Rational Agriculture

Farming and wildlife

2006-05-09T18:26:00.000+01:00

We hear a lot about the negative impact of farming on the environment, so it's refreshing to see some good news reported. The BBC, bless their hearts, put up an interesting piece on the encouragement of wildlife on farms (see Farm pioneers return of wildlife). It features Marek Nowakowski of the Farmed Environment Company, an enthusiast for planting unproductive areas of farmland, field margins etc with seed-bearing plants to attract insects and provide food for birds.

The interesting thing is how successful such interventions can be: given the food, wildlife flourishes. Which goes to show that the countryside hasn't been turned into some sterile desert by agriculture. Wildlife must be there in the first place for it to thrive when more food is available. And it seems to be as simple as that: provide the food and birds and animals find it and build bigger communities.

All this builds on other pioneering work. See, in particular, project Buzz (run by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) and Operation bumblebee (with seed supplied by Syngenta), both under the guidance of the estimable Mr Nowakowski.

Revealed in their true colours: Anti-GM activists regard commonsense as bizarre!

2006-03-19T11:28:00.000Z

The UK Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has just published a report on the wider implications of the Farm-Scale Evaluations of GM crop management (now out for consultation: go ahead and support it!).

The committee's analysis and conclusions bring a welcome and refreshing breath of fresh air to the whole debate. In particular, they make the point that any change in agricultural practice in principle should be assessed for its impact, without the breeding process (eg GM) being singled out for special attention. They point out that herbicide tolerance would have the same effects whether GM or "conventional". Equally, they use the examples of the introduction of Japanese knotweed and the change from spring to autumn sowing to illustrate how major impacts can occur with absolutely no regulatory oversight.

Now, of course, good sense is not what environmental activists are interested in: this is a challenge to their deeply-held beliefs about the evils of modern agriculture, private industry, or indeed anyone who doesn't wear sandals and subscribe to organic box schemes. Sean Poulter, in the Daily Mail of 17th March (read this at your peril: it should have a government health warning) includes the following enlightening quotes:

But Pete Riley, director of the national GM Freeze campaign, warned: 'ACRE seems to be more keen on promoting biotechnology than protecting the environment, which is its primary duty.' Friends of the Earth's Clare Oxborrow added: 'This new line from ACRE is utterly bizarre. The farm-scale trials picked out all the negative consequence of GM farming. If they had not been carried out we would not have the evidence of harm.'

This can be roughly translated as "My mind is made up: don't confuse me with facts": a truly post-modernist response. Hopefully, good sense will prevail, and ACRE's sensible advice will be put into effect, notwithstanding the squeals of those who find commonsense too much to stomach.

Organic irony of the week

2006-02-22T10:58:00.000Z

The Soil Association, beloved of Guardian readers, has been on a roll for the last few years, getting token quantities of organic produce in our supermarkets (a tip: if you're in a hurry, go to the organic section, there's never anyone there, unless you shop in Waitrose) and hyping up the growth figures for what remains a niche market. Sincere as they are, it's always nice to have a laugh at their expense, and a perfect opportunity was provided today.

As I ate my (conventionally-produced, but cheaper and equally healthy) breakfast, it brightened my day to hear that Patrick Holden had criticised the government for not being prepared to vaccinate chickens against bird flu. This, from an organisation which bans all "synthetic" inputs to organic farms and only allows farmers to treat sick animals with conventional medicines (that is, ones which work) if all else fails. What next, a Damascene conversion to weedkillers? Perhaps someone could make a radiation-induced mutation (not genetically modified, that's against the rules) in a plant so it produces its own Roundup(R)?

The motivation, of course, is financial. If bird flu becomes a real threat, free-range chicken flocks would have to be brought indoors, which means organic producers would lose their status and ability to charge premium prices.

Anyway, the irony of this brightened my day, as I hope it will yours. For more, see Bird flu preparations criticised.

Buffer zones are "arbitrary" and "disproportionate"

2006-02-06T08:32:00.000Z

Readers of this blog will have seen a previous posting on the report of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution regarding the effect of pesticide spraying on bystanders (Crop spraying no problem for bystanders). The eminent members of the Commission, having been lobbied hard by activists (and, to be fair, a number of people who quite genuinely believe that pesticides are the root cause of their health problems) decided, in the complete absence of evidence of harm, to recommend a 5 metre buffer zone between spraying of fields and neighbouring properties.

The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides has now given its response: see today's BBC report Row over risk of farm chemicals. In particular:

'While agreeing with some of the recommendations made in the report, Professor David Coggon, chair of the ACP when the response was written, said the committee strongly disagreed with the recommendation of placing a five metre buffer zone alongside residential property to protect against possible adverse health effects.

"We agree that there is scientific uncertainty, but we think a buffer zone is arbitrary and a disproportionate response to the uncertainty," he told the BBC News website.

The ACP committee argues there are already wide margins of safety built into the current regulatory system, but says the RCEP failed to take these into account when writing its report.'

So, the government's official advisory committee on pesticides thinks the RCEP is talking out the back of its head. You might hope that would be the end of the story. Sadly, I don't think so.

A choice of identical milks

2006-01-10T09:23:00.000Z

I reproduce the following short article from the Financial Times in its entirety. It speaks for itself. This seems to be a victory of sorts for the anti-GM brigade but, in reality, a meaningless one. The problem is, of course, that it reinforces misleading information and unwarranted concerns.

Got milked?

Clay Harris

January 7 2006

There's been a lot of debate recently over how much choice consumers want but it's rare to find a retailer who admits offering a completely meaningless one.

