Saturday, July 15, 2006

Sowing seeds of inspiration

The Hindu | KANCHI KOHLI  | July 14, 2006


DRAWING LINKS: Traditional and nutritious
DRAWING LINKS: Traditional and nutritious
An organisation that helps keep a range of traditional crops and seeds alive in their farms.
For the past six years, it has been my wish to visit the place. But, each time I planned it, the trip had not worked out. Beej Bachao Andolan (Save the Seeds Movement) has been such an inspiration and this time I was determined to make it. Beej Bachao Andolan (BBA) has its home in the beautiful Hemwalghati, in the Tehri Garhwal district of Uttaranchal. Let me share with you why it continues to be a source of motivation for many of us. BBA is a small but strong-willed effort by small farmers to keep a range of traditional crops and seeds alive in their farms. As a city dweller I had been exposed to one or two varieties of Rajma beans in my growing years, BBA showed me over 200! As someone who had never heard of a crop like naurangi (a mix of nine coloured lentils), I got to eat it.There is more to all this than what simply meets the taste-buds. It is the link it draws with our traditional ways of farming and the most nutritious foods that we've forgotten in today's times. Most of us do not go beyond eating polished rice and wheat flour in our routine diet. This is what has been made available to us post the Green Revolution from the 1970s. Millets like ragi, bajra, jowar, which are far more nutritious, have little or no space in our ration shops or our eating patterns.There is another important element in the farming of these traditional crops. Today there is talk about organic food everywhere. It is food produced without using pesticides or chemical fertilizer and thereby is supposed to be healthier and better. The irony is that traditional farming like that being practised by BBA never uses these external inputs. It was and continues to be organic. Yet, it has seen deep neglect by our government. And now there is a sudden splurge of organic in the market, only it comes with a heavy price in monetary terms, and has also for neglected our farming heritage.Today, efforts like BBA across the country are tackling this. It is a small sign of hope struggling to hold its ground with little support from policy makers of our country. It is their complete belief in their farming system that keeps them going, and one wishes them success in their endeavour. And it is this belief that I imbibe in my life and is the essence of my existence. 
In collaboration with Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group (kvdelhi@vsnl.net)
What can I do?
1. Try and learn more about your traditional foods from your parents and grandparents. 2. Find out about efforts like BBA in your city, district, and state. Try and visit them and promote their produce
3. Buy organic, through direct sales from farmers rather than completely commercial outlets
4. Spread the essence of this belief system to the people around you

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-youngworld/sowing-seeds-of-inspiration/article3228209.ece

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?

