In 2011 the dacha gardens of Russia produced 40% of the nation's food.

While many in the world are completely dependent on large scale agriculture, the Russian people feed themselves. Their agricultural economy is small scale, predominantly organic and in the capable hands of the nation's people. Russians have something built into their DNA that creates the desire to grow their own food. It's a habit that has fed the Russian nation for centuries. It's not just a hobby but a massive contribution to Russia's agriculture.

Sisto-Palkino, Lomonosovsky, Russia		40% of Russia's Food is from Dacha Gardens In 2011, 51% of Russia's food was grown either by dacha communities (40%), like those pictured left in Sisto-Palkino, or peasant farmers (11%) leaving the rest (49%) of production to the large agricultural enterprises. But when you dig down into the earthy data from the Russian Statistics Service you discover some impressive details. Again in 2011, dacha gardens produced over 80% of the countries fruit and berries, over 66% of the vegetables, almost 80% of the potatoes and nearly 50% of the nations milk, much of it consumed raw. While many European governments make living on a small-holding very difficult, in Russia the opposite is the case. In the UK one councillor's opinion regarding living on the land was, "Nobody would subject themselves to that way of life. You might as well be in prison"; tell that to a nation of gardeners living off the land.
During the communist period school children were obliged to visit their local farms to get hands-on experience harvesting food (below left) at a time when about 90% of the nation's food came from dacha gardens. During the same period every child would be expected to play their part in growing the family's food from their small patch of Russia. While the percentage of food grown by Russia's dacha has fallen since then it is still a massive contribution to the nation's food and forms an important part of their rural heritage. Take a walk through the street's of Russia's cities, like St. Petersburg, and you will find people selling herbs, fruit, berries and vegetables from their dacha gardens. Unlike many cities in Europe and the USA, Russian cities are peppered with small corner shops (below right) selling locally grown food in all shapes, colours and sizes still carrying their native Russian soil. If you were to visit a typical Russian dacha you're likely to be greeted with a welcoming dish called okroshka (below centre), a refreshing cold soup made from home grown cucumber, radish, spring onion, fresh dill and parsley all swimming in kvas (a home made rye bread drink) with sour cream or kefir. More insight: Food Gardening in the Vladimir Region of Russia by Sharashkin, University of Missouri–Columbia, MO, USA.
Omsk, Russia         Russian children on a school outing helping with the harvest some time in the 70s.		Making okroshka, a typical dish made to welcome visitors to the dacha.		St. Petersburg, Russia           One of the many small city shops selling home grown food.
Food sovereignty... Food sovereignty puts the people who produce, distribute and eat food at the centre of decisions about food production and policy rather than corporations and market institutions that have come to dominate the global food system. In Havana, Cuba 90% of the city's fresh produce comes from local urban farms and gardens. In 2003, the Russian government signed the Private Garden Plot Act into law, entitling citizens to private plots of land for free. These plots range from 0.89 hectares to 2.75 hectares. Industrial agricultural practices tend to be extremely resource intensive and can damage the environment. 70% of global water use goes to farming, and soil is eroded 10 to 40 times faster. The allotments of central Havana, Cuba         Havana has about 200 urban farms known as organoponicos.

Source: http://www.naturalhomes.org/naturalliving/russian-dacha.htm

A Problem of Plenty: India's Wheat Surplus - Forbes India

UPFRONT/BRIEFING | Apr 18, 2011 | by Jasodhara Banerjee India needs to fix its procurement policy and its granaries infrastructure to really make use of its bumper wheat harvest

Image: Amit Gupta/ REUTERS

GROWTH PANGS With Stagnant prices farmers could move away from sowing wheat

I

ndia is growing more wheat than it ever has. That may sound like very good news given the fact that India (along with China) is the largest consumer of wheat, but the fact is, it does not quite know what to do with it.

India doesn’t have policies that will allow the country to use the wheat efficiently. It doesn’t even have enough place to store it. There is also no surety that wheat production will be equally robust in the coming years.

The current state of plenty is just two seasons old. Following the bumper harvest (80.17 million tonnes) of 2010, the country is now looking at another 81.74 million tonnes in a harvest season that has just begun.

“The last couple of years, we have had a good monsoon and hence the production was good. But if we have even one bad monsoon, we will have a shortage,” says Anjani Sinha, MD and CEO of the National Spot Exchange.

