.
Keep in touch,
Agrobiodiversity Campaign Coordinator,
Thank you, Ramona Duminicioiu, for your great article entitled “In Romania 3 family farms disappear every hour”.
It looks as if Romania makes the same mistakes as Europe made by clearing away small farmers.
If you want, you may read about European agricultural policy, small farmers, soil and climate in my lecture entitled ‘Organic farming has the best credentials for an adequate sustainable food supply’.
It’s interesting that on the one hand Xavier Beulin as the head of the FNSEA complains about cheap imports, but is head of the group Avril(Sofiproteol) which had a company importing cheap meat from abroad. http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/07/28/que-reprochent-ses-detracteurs-au-patron-de-la-fnsea_4702196_4355770.html
In addition, the FNSEA promotes industrial agriculture which is why many small farmers are in difficulty as they can’t compete.
I think this gives a wrong impression of the work of genebanks. I’ve blogged about it here http://agro.biodiver.se/2015/07/genebanks-and-farmers/
Will this event be available on live streaming or afterwards through podcast?
I have read a little about the contribution of Groupe de Bruges and really I highly appreciate the way how they are they trying to approach issues of Rural development and griculture in Europe and beyond. It is a very good example of Mr.Arie Van den Brandt to be followed by others who share their know-how with others and devote themselves to a cause.
The TTIP treaty is a violation of democracy.
Why are the meetings so secret?
The corporation will have theright to sue a government!!! This is UNACCEPTABLE. I believe in organic food but also believe in SHARING. This treaty will transform normal life into an enduring blackmail.
Crap american food will be (chlorine chicken, hormones beef, GMO and in general food with high pesticides content) easily available in Europe. They have no real food culture, in the US eating is like filling your petrol tank. We have geographical and qualitiy denominations and labelling is very important. In the US they have nothing like that.
And don’t forget about the TISA, privatizing all services including WATER (Mediacl system, public school, transport, energy….etc. etc.)!!!!!!
TTIP, TTP and TISA are a crime against freedom, democracy and free expression. Our presidents didn’t even ask us about it, they didn’t even say anything about it. The EU people HAS the right to say NO to this and our presidents MUST listen to us. If they don’t what’s left of democracy will be dead.
Because the FDA standards are lax in the organic food brands area,
there are some companies and even farmers who are a part of associations that set stricter guidelines for the requirement of actual organic foods.
It is best to avoid direct sunlight for most all plants.
Sewage sludge. It argues that though no synthetic substances are contained in GMOs, the fact that
their genetic makeup has been tampered with no longer makes
then eligible of being natural. The most widespread use of biopesticides is in the US.
With all the efforts to ensure that organic
produce and livestock are in their most natural state there is one more benefit.
Tomatoes. Stress-induced peripheral NPY may play a mechanistic role.
, Utah State University, Dept. For this reason, the cost
of farm produce such as fruits, vegetables, and poultry has decreased significantly in many nations, meaning that poorer people can afford healthier and more
I hope phill brings balance to an already environmental mad eu agri policy. Eu agri industry is over influenced by people who are ignorant about the industry.
Great photo! Great ideas.. Scandalous that it was blocked! Just like the list of other files, see: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/science-policymaking/how-commission-blocked-key-environmental-plans-304834 But not confident at all that the new Commisson being stitched up now will be any better..
Good for Europe ! A Great showing!
The above information is very useful. I have noted “farmers under threat” above.
I am trying to do some very quick learning about the Directive and issues relating to the environment, consumers, private individuals/gardeners, small farmers and larger farms. Some groups representing smaller concerns are seeking exemptions, but how can the Directive be improved for all? Exemptions for small organic farmers will not solve the problem if there is cross contamination from commercially grown GM crops for example? Personally I would like to see a ban on GM crops. What are the implications for the EU/US Trade Deal? I am from the UK, DEFRA have an EU Competencies Agriculture Review. The UK Government is basically pro GM, so there are many issues to consider (not to mention the OECD/Horizon2020 and their bioeconomy ideas). https://consult.defra.gov.uk/eu/boc-agriculture. There are in fact 32 separate reviews.