Published in World Watch MagazineMay/June 2006, Volume 19, No. 3

The only people who think organic farming can feed the world are delusional hippies, hysterical moms, and self-righteous organic farmers. Right?
Actually, no. A fair number of agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological scientists, and international agriculture experts believe that a large-scale shift to organic farming would not only increase the world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger.
This probably comes as a surprise. After all, organic farmers scorn the pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and other tools that have become synonymous with high-yield agriculture. Instead, organic farmers depend on raising animals for manure, growing beans, clover, or other nitrogen-fixing legumes, or making compost and other sources of fertilizer that cannot be manufactured in a chemical plant but are instead grown-which consumes land, water, and other resources. (In contrast, producing synthetic fertilizers consumes massive amounts of petroleum.) Since organic farmers can't use synthetic pesticides, one can imagine that their fields suffer from a scourge of crop-munching bugs, fruit-rotting blights, and plant-choking weeds. And because organic farmers depend on rotating crops to help control pest problems, the same field won't grow corn or wheat or some other staple as often.
As a result, the argument goes, a world dependent on organic farming would have to farm more land than it does today-even if it meant less pollution, fewer abused farm animals, and fewer carcinogenic residues on our vegetables. "We aren't going to feed 6 billion people with organic fertilizer," said Nobel Prize-winning plant breeder Norman Borlaug at a 2002 conference. "If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time." Cambridge chemist John Emsley put it more bluntly: "The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this century is not global warming but a global conversion to ‘organic farming'-an estimated 2 billion people would perish."
In recent years, organic farming has attracted new scrutiny, not just from critics who fear that a large-scale shift in its direction would cause billions to starve, but also from farmers and development agencies who actually suspect that such a shift could better satisfy hungry populations. Unfortunately, no one had ever systematically analyzed whether in fact a widespread shift to organic farming would run up against a shortage of nutrients and a lack of yields-until recently. The results are striking.
High-Tech, Low-Impact
There are actually myriad studies from around the world showing that organic farms can produce about as much, and in some settings much more, than conventional farms. Where there is a yield gap, it tends to be widest in wealthy nations, where farmers use copious amounts of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides in a perennial attempt to maximize yields. It is true that farmers converting to organic production often encounter lower yields in the first few years, as the soil and surrounding biodiversity recover from years of assault with chemicals. And it may take several seasons for farmers to refine the new approach.
But the long-standing argument that organic farming would yield just one-third or one-half of conventional farming was based on biased assumptions and lack of data. For example, the often-cited statistic that switching to organic farming in the United States would only yield one-quarter of the food currently produced there is based on a U.S. Department of Agriculture study showing that all the manure in the United States could only meet one-quarter of the nation's fertilizer needs-even though organic farmers depend on much more than just manure.
More up-to-date research refutes these arguments. For example, a recent study by scientists at the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture in Switzerland showed that organic farms were only 20 percent less productive than conventional plots over a 21-year period. Looking at more than 200 studies in North America and Europe, Per Pinstrup Andersen (a Cornell professor and winner of the World Food Prize) and colleagues recently concluded that organic yields were about 80 percent of conventional yields. And many studies show an even narrower gap. Reviewing 154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops grown on rain-fed and irrigated land in the United States, University of California-Davis agricultural scientist Bill Liebhardt found that organic corn yields were 94 percent of conventional yields, organic wheat yields were 97 percent, and organic soybean yields were 94 percent. Organic tomatoes showed no yield difference.
More importantly, in the world's poorer nations where most of the world's hungry live, the yield gaps completely disappear. University of Essex researchers Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine looked at over 200 agricultural projects in the developing world that converted to organic and ecological approaches, and found that for all the projects-involving 9 million farms on nearly 30 million hectares-yields increased an average of 93 percent. A seven-year study from Maikaal District in central India involving 1,000 farmers cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili, and soy were as much as 20 percent higher on the organic farms than on nearby conventionally managed ones. Farmers and agricultural scientists attributed the higher yields in this dry region to the emphasis on cover crops, compost, manure, and other practices that increased organic matter (which helps retain water) in the soils. A study from Kenya found that while organic farmers in "high-potential areas" (those with above-average rainfall and high soil quality) had lower maize yields than nonorganic farmers, organic farmers in areas with poorer resource endowments consistently outyielded conventional growers. (In both regions, organic farmers had higher net profits, return on capital, and return on labor.)
Contrary to critics who jibe that it's going back to farming like our grandfathers did or that most of Africa already farms organically and it can't do the job, organic farming is a sophisticated combination of old wisdom and modern ecological innovations that help harness the yield-boosting effects of nutrient cycles, beneficial insects, and crop synergies. It's heavily dependent on technology-just not the technology that comes out of a chemical plant.
High-Calorie Farms
So could we make do without the chemical plants? Inspired by a field trip to a nearby organic farm where the farmer reported that he raised an amazing 27 tons of vegetables on six-tenths of a hectare in a relatively short growing season, a team of scientists from the University of Michigan tried to estimate how much food could be raised following a global shift to organic farming. The team combed through the literature for any and all studies comparing crop yields on organic farms with those on nonorganic farms. Based on 293 examples, they came up with a global dataset of yield ratios for the world's major crops for the developed and the developing world. As expected, organic farming yielded less than conventional farming in the developed world for most food categories, while studies from the developing world showed organic farming boosting yields. The team then ran two models. The first was conservative in the sense that it applied the yield ratio for the developed world to the entire planet, i.e., they assumed that every farm regardless of location would get only the lower developed-country yields. The second applied the yield ratio for the developed world to wealthy nations and the yield ratio for the developing world to those countries.
"We were all surprised by what we found," said Catherine Badgley, a Michigan paleoecologist who was one of the lead researchers. The first model yielded 2,641 kilocalories ("calories") per person per day, just under the world's current production of 2,786 calories but significantly higher than the average caloric requirement for a healthy person of between 2,200 and 2,500. The second model yielded 4,381 calories per person per day, 75 percent greater than current availability-and a quantity that could theoretically sustain a much larger human population than is currently supported on the world's farmland. (It also laid to rest another concern about organic agriculture; see sidebar at left.)
The team's interest in this subject was partly inspired by the concern that a large-scale shift to organic farming would require clearing additional wild areas to compensate for lower yields-an obvious worry for scientists like Badgley, who studies present and past biodiversity. The only problem with the argument, she said, is that much of the world's biodiversity exists in close proximity to farmland, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. "If we simply try to maintain biodiversity in islands around the world, we will lose most of it," she said. "It's very important to make areas between those islands friendly to biodiversity. The idea of those areas being pesticide-drenched fields is just going to be a disaster for biodiversity, especially in the tropics. The world would be able to sustain high levels of biodiversity much better if we could change agriculture on a large scale."
Badgley's team went out of the way to make its assumptions as conservative as possible: most of the studies they used looked at the yields of a single crop, even though many organic farms grow more than one crop in a field at the same time, yielding more total food even if the yield of any given crop may be lower. Skeptics may doubt the team's conclusions-as ecologists, they are likely to be sympathetic to organic farming-but a second recent study of the potential of a global shift to organic farming, led by Niels Halberg of the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, came to very similar conclusions, even though the authors were economists, agronomists, and international development experts.
Like the Michigan team, Halberg's group made an assumption about the differences in yields with organic farming for a range of crops and then plugged those numbers into a model developed by the World Bank's International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). This model is considered the definitive algorithm for predicting food output, farm income, and the number of hungry people throughout the world. Given the growing interest in organic farming among consumers, government officials, and agricultural scientists, the researchers wanted to assess whether a large-scale conversion to organic farming in Europe and North America (the world's primary food exporting regions) would reduce yields, increase world food prices, or worsen hunger in poorer nations that depend on imports, particularly those people living in the Third World's swelling megacities. Although the group found that total food production declined in Europe and North America, the model didn't show a substantial impact on world food prices. And because the model assumed, like the Michigan study, that organic farming would boost yields in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the most optimistic scenario even had hunger-plagued sub-Saharan Africa exporting food surpluses.
"Modern non-certified organic farming is a potentially sustainable approach to agricultural development in areas with low yields due to poor access to inputs or low yield potential because it involves lower economic risk than comparative interventions based on purchased inputs and may increase farm level resilience against climatic fluctuations," Halberg's team concluded. In other words, studies from the field show that the yield increases from shifting to organic farming are highest and most consistent in exactly those poor, dry, remote areas where hunger is most severe. "Organic agriculture could be an important part of increased food security in sub-Saharan Africa," says Halberg.
That is, if other problems can be overcome. "A lot of research is to try to kill prejudices," Halberg says-like the notion that organic farming is only a luxury, and one that poorer nations cannot afford. "I'd like to kill this once and for all. The two sides are simply too far from each other and they ignore the realities of the global food system." Even if a shift toward organic farming boosted yields in hungry African and Asian nations, the model found that nearly a billion people remained hungry, because any surpluses were simply exported to areas that could best afford it.
Wrong Question?
These conclusions about yields won't come as a surprise to many organic farmers. They have seen with their own eyes and felt with their own hands how productive they can be. But some supporters of organic farming shy away from even asking whether it can feed the world, simply because they don't think it's the most useful question. There is good reason to believe that a global conversion to organic farming would not proceed as seamlessly as plugging some yield ratios into a spreadsheet.