These bumper harvests are the outcome of a two-pronged government approach of banning exports, and raising the minimum support price (MSP) as an incentive to bring more land under wheat cultivation.

The gains at the height of the Green Revolution in the 1970s and 80s — riding on the back of high-yield seeds and pesticide use — have been slowing down. Between 2000 and 2010, the land under wheat cultivation grew by just 1.21 percent and there was a drop in yield (compared to the 1980s). Wheat production had fallen to 9.23 million tonnes in 2006-07 and export was banned in October 2007.

However, such an approach doesn’t provide sustained support for wheat farming.

One part of the problem, says Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at CARE Ratings, “lies with the procurement system. Any farmer can sell any amount of wheat to the government and the government has to buy it. The MSP too has been raised to an unreasonable level as it is a political issue.” 

With exports being banned, that means the government ends up being the only buyer from whom farmers get a good price. With domestic prices stagnant for the last six to eight months, and no export options, farmers will soon move away from growing wheat, fears Kunal Shah, a commodity analyst.

Agriculture is a politically sensitive issue and that makes this problem more complex. “The government wants to be seen to be doing something to counter food inflation and therefore takes steps like banning export of wheat and raising the MSP. But, in reality, it is the price of oilseeds, pulses and milk, and not wheat, which is pushing food inflation up,” says Shah.

The other part of the problem is that the government is not equipped to efficiently store and use bumper crops for future consumption, thanks to the pathetic conditions of the warehouses run by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Enormous volumes of grains rot every year.

The total capacity of government granaries run by the FCI stands at 28.86 million tonnes, a large portion of which is already full with earlier stock. For instance, granaries in Haryana are 78 percent full while those in Punjab are 72 percent full. The two states are among the largest wheat producers in the country. Many other wheat-producing states do not have a good network of granaries.

But there are ways out of this problem of excess.

#1: Encourage Private Players: Shah and Sabnavis both believe that encouraging private players in the procurement and storage process will enable the government to absorb the production from states where FCI infrastructure is inadequate.

In its attempts at increasing storage capacity, last year the FCI started a scheme to invite private participation in building more warehouses. The plan invites private players to build granaries and the FCI guarantees at least 10 years of rent for them. So far, deals to build 10 million tonnes of storage have been signed but these granaries will be completed only by next year.

#2. Limited Procurement: Sabnavis says the government should set a quota for how much wheat it will buy from farmers, and let them export the rest or sell in the domestic market itself.

Sinha, though, is cautious: “We should first see what the total production is at the end of the harvest season and only if we have enough for our buffer stocks should we take a call on whether to allow export of wheat or not.”

This, he says, would be prudent, given the global wheat scenario. “Countries such as Russia and China, which are large producers of wheat, have had a poor harvest and are not exporting their produce. If we start exporting now, and then realise we will be falling short later, we will face a problem where availability and price of wheat in the import market is concerned.”

#3: Build Strategic Reserves: For safety from fluctuations in supply, globally as well as domestically, maintain a constant stock of wheat by creating long-term storage facilities. This will ensure food security. It will also give clarity on the possibilities of exporting wheat when international demand is high.

The global wheat scenario is already raising concerns in many countries. Russia, the world’s third largest exporter, stopped wheat exports after it lost a quarter of its crop last year to its worst drought in 50 years. China, the world’s largest producer, too may lose about two-thirds of its crop after an exceptionally dry winter in its wheat growing region. The impending shortage in the import market has pushed global prices close to their all-time high of 2008.

Countries in West Asia and North Africa are stocking up with orders being placed for several thousand tonnes. This points to fears of an impending crisis of availability and price.

Russia had announced its intent to build strategic wheat reserves along with China and India and even give out 20 million hectares in joint ventures for wheat farming in early 2010. This would protect Russia’s wheat prices and be a counter to the US’ wheat diplomacy (the US is sitting on a stockpile of 30 million tonnes). But that, of course, was in the months following Russia’s 100 million tonne production and before drought brought that figure down to 60-65 million tonnes. 