Can ARC tell me anything about the Directive and the mention of GM here:
Plant reproductive material: production and making available on the market
Repealing Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 68/193/EEC
Repealing Directive 2002/56/EC 1995/0302(CNS)
Repealing Directive 2002/57/EC 1995/0304(CNS)
Repealing Directive 2002/53/EC 1995/0322(CNS)
Repealing Directive 98/56/EC 1997/0367(CNS)
Repealing Directive 1999/105/EC 1999/0092(CNS)
Repealing Directive 2002/55/EC 2001/0108(CNS)
Repealing Directive 2002/54/EC 2001/0147(CNS)
Repealing Directive 2008/90/EC 2007/0014(CNS)
Repealing Directive 2008/72/EC 2007/0296(CNS)
See also 2013/0136(COD)
See also 2013/0140(COD)
See also 2013/0141(COD)
3.10.03 Marketing and trade of agricultural products, in general
3.10.06 Crop products in general, floriculture
3.10.09.02 Plant health legislation
3.10.09.06 Agro-genetics, GMOs
3.10.11 Forestry policy
3.70.01 Protection of natural resources: fauna, flora, nature, wildlife, countryside; biodiversity
Merci à Greenpeace de leur combat sur tout les terrains de l’injustice. Arrêtons ce massacres. L’homme a besoin des abeilles
Sehr geehrte Frau Merkel, 15.11.2013
in Berlin vor Ihrer Türe machen wir es Ihnen vor.
SpeiseGut ein kleines Landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen steht für transparente, ökologische, regional und faire Landwirtschaft. Wir versorgen Berliner Bürger mit gentechnikfreien Lebensmitteln. Wir arbeiten vor allem an einem Konzept was sich staatlich subventionslos trägt sowie aber eine stadtnahe Versorgung mit hochwertigen Lebensmitteln ermöglicht.
Seit ein paar Jahren gehen die Menschen gemeinsam wieder auf die Straße, und zwar im Januar wo es kalt ist. „Wir haben es satt“ ertönt es laut vorm Kanzleramt. Jedes Jahr werden es mehr, es geht hier nicht nur darum, dass wir keine Agrarfabriken wollen, keine Gentechnik veränderte Pflanzen auf unseren Feldern sondern es geht vielmehr darum das wir gemeinsam Verantwortung zeigen wollen. Wenn so viele Menschen auf die Straße gehen kann man nicht von sogenannten „Pseudo – Gutmenschen“ sprechen, wie es Ihre Kollegin Frau Aigner getan hat.
Des weiteren macht mich stutzig, dass es politische Veranstaltungen und Programme gibt. „Wertewochen Lebensmittel“ sie fanden dieses Jahr vom 25. September bis 06. Oktober 2013 statt. Hier durften wir ein Partner von vielen sein, die sich vor allem mit der Thematik Gentechnik kritisch auseinandersetzen. Eine weitere Kollegin von Ihnen Frau Staatssekretärin Sabine Toepfer – Kataw (die ich sehr schätzen) sitzt soweit ich weiß, in Ihren eigenen Reihen und hat diese Initiative ins Leben gerufen. Frau Toepfer- Kataw hat sich persönlich das Modell der solidarischen Landwirtschaft erklären lassen und wir glauben, dass sie es Verstanden hat das kleinbäuerliche Betriebe gefördert werden müssen, genau diese Betriebe die kein Gen- Mais Anbau brauchen.
Am 10.10.2013 berichtete der Tagesspiegel, dass Gatower Bauern und Landwirte Spandau zur gentechnikfreien Zone machen wollen. Carsten Röding sagte: „Entweder, man kauft billig beim Discounter oder direkt beim Erzeuger“, lautet der Trend, den Carsten-Michael Röding (CDU), Spandaus Umweltstadtrat, ausgemacht hat. Das Projekt zeige, dass es in Berlin eine Landwirtschaft gibt, die regional, biologisch und frei von Gentechnik produziert, sagt der Kommunalpolitiker.“
Am 09.11.2013 gründete sich das Aktionsbündnis Agrarwende Berlin Brandenburg. Ein Zusammenschluss aus 34 Verbänden aus Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Natur. Vor allem die großen Bioverbände Naturland, Bioland und Demeter haben sich dem Bündnis mit angeschlossen um zu zeigen, dass wir gemeinsam für eine gute regionale, sauber und faire Landwirtschaft kämpfen wollen.