To begin with, organic farming isn't as easy as farming with chemicals. Instead of choosing a pesticide to prevent a pest outbreak, for example, a particular organic farmer might consider altering his crop rotation, planting a crop that will repel the pest or one that will attract its predators-decisions that require some experimentation and long-term planning. Moreover, the IFPRI study suggested that a large-scale conversion to organic farming might require that most dairy and beef production eventually "be better integrated in cereal and other cash crop rotations" to optimize use of the manure. Bringing cows back to one or two farms to build up soil fertility may seem like a no-brainer, but doing it wholesale would be a challenge-and dumping ammonia on depleted soils still makes for a quicker fix.
Again, these are just theoretical assumptions, since a global shift to organic farming could take decades. But farmers are ingenious and industrious people and they tend to cope with whatever problems are at hand. Eliminate nitrogen fertilizer and many farmers will probably graze cows on their fields to compensate. Eliminate fungicides and farmers will look for fungus-resistant crop varieties. As more and more farmers begin to farm organically, everyone will get better at it. Agricultural research centers, universities, and agriculture ministries will throw their resources into this type of farming-in sharp contrast to their current neglect of organic agriculture, which partly stems from the assumption that organic farmers will never play a major role in the global food supply.
So the problems of adopting organic techniques do not seem insurmountable. But those problems may not deserve most of our attention; even if a mass conversion over, say, the next two decades, dramatically increased food production, there's little guarantee it would eradicate hunger. The global food system can be a complex and unpredictable beast. It's hard to anticipate how China's rise as a major importer of soybeans for its feedlots, for instance, might affect food supplies elsewhere. (It's likely to drive up food prices.) Or how elimination of agricultural subsidies in wealthy nations might affect poorer countries. (It's likely to boost farm incomes and reduce hunger.) And would less meat eating around the world free up food for the hungry? (It would, but could the hungry afford it?) In other words, "Can organic farming feed the world?" is probably not even the right question, since feeding the world depends more on politics and economics than any technological innovations.
"‘Can organic farming feed the world' is indeed a bogus question," says Gene Kahn, a long-time organic farmer who founded Cascadian Farms organic foods and is now vice president of sustainable development for General Mills. "The real question is, can we feed the world? Period. Can we fix the disparities in human nutrition?" Kahn notes that the marginal difference in today's organic yields and the yields of conventional agriculture wouldn't matter if food surpluses were redistributed.
But organic farming will yield other benefits that are too numerous to name. Studies have shown, for example, that the "external" costs of organic farming- erosion, chemical pollution to drinking water, death of birds and other wildlife-are just one-third those of conventional farming. Surveys from every continent show that organic farms support many more species of birds, wild plants, insects, and other wildlife than conventional farms. And tests by several governments have shown that organic foods carry just a tiny fraction of the pesticide residues of the nonorganic alternatives, while completely banning growth hormones, antibiotics, and many additives allowed in many conventional foods. There is even some evidence that crops grown organically have considerably higher levels of health-promoting antioxidants.
There are social benefits as well. Because organic farming doesn't depend on expensive inputs, it might help shift the balance towards smaller farmers in hungry nations. A 2002 report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization noted that "organic systems can double or triple the productivity of traditional systems" in developing nations but suggested that yield comparisons offer a "limited, narrow, and often misleading picture" since farmers in these countries often adopt organic farming techniques to save water, save money, and reduce the variability of yields in extreme conditions. A more recent study by the International Fund for Agricultural Development found that the higher labor requirements often mean that "organic agriculture can prove particularly effective in bringing redistribution of resources in areas where the labour force is underemployed. This can help contribute to rural stability."
Middle Earth
These benefits will come even without a complete conversion to a sort of organic utopia. In fact, some experts think that a more hopeful, and reasonable, way forward is a sort of middle ground, where more and more farmers adopt the principles of organic farming even if they don't follow the approach religiously. In this scenario, both poor farmers and the environment come out way ahead. "Organic agriculture is not going to do the trick," says Roland Bunch, an agricultural extensionist who has worked for decades in Africa and the Americas and is now with COSECHA (Association of Consultants for a Sustainable, Ecological, and People-Centered Agriculture) in Honduras. Bunch knows first-hand that organic agriculture can produce more than conventional farming among poorer farmers. But he also knows that these farmers cannot get the premium prices paid for organic produce elsewhere, and that they are often unable, and unwilling, to shoulder some of the costs and risks associated with going completely organic.
Instead, Bunch points to "a middle path," of eco-agriculture, or low-input agriculture that uses many of the principles of organic farming and depends on just a small fraction of the chemicals. "These systems can immediately produce two or three times what smallholder farmers are presently producing," Bunch says. "And furthermore, it is attractive to smallholder farmers because it is less costly per unit produced." In addition to the immediate gains in food production, Bunch suggests that the benefits for the environment of this middle path will be far greater than going "totally organic," because "something like five to ten times as many smallholder farmers will adopt it per unit of extension and training expense, because it behooves them economically. They aren't taking food out of their kids' mouths. If five farmers eliminate half their use of chemicals, the effect on the environment will be two and one-half times as great as if one farmer goes totally organic."
And farmers who focus on building their soils, increasing biodiversity, or bringing livestock into their rotation aren't precluded from occasionally turning to biotech crops or synthetic nitrogen or any other yield-enhancing innovations in the future, particularly in places where the soils are heavily depleted. "In the end, if we do things right, we'll build a lot of organic into conventional systems," says Don Lotter, the agricultural consultant. Like Bunch, Lotter notes that such an "integrated" approach often out-performs both a strictly organic and chemical-intensive approach in terms of yield, economics, and environmental benefits. Still, Lotter's not sure we'll get there tomorrow, since the world's farming is hardly pointed in the organic direction-which could be the real problem for the world's poor and hungry. "There is such a huge area in sub-Saharan Africa and South America where the Green Revolution has never made an impact and it's unlikely that it will for the next generation of poor farmers," argues Niels Halberg, the Danish scientist who lead the IFPRI study. "It seems that agro-ecological measures for some of these areas have a beneficial impact on yields and food insecurity. So why not seriously try it out?"
Brian Halweil is a Senior Researcher at Worldwatch and the author of Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket.
Enough Nitrogen To Go Around?
In addition to looking at raw yields, the University of Michigan scientists also examined the common concern that there aren't enough available sources of non-synthetic nitrogen-compost, manure, and plant residues-in the world to support large-scale organic farming. For instance, in his book Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production, Vaclav Smil argues that roughly two-thirds of the world's food harvest depends on the Haber-Bosch process, the technique developed in the early 20th century to synthesize ammonia fertilizer from fossil fuels. (Smil admits that he largely ignored the contribution of nitrogen-fixing crops and assumed that some of them, like soybeans, are net users of nitrogen, although he himself points out that on average half of all the fertilizer applied globally is wasted and not taken up by plants.) Most critics of organic farming as a means to feed the world focus on how much manure-and how much related pastureland and how many head of livestock-would be needed to fertilize the world's organic farms. "The issue of nitrogen is different in different regions," says Don Lotter, an agricultural consultant who has published widely on organic farming and nutrient requirements. "But lots more nitrogen comes in as green manure than animal manure."
Looking at 77 studies from the temperate areas and tropics, the Michigan team found that greater use of nitrogen-fixing crops in the world's major agricultural regions could result in 58 million metric tons more nitrogen than the amount of synthetic nitrogen currently used every year. Research at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania showed that red clover used as a winter cover in an oat/wheat-corn-soy rotation, with no additional fertilizer inputs, achieved yields comparable to those in conventional control fields. Even in arid and semi-arid tropical regions like East Africa, where water availability is limited between periods of crop production, drought-resistant green manures such as pigeon peas or groundnuts could be used to fix nitrogen. In Washington state, organic wheat growers have matched their non-organic neighbor's wheat yields using the same field pea rotation for nitrogen. In Kenya, farmers using leguminous tree crops have doubled or tripled corn yields as well as suppressing certain stubborn weeds and generating additional animal fodder.
The Michigan results imply that no additional land area is required to obtain enough biologically available nitrogen, even without including the potential for intercropping (several crops grown in the same field at the same time), rotation of livestock with annual crops, and inoculation of soil with Azobacter, Azospirillum, and other free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
Food Versus Fuel
Sometimes, when humans try to solve one problem, they end up creating another. The global food supply is already under serious strain: more than 800 million people go hungry every day, the world's population continues to expand, and a growing number of people in the developing world are changing to a more Western, meat-intensive diet that requires more grain and water per calorie than traditional diets do. Now comes another potential stressor: concern about climate change means that more nations are interested in converting crops into biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels. But could this transition remove land from food production and further intensify problems of world hunger?
For several reasons, some analysts say no, at least not in the near future. First, they emphasize that nearly 40 percent of global cereal crops are fed to livestock, not humans, and that global prices of grains and oil seeds do not always affect the cost of food for the hungry, who gener­ally cannot participate in formal markets anyway.
Second, at least to date, hunger has been due primarily to inadequate income and distribution rather than absolute food scarcity. In this regard, a biofuels economy may actually help to reduce hunger and poverty. A recent UN Food and Agriculture Organization report argued that increased use of biofuels could diversify agricultural and forestry activities, attract investment in new small and medium-sized enterprises, and increase investment in agricultural production, thereby increasing the incomes of the world's poorest people.
Third, biofuel refineries in the future will depend less on food crops and increasingly on organic wastes and residues. Producing biofuels from corn stalks, rice hulls, sawdust, or waste pa­per is unlikely to affect food production directly. And there are drought-resistant grasses, fast-growing trees, and other energy crops that will grow on marginal lands unsuitable for raising food.
Nonetheless, with growing human appetites for both food and fuel, biofuels' long-run potential may be limited by the priority given to food production if bioenergy systems are not harmonized with food systems. The most optimistic assessments of the long-term potential of biofuels have assumed that agricultural yields will continue to improve and that world population growth and food consumption will stabilize. But the assumption about population may prove to be wrong. And yields, organic or otherwise, may not improve enough if agriculture in the future is threatened by declining water tables or poor soil maintenance.
Source: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060