This article appeared in the Forbes India magazine issue of 22 April, 2011

SOURCE: http://forbesindia.com/article/briefing/a-problem-of-plenty-indias-wheat-surplus/24052/1

BJP Kisan Cell, scientists for compulsory registration of foreign seed companies

Express News Service

Posted: Apr 21, 2011 at 0212 hrs IST

Ahmedabad The BJP Kisan Cell as also agricultural scientists have said that the proposed Seeds Bill to be presented in the Monsoon Session of Parliament should incorporate provisions regarding mandatory registration of foreign seed companies in Indian territory if they are allowed to do business in the country.
At present, foreign seed companies operating in India are registered in foreign countries. The issue has become a point of debate as the Centre now plans to allow foreign companies to operate in India on a much larger scale.
Bhupendrasinh Chudasama, National Secretary General of Kisan Cell said the Bill is not acceptable in its present form unless the provisions for compulsory registration of the foreign seeds companies in India are incorporated. He had discussed the matter at length with state Agriculture Minister Dileep Sanghani on Tuesday.
Chudasama said it was necessary to have control and regulation over the companies in case of any sub-standard supply of seeds as also the arbitrary hike in prices beyond the paying capacity of farmers. He said the Centre needs to ensure three things: the compulsory registration of foreign seed companies; provisions for a fair compensation to farmers in case they did not get yield as promised by the seed suppliers; and thirdly stringent punishment for companies in case of substandard supply of seeds. The punishment should not be mere three months of imprisonment as the provisions exists now.
Chudasama said his party had given these suggestions to the UPA government and hoped the Centre would accept them. He said his party will strongly oppose the Bill in case these suggestions are not incorporated.
A R Pathak, Vice-Chancellor of Navsari Agriculture University (NAU) said the state government had consulted him on the issue, and he had verbally advised the government to push for changes in the Bill with regard to registration of multi-national seed companies in India. This would ensure a quality standard of the seeds, reasonable prices, and adequate compensation to farmers in case of low yield or failure of crops due to poor standard of seeds.
Pathak and Anand Agriculture University Vice-Chancellor A M Sheikh said the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) or some agriculture universities could be authorised as agencies for registration because of their expertise in farm issues.

SOURCE: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/bjp-kisan-cell-scientists-for-compulsory-registration-of-foreign-seed-companies/779042/

Brussels Expands Grounds for Potential GM Crop Bans

Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 15 • Number 14 • 20th April 2011

The European Parliament’s environment committee has voted to include “general environmental policy objectives” onto a list of grounds for legal justification for member states to independently outlaw the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. The 12 April vote amended a European Commission draft policy proposal that, if approved, would grant member states the right to ban GM crop cultivation within their borders if such bans are based on certain criteria.


Last February, the European Commission (EC) approved a list of possible grounds based on the premise that such a ban would help “maintain public order.” According to the initial draft, bans could be enacted in the face of popular opposition or on grounds of public morality, such as religious or philosophical concerns (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 7 February 2011).


The public order and environmental policies additions are designed to address concerns that biotechnology policies enacted independently by European member states would leave those countries open to legal challenges at the WTO.


According to the environment Members of European Parliament (MEPs), the addition of environmental grounds to the proposal is expected to give member states better legal protection to such challenges.


“Our proposal offers states a solid, legal basis,” said the French MEP Corinne Lepage, who drafted the amendment.
According to the draft proposal, as long as all restrictions are justified, proportionate, and non-discriminatory, they would be permitted within the EU. But there are currently no plans to add the list to the GM cultivation proposals currently under consideration which some experts say calls into question the strength of any legislation derived from the draft.


GM puzzle a difficult one for Brussels
Last year, the Commission proposed that the decision-making process on GM crop cultivation be partially decentralised in response to a deadlock in the crop approval process (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 23 July 2010). Only two genetically modified seeds have been approved for cultivation in Europe: a strain of maize produced by biotech giant Monsanto and a type of starch potato from Amflora, which was approved in March 2010, but only for industrial uses (see Bridges Trade BioRes and 19 March 2010).


Brussels has also been struggling with how to deal with several member states that had defied the centralised policy on the issue and unilaterally implemented GM crop bans. Member states Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Luxembourg have all issued bans on the cultivation of GM seeds, citing health and environmental concerns under a safeguard clause contained in the 2001 directive (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 3 April 2009). Other countries, however - including the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom - appear more open to allowing their farmers to grow the altered crops.