Sehr geehrte Frau Merkel, wenn Sie es zulassen das Gentechnik veränderte Pflanzen auf deutschen Feldern stehen dürfen, dann fördern Sie genau die Landwirtschaft die wir in Deutschland und in der EU nicht brauchen. Vor allem große Betriebe werden mit dieser Entscheidung gefördert. Kleine bäuerliche Betriebe werden sich kein genmanipuliertes Saatgut kaufen, da sie die Gefahr meistens schon erkannt haben und das Saatgut zu teuer ist.
Denken Sie bitte bei Ihrer Entscheidung an diejenigen die im Januar vor dem Kanzleramt stehen werden, denken Sie an die Kinder, die lernen sollen was noch gute und gesunde Lebensmittel sind und denken Sie bitte an die kleinbäuerlichen Betriebe in Deutschland aber auch die in Rumänien.
Wenn Sie Beratungsbedarf benötigen, dann wenden Sie sich bitte an die Ökoverbände oder an das Aktionsbündnis Agrarwende Berlin – Brandenburg. Die sind bereit mit Ihnen Gespräche zu führen.
Sein Sie dabei, zeigen Sie das eine gemeinsame Agrarwende möglich ist!
Ich hoffe mein Brief wird Sie persönlich erreichen! Ich wünsche Ihnen alles Gute für diese wichtige Entscheidung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Organic has to be the way forward, please support organic growing and selling X
I think food education for kids and youth should be a major priority for us. They are the future food producers, suppliers and consumers so they have to know were food comes from, who is producing it, and how, protecting the environment and animals.
Ich bin immer noch enttäuscht von der “Debatte” EU-Parlament und unglücklich darüber, in welche Richtung die CAP nun steuert.
Die Diskussion in der Bevölkerung über gute Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, stimmt mich aber positiv. Wir sind hier weiter als vor fünf Jahren.
Daraus ergeben sich Möglichkeiten zum Handeln und umsetzten für alle, die es wollen, auch ohne eine stärkere Unterstützung durch die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik der EU. Groove on!
The Humboldt study is nowt but humbug.. (that is where this figure of 17 billion euro over 5 years was conjured up from – an industry-funded, non-peer reviewed, economic desk study – it is not a scientific paper, just the usual psuedo-science smoke-and-mirrors tricks from the agro-chemical lobby. They are doing what the tobacco industry and the petrochemical industry tried to do before them in decades past… ).
Pollination “services” by bees and other pollinators are worth more than 5 times more than that , being estimated at 15-22 billion euro per YEAR !
So the choice is clear. In these next 2 critical months, will YOUR government be towing the agro-chemical industry line, or will it act in the best interest of the bees and ALL of us?! Tell your ministers – “Give bees a chance!”
Very interesting overview of the reactions to the EP vote on CAP reform. However, to be really complete, you should have included also reactions from farmers representatives or professional associations. Civil society is not limited to NGOs.
may be Crop rotation is a key point, but other concerns are on the table.
Last 23-24 january Comagri has voted many amendments resulting of significant reduction on green layer already there in CAP since 2003. Comagri has killed significantly “Cross-compliance”, some standard for promoting green cover or standard for protecting wetland have been deleted. It is very bad signal.
See message from Zoltan Massay-Kosubek
Cool! Next challenge: Explain it to the rest of the MEPs.
Nothing more to say but ban, ban, ban. We can’t continue for the cause of ccd until this stuff is gone.
my nm+ame is Francisco. I’m part of a youth organization in italy. We work with Slow Food and also with De-growth movement. We are trying to change the actual agriculture paradigms also. Is it possible that we can participate to the action that you are doing right now? If yoes, how?
Great result for Guardian voters! The readers’ poll closed with a resounding No to biotech, 72% to 28% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/jan/03/is-gm-food-safe-and-beneficial).
A report of the Dutch Route will be published on http://www.bdvereniging.nl/agenda/a120817.php. including photo’s and something about the excursions on the different farms that will be visited.
This is a huge political shift that opens the door to discussing accountability and governance in agricultural policy. Great story, Marek!
Doesn’t it make you ashamed to admit you are British when Hague and Co make such harsh and indefensible statements. Who’s views does the Foreign office think it represents?
Comments are closed.
Agricultural and Rural Convention