Thursday, March 2, 2006

Demand for Organic Food Growing Faster than Domestic Supply

Many farmers find initial costs of converting to organic practices intimidating despite higher profits later on

  • By Scott Faber on March 01, 2006
  • Comments are closed for this article.
 
Got Organic Milk? That’s the question more and more consumers are asking in supermarkets across the nation.
Sales of organic food have grown dramatically over the last decade—soaring from $3 billion in 1997 to more than $10 billion in 2003, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Sales of organic food have grown by 20 percent annually, and experts predict that the industry’s share of the U.S. food market is expected to grow from about 2 percent to roughly 3.5 percent by the end of the decade.
In fact, demand for organic food is growing so fast that consumer demand is outstripping some domestic supplies.
Once a net exporter of organic products, the United States now spends more than $1 billion a year to import organic food, according to the USDA, and the ratio of imported to exported products is now about 8-to-1.
Many of these organic imports are grown in the European Union, where more than 140,000 farmers are meeting Europe’s weaker organic standards on 12.6 million acres of farmland.
In contrast, about 10,000 American farmers have made the transition to organic food production on about 2.3 million acres of land, according to the USDA’s Economic Resources Service.
“It’s a system, and it takes a while to convert” to organic farming, said Greg Bowman of the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania. “But, farmers are watching their neighbors convert, going to field days, and they’re seeing that it can be done.”
So, why have fewer U.S. farmers made the changes in farming methods that allow them to market their goods under the USDA’s organic label?
Bowman says that there has been a long-standing interest in organic farming in the Bay states, and that the number of Bay farmers practicing organic agriculture was accelerated by the passage in 1990 of a federal law directing the USDA to create the now familiar organic label.
But, to meet the organic standard, farmers must abandon the use of synthetic pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics and take other steps to improve soil quality, such as crop rotation.
Although some farmers see no impact on production from these changes, “there often is a production decrease associated with the transition” to organic methods of farming, said Peter Miller of Organic Valley, a cooperative of farmers.
For some farmers, the costs of a three-year “transition” period—when yields and, consequently, farm sales fall—outweigh the benefits of the “premium” they will ultimately earn. But most farmers see their yields rebound by the time they have completed the transition to organic farming, Bowman said, and many can keep yields high during transition—but only through careful soil management and crop selection.
The costs of organic production can be lower as well—because input costs such as pesticide applications are reduced—but revenue can fall by more than $100 an acre in some parts of the country, USDA studies show. A 2001 study by the Northeast Organic Farming Association found that milk costs fell by 7 percent during transition—but that milk yields fell by 29 percent.
Once farmers are able to charge the “premium” for organic products, farmers typically recoup these losses.
For example, revenues on organic dairy farms were about 2 percent higher than revenues on conventional farms, according to the 2001 study.
But, the prospect of losing money for three years—to make more money thereafter—poses an obstacle to many farmers.
As a result, some cooperatives like Organic Valley and Horizon have been making small “transition” payments to help farmers make the switch. And, at least two states are using USDA conservation funds to underwrite the cost of making the transition to organic farming practices.
Rodale’s Bowman thinks such payments are justified when “public dollars are buying healthy farms, healthy watersheds and healthy food and communities.” Increasing the number of well-managed organic farmers in the Bay watershed, he said, would have enormous potential to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous being washed off farm fields.
Another barrier to the transition, according to Miller of Organic Valley, is simply learning the details of organic farm management.
Although many cooperatives and organizations provide technical assistance, relatively few of the familiar faces upon which farmers rely for advice—such as extension agents, soil and water conservation districts or crop consultants–know much about the details of organic farming.
European farmers have since 1992 been eligible for government-financed “green payments” that ease the costs of the transition to organic production. Because European Union and U.S. organic standards are not compatible, relatively few EU farmers can slap a USDA organic seal on their products. But, Miller said, that could change in the coming years.
Demand for organic food is likely to grow, experts say, because consumers are more likely to see organically grown food as a healthy and nutritious option to conventionally grown products, studies show.
A recent study by the Hartman Group, a market research firm that tracks healthy food sales and trends, found that traditional motives to buy organic—concern for the environment—have been eclipsed by concerns about health and food safety. Price and availability, studies show, remain the leading barriers to the purchase of organic products.
The growing industry faced a setback this year when a federal judge ruled that a 1990 law directing the USDA to create the organic label and certification system prohibited the use of “synthetic” ingredients in organic foods.
The 2002 rule implementing the law required that the ingredients in products labeled as “100-percent organic” only contain organically produced ingredients. But, the rule also created two other USDA labels—“organic” and “made with organic ingredients”—that permit processors to include limited amounts non-organic ingredients.
Congress last month quietly amended the 1990 law directing the USDA to allow the goods marketed with the “organic” label to include the addition of some non-organic ingredients—effectively overturning the court ruling. While some organic advocates feared that the inclusion of “synthetics” will erode the credibility of the term “organic,” lawmakers were concerned that organic companies faced serious financial losses if the rule were changed.
While Bay states will never boast as much organic production as states like California—where crops can be grown all year—experts expect to see more and more Bay farmers make the switch as the demand grows.
Currently, organic dairies in Eastern states like Pennsylvania and Maryland have reached a plateau because of a shortage of farmers willing to grow organic feed grains and the infrastructure needed to store, ship and refine organic feed grains—a problem that is not limited to dairy farmers.
“Scaling up a regional or local system is fraught with difficulty,” Bowman said. “It’s always a struggle because you’re competing price-wise with people who have a huge market advantage” and well-established infrastructure.
SOURCE: http://www.bayjournal.com/article/demand_for_organic_food_growing_faster_than_domestic_supply

Sunday, July 17, 2005

`Sustainable agriculture is more profitable'

Frontline
Volume 22 - Issue 15, Jul 16 - 29, 2005India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU

AGRICULTURE

`Sustainable agriculture is more profitable'