Some member states and environmentalists have raised concerns over the push toward more liberal GM policies, arguing that it could open the floodgates for new genetically modified crops in the EU. Others, such as Italy and Spain, have said that the proposal undermines the spirit of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Council of the European Union - a body of twenty-seven national ministers - also challenged the Commission’s proposal last November (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 22 November 2010).


In another controversial move, the EC has recently adopted a measure that allows trace amounts - up to 0.1 percent of unapproved GM crops - to be imported into the EU for animal feed. Some countries have called for the Commission to allow the unapproved GM crops to be permitted for human consumption as well, pointing out that it would be nearly impossible to distinguish the world’s crop supplies between food and feed.


Reducing or igniting internal tensions?


For its part, the Commission says its proposed policy on GM crops aims to reduce tensions surrounding the lack of compliance on GM issues by establishing clear parameters for countries’ national policies on biotech cultivation that would lessen uncertainty for farmers and agri-business across Europe.


However, opposition continues to mount against the proposal, with the UK most recently joining the faction spearheaded by France, Germany and Spain (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 21 March 2011).  The apprehensions stem from concern arising from the legal uncertainties internal fragmentation of biotechnology policy could create for the European agriculture industry and the unexpected trade barriers that could result.
In her statement at the EU environment ministers’ meeting on 17 March, Caroline Spelman - Britain’s farm minister - also cautioned that GM bans under the proposal would be in direct violation of the EU’s WTO commitments.


The MEP and European green groups in favour of the position maintain that the decentralisation proposal is necessary to help avert the negative consequences that GM contamination could have on more traditional forms of agriculture.


“Environmental impacts are a major danger of GM crops,” said Stefanie Hundsdorfer, Greenpeace EU’s agricultural policy advisor. “Including these into law will help governments ban them from Europe’s fields.  Without these grounds, national bans would be in danger of being overturned by biotech companies in court.”


ICTSD reporting; “MEPs back national freedom to ban GM crops,” EURACTIV, 13 April 2011; “Britain adds voice to criticism of EU GM crop plans”, REUTERS, 14 March 2011; “EU moves to allow traces of GMO in feed” ASSOCIATED PRESS 26 February 2011; “EU draft: States can ban GM crops for public order,” REUTERS, 4 February 2011.

 

SOURCE : http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/104887/

 

NEWS: Paradigm shift in food security - from deficit to surplus nation - BusinessLine

RANA KAPOOR

April 17, 2011:  

The Hindu Business Line – YES Bank ‘Food and Agribusiness Conclave' discussed the opportunities and bottlenecks faced by the agriculture sector.

Amongst many key issues that were discussed by leaders in the Food and Agribusiness domain, the deliberations on the role of private sector in enhancing food security and the need for building an efficient agri-supply chain provided considerable food-for-thought for all stakeholders.

India has witnessed a paradigm shift in food security, moving from a food deficit to a food surplus nation. The country has seen foodgrain production growth from 51 million tonnes (mt) on 97 million hectares (1947-48) to 232 mt on 120 mha (2010-11), a growth of 355 per cent in production with 24 per cent increase in area.

As of March 1, 2011, Food Corporation of India (FCI) was holding 45.8 million tonnes of rice and wheat — more than twice the prescribed buffer stock norm, which includes a food security reserve of five million tonnes. Still nutritional “food” is out of reach for many Indians, and is getting unaffordable largely due to the ineffective handling. With restrictions on food grain exports and large stocks being pooled with FCI, Government is left with huge stocks of food grains without adequate infrastructure facilities. Instances of rotting food grains in FCI warehouses have even prompted the Supreme Court to instruct the Government to distribute it free-of-cost if they cannot maintain its quality. This is further aggravated by a weak public distribution system (PDS). While we have been focusing on strengthening the procurement side of the agri-food value chain, there is little progress towards efficient release of produce at affordable prices. On the other side, a lot of PDS stock is sold in the open market aided by an inefficient system. In the coming years, managing the impact of climate change will also determine our preparedness to handle food security.

CHANGES IN WEATHER PATTERN

Changes in rainfall pattern/distribution, timing/duration of winter and summer seasons etc. have been observed. India needs to spend a lot on its R&D for better seeds and cultivation techniques to ensure successfully meeting the changing trends. India ranks 64th out of the 85 countries in the Global Hunger Index, and shelters approximately 210 million starving people. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that global food production needs to increase more than 40 per cent by 2030 and 70 per cent by 2050 compared to average 2005-07 levels.