Kisan Mehta of Prakruti (in the swing, right) tries innovator Chandrakant Pathak's (to his left) swing-powered drip irrigation system. With every push, water spurts over a patch of cultivation.
Kisan Mehta, 82, is a Sarvodaya worker, freedom fighter and crusader for establishing an environmentally viable society through sustainable agriculture and natural living. He responds to Lyla Bavadam's queries on sustainable agriculture and the issues surrounding it. Excerpts:
The idea of organic and sustainable farming has been around for a long time and yet when it is suggested to farmers they react as if it is some dangerous new policy. What is it that they fear and what prevents them from ending a farming practice that even they acknowledge is depleting the soil?
One must consider the conditions that were prevailing in the late 1940s and early 1950s when India and other colonised countries witnessed a withdrawal of colonial powers. India suffered one of the worst famines, which claimed about five million people. Although known as the Bengal Famine it was not restricted to Bengal. No exact data were maintained about the famine deaths. Another five million died during the transfer of power. Agriculture was in serious trouble. Shortage of food, and not maldistribution, was cited as the reason for the deaths. The United States enacted PL480 for free supply of food to India and other starving countries. Actually the food was not supplied free; the importing countries were required to pay the cost but the amount remained deposited in these countries. The Ford Foundation and umpteen other charity organisations were given the deposited amount to carry out welfare programmes.
The integral sustainable agriculture concept developed in India, based on thousands of years of farming with the specific knowledge of local and regional climatic conditions, was in a shambles. The British changed the crop pattern in India to suit the needs of Britain's Industrial Revolution. Fine cotton, with which the finest Dacca muslin was woven, was replaced by coarse cotton to meet the needs of Manchester and Lancashire. We were depending on doles. So the Green Revolution and the Japanese method of rice cultivation [actually a copy of Panini's system devised thousands of years ago in India] were introduced.
The hybrid seeds that were dumped on India required massive inputs of synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides. No parasite existed in the local food chain for the pests that came along with the imported seeds and food. The American bollworm is one such gift of American food imports. The government introduced subsidies and incentives linked to the use of hybrid seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Records show that the average yield for rice in Chingleput district [now Kanchipuram] in Tamil Nadu was 3,500 kg a hectare against 1,590 kg a hectare a couple of years ago after the changeover to the Green Revolution happened. The Green Revolution changed the mindset of the people, particularly farmers. Whatever the government said was good and worth copying. Subsidies and incentives support this thinking.
Another depressing and disappointing metamorphosis is that we feel we have to extract the maximum from the soil for our benefit. We are not worried what would happen to the soil in the process. Over one-third of India's cultivable land has become barren in the past 50 years. Farmers feel that the best method to meet the decline of the soil is to use more chemicals. The government started setting up synthetic chemical factories since the 1950s. The government itself is the largest manufacturer of fertilizers and pesticides. It wants its undertakings to flourish and so subsidies and incentives are given to these institutions.
Farmers of the last generation have seen their parents die at a young age. Yields have been dwindling. Farmer families are impoverished ... they have lost self-confidence and depend on doles from the government and big business. These farmers have not seen the working of integrated farming practices followed probably three generations ago. They have seen the so-called successful and immediate impact of pesticides. Business has entered into farming though there are directives that say that farmland cannot be taken over by non-farmers. Soil is treated as an exploitable commodity.
About 78 per cent per cent of Indian farmers are marginal farmers owning less than 0.8 ha but accounting for 20 per cent of India's cultivable land. The remaining are absentee landlords who believe in, and are immersed in, the commercial approach. Marginal farmers cannot afford synthetic chemicals. Their lands are not irrigated so they cannot use these chemicals. Absentee landlords do not care for soil health and are exploiting the land for maximising profits. They avail themselves of all government support. Our rich farmers have expanded by taking over lands from small farmers. For them instant profits and maximum returns from the soil is the object.
They do not depend on soil for sustenance and hence are the least worried about the health of the soil. They have now started food processing - sugar is one such example.
You have to see what we are up against [while promoting sustainable farming] in this context.
How feasible is organic farming? If a farmer has 50 acres (20 ha), can he expect the same yield from it with the use of organic manure as he has come to expect with chemical fertilizers?
Sustainable agriculture is more profitable in terms of money and soil conservation in the long run. Without doubt, it can meet the requirements of the country. Prakruti [a non-governmental organisation Kisan Mehta is associated with] tried to study this issue in the earlier years but very few farmers follow the whole set of practices required in sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture means not only the withdrawal of three things - synthetic chemicals, hybrid-genetically modified seeds and heavy agricultural implements; it is an elaborate system that tries to simulate the conditions found in nature. Multiculture, intercropping, use of farmyard manure and remnants, mulching and application of integrated pest management... If this is followed then there is no reason why agriculture cannot be economically viable in addition to being environmentally sustainable.
The abrupt withdrawal of all this would reduce the yields initially but within three years normal yields can be got. After this yields will keep increasing. Multiculture and intercropping, as against monoculture followed in commercial farming, also provide a cushion against money loss. Viability is misunderstood. Also, farmers do not consider the invisible savings in money and labour as a benefit.
There is no question of sustainable agriculture not being viable or not meeting the needs of the country for food and fibre. Following U.S. sanctions, Cuba was left with no option other than to have recourse to sustainable practices. Its agriculture is now fully organic.
Could you explain how subsidies have affected farming practices? What can help speed up the organic/sustainable farming movement?
It is a global cancer. All rich industrialised countries dole out heavy subsidies in a bid to take over the entire food business of the world. The U.S. gives $339 billion a year as subsidies to its farmers, practically one billion a day. France, Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada and others do the same. With the World Trade Organisation operational, no country can refuse to allow imports of food from any country.
On the other hand, rich countries, especially the countries of the European Union, have developed large-scale animal husbandry to meet their meat needs. They export processed foods, milk and meat on a large scale. In order to maintain their cattle stock, they import coarse food items at cheap rates from poor countries. Poor countries, in order to earn foreign exchange, have shifted from crop for humans to crops for animals.
In India, the government fixes a Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all crops year after year. The MSP has to be lower than the lowest international prices for crops in order to prevent them from flooding the Indian market. Thus the MSP is not a price based on the cost of farming or the sustenance of farmers. In order to avoid handing over the material to the government at the lowest MSP, the big business and all grain merchants purchase food in the markets at a price slightly higher than the MSP. This is not a fair or reasonable price for farmers. But they have no recourse but to sell the produce to meet their debt and other obligations.
Prakruti and a few other NGOs understand that farmers should be paid reasonable and fair prices higher than the mandi prices to ensure a good basis for them to survive. Sustainable food should be preferably consumed within the region to avoid other expenses. We, therefore, recommend linkages between farmers and consumers. In some countries, the concept of community-supported agriculture is working satisfactorily, whereby farmers and consumers are formally linked to assure quality food and reasonable rates and necessary support to farmers. In the U.S., small farmers [that is, those owing less than 120 ha] are under threat. The community-supported agriculture helps in sustaining small farmers.
What are the implications for sustainable farming in the present context of contract farming?
Contract farming is totally against sustainable agriculture. For example, the Nashik region [of Maharashtra] represents the sale of our soil and resources to European wine-makers. Foreigners send their strains of grapes to be grown in India and take away the crop. Our resources are priced lower than those in the rich countries... just as our highly qualified technicians are used for their technical advancement at a lower cost.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

ARTICLE : Vision Acres to Van Vadi


 Ten Years down the Road …… a reflection and renewal (2005)

by Bharat Mansata
All around,

an emerald ocean;

the hills and ridges

crest its waves.

On a soaring perch*,

Eternity pauses

in silent enchantment,

then breaks

into birdsong.

 And the sky

turns delirious

with colour.

(*  the machaan: a high, rustic, wood-pole and bamboo structure, looking over the surrounding tree-tops. Ours has a wonderful  view of the undulating landscape all around, including the distant hills on
the east and west,  the adivasi table-land closer south, and several villages to our north and north-east.)
Ten monsoons ago, three of us – Ramanand, Sesha & I – walked several hours on this land, drenched in the rain and ambience. It was our first visit, and an unforgettable one.  We were lost. But winding our way through thick vegetation, hunched below spreading branches and snaking creepers, we kept feeling – this was the place we had waited four years and dozens of scouting trips to find!

While the trees we saw around were yet small, in most parts they were dense. Just a few decades ago, this land had been a full-grown forest with many giant trees whose girths took two pairs of outstretched arms to encircle. A few of their weathered stumps are still around to remind us of their former glory, savagely mowed down by deforestation. (After the first wave of logging – for timber – the tenacious re-growth of the forest was periodically cut down in diminishing cycles of 10 to 4 years, first for making charcoal, and later for selling as firewood.)

We were initially looking to buy about 10-15 acres for organic farming, mainly of fruit and vegetables. This was to be divided among 3-4 of us. But with more ‘like-minded’ people joining, I began dreaming of an ‘alternative community’ of sorts gradually evolving – a community that aspired to meet its varied needs in harmony with nature and fellow humans.

We tentatively named our venture ‘Vision Acres’. Five years later, we adopted a local name, ‘Van Vadi,’ which means forest settlement or forest-farm. The broad agreed aim was to “live close to the land in an ethical and sustainable manner – to benefit ourselves, the land, and perhaps the local people as well”. Progressive self-reliance in basics, like food, was an important, explicit goal.

The first guiding principle of our common ‘charter’ was earth-care. We agreed that at least half the land should remain under tree cover; agro-chemicals be prohibited; water usage conservative; extensive mono-cultures shunned, and biodiversity aided through integration of various edible and locally useful species, particularly indigenous varieties, suited to existing conditions.

Our second guiding principle was “fair dealings with people and respect for local culture”. Simple lifestyles and social discretion were mentioned in this context.

The third guideline posited: “quality of life, and local self-reliance should have priority over considerations of monetary profit”.

 Eventually, we bought 64 contiguous acres – mainly from two large, Maratha landowners – with the pooled contributions of 24 of us. Ten percent of this was to be held in common, and the balance 90% demarcated into individual plots. The common land was for access paths, and for shared facilities like a well, common house, nursery, etc; and for any common projects that may be taken up in the future. [But as of now, the entire land is still un-demarcated and held in common, with the understanding that demarcated plots may be handed over to individual members when they so desire and are willing to take the responsibility.]

In the years that passed, there were more occasions to feel lost! Our sporadic progress followed its own sweet, or sometimes tortuous, pace. Gradually, we managed to complete our official boundary survey, do a botanical survey of our main tree and shrub species, and a partial, internal survey of the land’s topography and prominent features. We built our common house and found five local adivasis to work and live full-time on the land.

Adivasis: Farming, Forest & Biodiversity in Use


While we were mainly thinking of planting fruits and vegetables, it was the adivasis who showed us that we could also grow on our undulating land  – the gentler slopes – a variety of local millets like nacchni (ragi), varie, kangu; oilseeds like sesame, And rice too – in low-lying, relatively flat, run-off beds at the mouth of minor streams, which required only a little more levelling and careful bunding to retain the rainwater needed by the rice plants.

We learnt from our adivasi workers that we have a number of potential small clearances for farming, presently under a predominance of shrubs like the uksi and the thorny karvanda. These could be cut and pushed back to form a dry, protective hedge to keep stray cattle out. Over the years, several such farming clearances, totalling almost 4 acres, were thus carved out.

We listed – with local, tribal help – over 115 naturally occurring and traditionally useful species, growing on our land. Of these, 80% figure in the compendium, ‘The Useful Plants of India’, with more detailed information available in ‘The Wealth of India’ – a multi-volume encylopaedia of natural inheritance. [We have compiled a thick box-file ‘The Botanical Wealth of Van Vadi’ – not half complete – which already has several hundred pages of printed (and hand-written) information on the plant species growing on our land, including their documented/ known uses.]

We discovered that we have over 35 ‘wild’ (uncultivated) food species that – in tribal knowledge – yield some edible part or parts (leaf, fruit, flower, stem, root), usually at a certain time of the year. Of these species, we identified the botanical names of almost 30 plants, and verified their use as food from ‘The Wealth of India’ and ‘Food from Forests’.

 [If the above information is surprising, as it was to us, ‘The Gaia Atlas of Planet Management’ informs: “Of the estimated 80,000 edible plants (on this earth), only about 150 have been cultivated on a large scale, and less than 20 provide (now) 90 percent of our food.” However, even among our own tribals, more rooted to the land than most, the practice of consuming uncultivated forest foods is significantly declining – for several reasons.]

Food apart, we learnt that the land has more than 45 plant species documented to be of medicinal use; and at least 20 timber species, including four rated as ‘first grade timbers’. And then there are plants that yield natural dyes, soaps, oils (edible and non-edible), gums and resins, botanical pesticides, leaf plates, etc. (A number of species have multiple uses.)

 The above is in addition to the more commonly sourced fodder, fuel, fibre, dry hedge (karavanda) cuttings, … not to mention rocks for building, seeds and seedlings for propagation, and the profusion of rich fertility resources like earthworm castings, arrested run-off topsoil (sedimented silt), leaf litter mulch, green manure, etc. to enhance the productivity of cultivated clearances. Moreover, the entire forested land functions like an enormous sponge to soak and store huge quantities of increasingly precious fresh water, while all the dense vegetative growth serves as a ‘sink’ for absorbing carbon dioxide, recycling it back into lung invigorating, pure oxygen.

Presently, if one follows a flock of birds flying eastward from Matheran to Bhimashankar, ours is perhaps the biggest and richest forest patch between the two. In ‘hard numbers’, the land has – at a rough, conservative estimate – more than forty thousand trees, excluding tall shrubs and tree-climbing vines.  Of these, at least half are over twenty feet tall, including a quarter that are about twenty-five, or even thirty feet in height.

In summer, most of the trees (largely deciduous) are bereft of their green mantle. Several species, however, regain their leaves before the end of May – well before the rains arrive! A month earlier, the fresh, tender leaves on the Mahua trees are red, but soon metamorphose into a lush green. New, bright leaves sparkle too on all the young, and not-so-young, Palash trees. And then the land also has several evergreen species like jambul, karavanda, mango – fruiting abundantly ere the monsoon sets in.

 The rich natural inheritance of the region sustained the adivasis for generations beyond count. Today, if there are any people left on this earth who can teach our floundering ‘millennium generation’ the fine art and science of co-existing in harmony with the forest, it is these tribals. Or rather, just a few among them now, who still retain the knowledge, the skills, and the native cultural perspective.

Fauna


Barely six decades ago, our land was known as the ‘Leopard’s Run’. Peacocks dwelt here, and so did deer. Deforestation robbed the leopard of its habitat, and cut off the ‘corridors’ through which it roamed from one forest area to another. The peacocks and deer disappeared more through hunting, but degraded habitat as well. The few wild animals that can still be spotted occasionally are: the baool (wild cat), the raan-dukkar (or wild boar), the bhekar (fox), the mongoose, and the hare.

The land, however, is still very rich in the smaller, soil and vegetation-dwelling creatures. There are several kinds of earthworms, ants, snakes, crabs, etc. There is also a bewildering variety of spiders, colourful butterflies, dragonflies, … and fireflies, bees, and birds (of various hues) that heighten the enchanting ambience of the place.

 Protection


On a part of our boundary, we constructed a 650 ft long, 2.5 ft high, stone and mud wall, and dug a parallel 1.5 ft deep trench along its outer edge. Though a very effective and lasting protection barrier, this was laborious and time-consuming. And so, on the remaining part of our long, jagged boundary, we opted to put up a dry, kathi hedge, using mainly cuttings of the thorny, semi-coppicible karavanda shrub (Carissa carandas) that grows abundantly on the land.


Over the years, we also planted a live hedge (on the inner side of our dry hedge), with mainly 5 species: (i) Kalak (thorny) bamboo, good for construction poles; (ii) Nirgudi (Vitex negundo), a valuable medicinal plant, also known locally as Vanai; (iii) Sabri, a thorny cactus;  (iv) Chandrajyoti (Jatropha curcas, or ‘physic nut’), also known as ratanjyot; and (v) Sagargota (Caesalpinia crista, or ‘fever nut’), a thorny creeper. Some Karvanda shrubs too have rooted – by themselves, probably from the uncollected, edible berry droppings of hedge reinforcements.

Of the above ‘live hedge’ species, we’ve had best results with Chandrajyoti, that has established really well. A full-grown plant yields – for each metre of live hedge – a kilo of seeds each year. These seeds are so rich in oil, that they were traditionally threaded on a thin stick and lit as a ‘mobile torch’. Before kerosene became widely available, chandrajyoti oil was commonly used for lighting diyas or wick lamps, that provided good illumination, burning without soot. The Jatropha oil is used too for manufacturing soaps, candles, varnishes. The plant is reported to have several medicinal uses, while the leaves yield a natural dye. Today, the large-scale planting of Jatropha is mainly being promoted as a diesel substitute, “fuel of the future”, and is threatening to take over even the fields where food crops have been traditionally cultivated.