CULTIVABLE LAND

Clearly, a large part of the consumption will happen in India and China. This would require an additional 1.6 billion hectares of land to be brought into cultivation compared to the current 1.4 billion hectares being cultivated now. This increase in cultivable land looks improbable. In India, increasing population, land distribution and demographic changes are driving demand on the one hand, while low farm productivity, in-efficient pre and post-harvest infrastructure and climatic vagaries are resulting in a stagnant supply scenario on the other hand. Therefore, the nations' need to recognise this increasing demand and to proactively ensure adequate availability of food for its citizens. The larger solution theme is to reduce the demand-supply gap through increased productivity and reduced post-harvest wastage. A well developed pre-harvest and post-harvest infrastructure would be a key driver to plug this gap. The onus of providing food to the citizens is believed to vest with the Government, which through its policies, attempts to influence, and control the food supply scenario in the country. Given that agriculture is recognised as central to India's inclusive growth strategy, it is critical to review measures planned to boost agricultural development in the Union Budget, and look for game changers that would allow us to set ourselves a target of 10 per cent agricultural growth in the future Budgets and planning.

FOOD AND NUTRITION

The Government of India has undertaken multiple initiatives to help improve access to food and nutrition for a massive target group. These initiatives include public distribution system (PDS), mid-day meal (MDM) scheme, national food for work program (NFWP), antyodaya anna yojana (AAY), integrated child development scheme (ICDS), essential commodities act (ECA), National Food Security Mission (NFSM), Targeted PDS and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). However, the private sector has also played a pivotal role in securing the nation's need for food.

These include:

• Development and marketing of high yielding seed varietals, thereby, increasing productivity.

• Development and marketing of pest, weed, disease and crop-specific pesticides, thereby, reducing crop loss.

•Development and marketing of soil and nutrient specific fertilisers and micro-nutrients, thereby, ensuring crop nutrition.

•Development of warehousing and collateral management services, thereby, ensuring crop security.

•Development of better farm equipments, thereby, reducing crop wastage.

Despite 60 plus years since independence, we find that the farming constituency today is grappling with numerous challenges.

Some of these include:

•Use of traditional and outdated methods of production hence resulting in low productivity.

•Inadequate research and outdated extension systems and methods.

•Inefficient agri-supply chain management and aggregation of produce.

•Inadequate post harvest infrastructural facilities

•Lack of adequate market information and access

•Insufficient and high rate of credit

Clearly, well co-coordinated action on multiple fronts by the Government as well as the private sector on development of the pre and post-harvest infrastructure is the key solution theme to increase productivity and reduce post harvest wastage. A well coordinated action will lead to adequately addressing the nation's need for food in years to come. Some of these actions should include: Developing linkages between research extension and training facilities to ensure a speedy delivery of yield enhancing and crop protecting products, concepts and actions.

Developing terrain and crop-specific farm equipments which are available at modest prices, so as to enhance the level of mechanisation.

Investment in providing well demonstrated, water conserving and yield enhancing drip irrigation facilities.

Early adaptation of well proven and ably demonstrated agricultural inputs, which have led to better economic returns in western geographies.

Encouraging entrepreneurs and businessmen to set up integrated dairy plants. Milk is considered as a perfect food in many aspects given its fair blend of nutritional components. A growing and more affluent population will have a growing demand for more nutrition.

Investment in infrastructure for storing, aggregating, cleaning, sorting, grading and packaging of crops.

Speeding up the APMC reform process to enable private companies to participate in the farm economy, will result in better returns to the farmers due to a better price discovery mechanism. It will also help in establishing farmer's direct linkage with retailers through development of terminal markets and direct access to wholesale markets, and bring in efficiencies in the agri-supply chain.

Development of large scale and modern logistics facilities and better quality of rural roads for timely movement of produce from point of production to markets and processors without value erosion and weight loss.

Development of innovative models such as agro food parks to directly link farmers to processors, reduce wastage and increase processing capacity.

(The writer is Founder, Managing Director and CEO, YES Bank.)

(This article was published on April 17, 2011)

Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 9:00PM BST 02 Apr 2011
262 Comments

Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce "human" milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious.

Researchers say they are able to create cows that produce milk containing a human protein called lysozyme Photo: PA

 The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. 

Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.

The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health.

SOURCE :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html