For long boundaries, this combination of dry hedge, and multi-functional live hedge seems the most affordable, replicable and therefore widely relevant strategy of land/forest protection. Of course, two of our workers have been almost full time on the job of patrolling the land, reinforcing the dry kathi hedge, and – in the monsoon – planting the live hedge. But despite this, effective protection of a sprawling area like ours is extremely difficult without good relations and the goodwill of neighbouring villagers.

Rainwater Harvesting and Water Security


In an average year, the rainfall on our land exceeds 200 cms, or 8 ft! With such a generous supply, any water scarcity (for reasonable needs) is a failing of people, not nature.

Our dense (and now tall) tree cover has contributed enormously to ground water recharge. All the porous soil below such thick vegetation – well buffered and root-bound against erosion – is like a massive sponge, efficiently harvesting rainwater by soaking and percolating it to underlying aquifers. Here, it is stored on sheet-rock  ‘shelves’, enabling withdrawal through open wells or bore-wells. This is significantly benefiting all the nearby villages and lands downstream of us, whose water security has greatly improved.

When a bore-well on our land was first contemplated almost 8 years ago, several in our group expressed their reservations. However, we decided to go for one, while opting for a hand-pump to avoid wastage. This, we felt, would ensure that the annual withdrawal of ground water never exceeds annual recharge. (Our group was aware that high wastage, through the proliferation of motorized bores, was a primary cause of dropping water tables.)

The hand-pumped bore-well proved adequate for our domestic needs, but not for irrigation. Manually pumping the water, filling a drum loaded on a bullock-cart, and then transporting it to water distant plantings scattered over a large area, was too laborious. Moreover, by mid-summer, the water level would fall below the depth of our hand-pumped bore tube, leaving us bone dry. (Being on higher ground, we were vulnerable to the high withdrawal of groundwater by the many motorized bore-wells in the villages and farms downstream of us.) Many of the saplings we planted, just withered and died. This state of affairs continued for several years!

Around 2000-2001, two small, rock and earth check dams were built, one just a little downstream of our hand-pump. The idea was to check rain run-off, and thereby enhance percolation into the aquifer feeding our bore-well. This helped, and the pump yielded a few weeks longer than in earlier years, despite increased withdrawal for the protective irrigation of introduced saplings. But before mid-May, the bore dried again.

Finally, in 2001-2002, embarrassed by the remonstration of the veteran natural farmer, Bhaskar Save – who visited at our request – we dug a large, open well near the edge of our main (seasonal) stream. This was excavated at the site of an old, fully silted water-hole that the adivasis sometimes drew from a decade ago, even in summer.

The open well served us well, filling to the brim within a week of the monsoon, and yielding considerable water for 11 months. (Neighbouring adivasis too drew from it – for their drinking and cooking needs – when their own open well dried.) But by mid May, 2003, our open well also ran dry.
 
The following year, 2004, was much better, and the open well did not dry. But forewarned by the previous year’s experience, we had already started excavating a ‘rock pool’ reservoir and building a small check dam (with the extracted material) on the rocky outcrop a little upstream of our well. This was not only to store a large, additional amount of rain (stream flow) as a surface water-body for our irrigation needs, but also to enhance the recharge of our well, which we hoped would become perennial as a result.

In September 2004, Bhaskar Save visited us again to help us develop one or two intensive orchard plots, and to guide us in our other farming efforts. His advise was plain. If we aimed to evolve a self-reliant community, and feed it sustainably, we needed to further increase our water harvesting efforts, and also lay a pipeline for more efficient irrigation of distant plots and saplings. For the former, he recommended that we should gradually increase the depth of our rock pool reservoir every year, and undertake similar work on other parts of the stream, or on other monsoon streams flowing through our land.
 
The pipeline for water delivery (up to a tank near our house) was laid the same year (2004), but additional work on water harvesting was delayed beyond Holi. In April 2005, we started deepening our stream-bed rock pool, and used the excavated rocks to widen and strengthen the check dam downstream of it.

Before the monsoon arrived this year, our open well again dried up. This was likely due to high extraction from surrounding (or downstream) motorised  borewells that plumbed a depth much below the bottom of our open well. These trials notwithstanding, we do seem on a sound path of achieving water security for ourselves fairly soon. By January 2006, we’ll resume deepening our rock pool, and perhaps undertake a similar, low-cost project elsewhere on our land

 We also have a number of smaller rock ’n earth structures – bunds and gully plugs – dotting our land. These are dwarf ‘walls’, barely two feet tall, and less than 10-15 feet long. Like the bigger walls of check dams, the bunds and gully plugs too arrest rainwater runoff (and eroded soil), thereby enhancing sub-soil percolation. But more efficient than all these earthworks in recharging ground water is the porous, living soil under our increasingly dense forest.

Our Farming Experiences


Sunlight & Fertility: While inadequate exposure to sunlight is a limiting factor in growing food crops on terrain that is overgrown with vegetation, the proximity of forested area affords a number of advantages as well. In particular, we have a generous abundance of biomass (leaf litter mulch), rich silt (from the bottom of seasonal water bodies), and vermicastings to serve as excellent organic fertiliser and soil conditioner – obtained free from our own land, without the need of any other external inputs for growing our field crops, vegetables and fruit trees. At most, we add some dung manure, and occasionally sprinkle our indigenous ‘Panchgavya’ solution.

Vegetables: Over the years, we have tried growing many different vegetables, particularly indigenous varieties, whose seeds we save from our previous year’s crop. We have harvested a good amount of bhendi (okra), bottle-gourd, cucumber, shirali (ridged-gourd), ghosali (sponge gourd), kohla (ash gourd), karela (bitter gourd), vangi (brinjal), pumpkin, tomato, musk melon, abai (jackbean), gavar (cluster beans), chaoli  (cowpea), radish and several leafy greens.

In the past, we grew vegetables only (or mainly) in the monsoon. But in 2004, we inter-planted a number of irrigated winter vegetables too -- in our new orchard plot near our open well, where watering is easier.

Rice: Initially, we experimented with planting seven different indigenous varieties of rice from our Konkan region, obtained from Dr. Richharia’s ‘Seed Memorial’ at ADS, Kashele. Subsequently, we stuck to mainly three kinds - one, the tall, indigenous Nawabi Kolam (a delicious 5 month variety), whose seeds we got from Bhaskarbhai Save. The second, Jheeni (also tall and indigenous), and the third – Ratna, a dwarf variety released by the Dept. of Agriculture, which became the most common choice of farmers in our area, including our own adivasi workers, most of whom had started adding urea in their paddy fields.

In 2005, however, we planted only Jheeni, but still had to remind our adivasi workers that the inter-planting distance between 2 seedlings of this tall variety should be at least 18 inches. Unfortunately, they have got too used to the dwarf Ratna, which is about half the normal height of Jheeni, and transplanted at barely 8-9 inch gaps. With such a short gap in transplanting tall native varieties like Nawabi Kolam or Jheeni, we found in the past that the rice plants overshot their normal height, and consequently ‘lodged’ (or bent over) under their own weight. This was particularly pronounced in our extremely fertile, low-lying (stream-bed) rice fields, renewed each year with fresh run-off silt (topsoil) from the floor of the surrounding (higher) forest areas.

Despite the high fertility of our rice fields, the shade cast on the rice plants by the surrounding, proximate tall trees has been a limiting factor affecting yield. (Bhaskarbhai recommended harvesting a whole line of trees along the rice zone perimeter for our own use.) And then, the absence of the scent of human presence during much of the wet (and busy) growing season has also emboldened forest creatures  -- wild boar, hare, etc – to partake in our crop. (The rice fields are quite a distance from our two houses.)

Native Millets in Traditional Poly-culture: In our region, the local millets, grown on well-drained uplands, are mainly cultivated by adivasis living in hilly terrain, for their self-consumption.

The most popular is nagli (nacchni/ragi) or Finger Millet. It is highly nourishing, easily digestible, and makes delicious bhakris! (thin, flat breads) At Van Vadi, we have two kinds of nagli. One, the common red variety, and the other called ‘bhoori’ (or fair) nagli, which is rarer.

Vari (Common Millet or Proso Millet) is much favoured by the local elders, who consume it on days of upvaas (a religious semi-fast on a controlled diet.) Kangu, or Fox-tail Millet, is yet a third kind, which makes a delectable kheer, cooked with milk and jaggery. We grow all three of them.

Mixed cropping is the common practice for growing millets. On our land, we usually inter-crop these with black (and/or white) sesame and various vegetables, particularly gavar and chauli, both leguminous species that ‘fix’ atmospheric nitrogen in the soil and thus ‘stimulate’ the growth of the other crops.

Zendu (or marigold), planted on the plot edges, inhibits the reproduction of insect pests.

Nagli is apparently one crop that is least affected by the vagaries of the monsoon, including deficient or excessive rain. After ‘transplanting’ the nagli seedlings (by just laying them flat on a ploughed field!) even one good shower is often enough for them to establish their roots. Within two weeks, the young nagli plants stand erect on their own!

Sowing early, however, is critical. If this is delayed, and the monsoon intensifies rapidly before the tender seedlings have set root, they are prone to get washed away by heavy showers, or rot on site. We lost over half our current 2005 crop of millets for this reason. Many adivasis too were similarly affected.

Tree Plantings: A number of trees have been planted by us in the vicinity of our old house, and in the distant clearance near our newer bamboo house. These include Mango, Sitaphal, Jambul, Drumstick, Cashew, Neembara (mainly gavti), Coconut, Banana, Papaya, Guava and lesser numbers of Jackfruit, Chickoo, Pomegranate, Ramphal, Awala, Lime, Bamboo, Tamarind, Karanj, … Also a few Peepal, Banyan, Champa, etc. Recently, a new orchard plot was laid near our open well. 

Earlier, our plantings were more scattered. Their survival rate was poor, because of difficulty in watering during peak summer, but also due to browsing by stray, intruding village cattle. However, some saplings are fine, though growing slowly because of the shade cast by surrounding forest trees.  The species that can survive with less (or zero) irrigation are jambul, drumstick, bamboo, mango (planted from seed), sitaphal, cashew,… But these yet need protection from cattle while tender. Some years ago, we had also planted a few hundred forest species, many of which were medicinal. Forest zones that were already very dense, were left undisturbed to grow as sacred groves of wilderness and natural diversity.

It is relevant to add that while our adivasi workers are pretty good with their traditional crops like millets and rice, they lack the experience of nurturing fruit/nut trees to fruition. This is perhaps because in the past they have usually had an abundance of fruit/food trees growing naturally in adjacent areas and forests, without any assistance of man. In particular, a very common error that even seasoned farmers often make is to water a young, growing fruit tree near its trunk, instead of watering near the outer lateral reach of its spreading root system (about as far as the overhead canopy). The latter encourages the roots to spread and become self-reliant more quickly by accessing a much greater volume of soil space for moisture and nutrient needs. Similarly, mulching is more needed near the outer lateral reach of the ‘root crown zone’, where irrigation is provided.

Relations with Local Villagers


When we bought the land, we continued to ‘let’ the adivasis and other villagers visit and collect ‘minor forest produce’. (For several years, there was no choice, as there was no visible boundary!) Our only request/rule was that they should not log entire trees, or disturb the saplings planted by us. We also ‘prohibited’ hunting on the land, and explained to villagers that such a practice is virtually wiping out entire species, which they can also see. Thus, in years of serious famine, when cultivated food crops are scarce to come by, they may have little left in the forest as well.

On the whole, we have been fortunate to have the co-operation of our neighbouring villagers, without which not even half our trees would have remained standing. But with the putting up of our protective boundary hedge, the free movement of the locals into or through the land has been restricted. Though they can still enter through any of 3 gates (without padlocks), their cattle can no longer wander and graze at will.

While most of the adivasis remain friendly and understanding, we have been contemplating how best to strike a fair balance between forest protection and the access of local villagers to reasonable needs. A possible solution to this classical dilemma between narrow self-interest and a more inclusive vision is to allow controlled access to the local villagers under a mutually beneficial arrangement. For in the long run, without local support, our energies would fritter away in policing the area, and we might as well forget any dreams of an alternative, self-reliant, peaceful community evolving on the land. 

A number of villagers are beginning to see the critical relevance of our efforts at protecting the forest, and supplementing with additional, useful tree species/crops. Most other ‘forest areas’ are steadily disappearing. Traditional rice farming too is now fraught with risks because of erratic rainfall – too much or too little falling at the wrong time. Their ‘educated’ children are unable to find jobs, and unwilling/unable to wield the plough. A litany of woes has begun to surface.

Part of the answer to local economic problems perhaps lies in integrating horticulture with forest protection, and supplementing with decentralized village industries. Of course, this is the old ‘Gandhian prescription’. But then, our basic human needs are also age-old.

As Bhaskarbhai pointed out during his last visit in 2004, “The land I see here is excellent, and ideally suited for horticulture. If you protect the planted areas (from cattle), and put in place a conservative irrigation delivery system, there are lots of fruit species and other horticultural crops you can successfully grow. 

“By simultaneously inter-planting in the same area, short lifespan, medium lifespan and long lifespan species, so as to rapidly cover the entire land with vegetation, you can multiply the benefit of the irrigation provided, minimize evaporation losses, and also start obtaining yield from the very first year – from the short lifespan species like vegetables. Eleven months from planting, the papayas and bananas should start fruiting, and continue to yield for a few years. By then, other medium lifespan species (like custard apple) would be fruiting well. A little later, your long lifespan trees like mango would also begin to yield.”
 
‘Community Learning Alliance’ and Long-term Vision
 

In October this year, Van Vadi will be hosting a 6 day ‘skill-share’ Van Utsav (or Forest Festival) around the theme, ‘Sharing Creativity, Celebrating Community’. This, we hope, will attract a number of ‘like-minded’ sensitive souls to give a fillip to our effort at building an alternative community. As an immediate goal though, we plan to start an ongoing ‘Community Learning Alliance’ that includes both adivasi youngsters, as well as city folk. What actually unfolds, remains to be seen…  

Post-script: About 60 people, including a number of kids and 3 grandparents participated in the Van-utsav. Most stayed the full 6 days – without electricity or piped water, and had a great time! The ‘forest festival’ concept caught on, and was hosted in 2006 by Sadhana Forest, Auroville. In 2007, it will hopefully return to Van Vadi.

While Van Vadi still does not have any resident community on the land, apart from our 5 adivasi workers, we are hopeful that it will happen when the time is ripe. Meanwhile, the paving of the road going past our land has improved vehicular accessibility. Electricity is expected to reach in a year or two, though not all are happy about that!

 [Note: Van Vadi is about 1.5 km from village Vaara (Vare), Taluka Karjat (closer to Neral), District Raigarh, Maharashtra.]