J Sainsbury is "trialling" a new sort of milk: from cows raised on a diet that contains no genetically modified feed. It admits that scientific studies carried out by several "well-respected organisations" have found there is no GM DNA or protein in milk from cows fed on a GM diet. But it brags that it is the only big retailer to offer this choice.

No doubt sales will be helped by a garish flash alerting shoppers to the fact that its new product is from GM-free cows; just the sort of labelling to suggest there is something wrong with milk from GM-fed cows.

Raising doubt where there was previously none is the sort of marketing strategy that incenses government ministers trying to promote Britain as a place where science is taken seriously.

That must surely be the view of the science minister, Lord Sainsbury, who is still the supermarket chain's largest shareholder, although his shares are held in a blind trust.

Good news on water quality

2006-01-09T12:46:00.000Z

We hear so much about the supposed problems associated with modern farming that the positive news is often given a low profile. It's good, then, to see a report in the Farmers' Weekly telling us that Pesticide residues in water show significant decline. According to this, there was a 19% reduction in the number of surface water samples failing to meet the drinking water quality standard in 2004, following an 18% decrease the year before. The vast majority of groundwater samples in the UK also fall below the limit.

And the limit in question? That's 0.1 part per billion: 1 part in 10,000,000,000. Or, to put it another way, the equivalent of 1 second in 317 years! Since residue limits are set in a highly precautionary way, we are talking about very remote theoretical risks from water, even before suppliers have spent large sums of money removing the tiny residues of pesticides.

This also shows that farmers are adopting a sensible and responsible approach to pesticide use. The message: don't worry unnecessarily about things which really are no problem at all.

GM politics hits Mali

2005-12-11T11:33:00.000Z

According to a BBC story, Mali has a "David and Goliath GM struggle". The reason? There is a move to consider introducing Bt cotton varieties, which would resist pests and require less spraying. That sounds quite sensible, to evaluate available technology and decide whether or not to use it. Siaka Dembele, of the country's agricultural research institute (the IER), says that they have seen figures showing that improved yields are possible, and are now embarking on a 5-year study, together with USAid, Monsanto and Syngenta to see whether this could be beneficial for Mali.

But some people are trying to stop this. According to the article:

"That's an absurd proposition," says Asseto Samake, a professor of genetics and biology at the University of Mali. "The claims they are making for this cotton are absolutely false."

"Our farmers in West Africa achieve record production using just their digging sticks and regular seeds and they have great difficulty selling what they produce, because subsidies in America and Europe have made the world price for cotton fall.

"So why do they come now with their GMOs and technology to solve a problem that they created? It's a big farce!" adds Ms Samake, who is a member of the Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage that formed when word leaked from IER about the USAid-funded project on BT crops.

Hidden in the knee-jerk anti-GM reaction is some truth: agricultural subsidies do distort the market, and do disadvantage farmers in Mali and elsewhere. But this has nothing to do with GM or any other agricultural technology. The "Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage" is another environmentalist, anti-globalisation front, led by people with strong beliefs and closed minds. They cleverly represent themselves as David in the struggle against the American Goliath.

Perhaps Bt cotton won't work in Mali. But, if there's money available for the project and local scientists and farmers want to do the evaluation, why should anyone want to stop them?

Water vapour, climate and farming

2005-12-08T11:26:00.000Z

This is not a new story, but one which is pertinent, given the current climate change meeting in Montreal (where, as normal, no practical progress will be made). This is also my first posting to this blog for a while, not through loss of interest, but pure lack of time. So, let me get on with some musings, and try to establish a more regular pattern of postings again.

What sparked this was a story on BBCi last month (Water builds the heat in Europe). Researchers from the World Radiation Center in Davos (no, I didn't know this existed, either) reported that about 70% of the observed rise in average temperatures across Europe was due to water vapour. Now, on one hand, this shouldn't surprise us too much: atmospheric water vapour does indeed have a much greater effect on temperature than the very low levels of carbon dioxide present. However, the received wisdom is that carbon dioxide is highly persistent in the atmosphere - it takes a long while for a relatively high level to decay - whereas water vapour varies much more. In fact, one of the prime pieces of logic behind the IPCC's assertion that the present trends in climate are largely anthropogenic is that carbon dioxide's relatively small effect is boosted by a feedback mechanism whereby water vapour levels are increased.

Be this as it may, changes in climate influence farming patterns. Recently, we've heard that southern Europe may become a desert while the UK experiences what is currently a Mediterranean climate. However, other people tell us that the Gulf stream will be shut down and the UK (and presumably western parts of continental Europe) will be gripped by a new ice age. One things for sure: they can't both be right (although if either came to pass, it would be hailed as a success for climate models, run as evidence-free predictive experiments).

Which brings me (finally) to the subject of agriculture. Significant changes in climate will lead to different cropping patterns. This has happened before, and will happen again. As long as sufficient food can be grown, it really doesn't matter too much where it is grown. Since we really don't know how climate will change, farmers will have to adapt to the changes over a period of time as they occur. Farmers are good at this; they've been doing it for a long time.

The other point which is relevant to agriculture is that temperature changes are expressed as averages over a year. Now, my understanding is that much of the predicted temperature increase actually occurs in winter and at night. In other words, we might get fewer frosts in winter, and balmier nights in summer. This could be as significant for cropping patterns as higher daytime summer temperatures. Who knows? I don't, and I really don't believe climate modellers or the IPCC do, either.

Crop spraying: no problem for bystanders

2005-10-09T19:38:00.000+01:00

It's one of those common, but mistaken, beliefs that pesticides are responsible for all sorts of ills. One particular aspect reported on recently by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders). This weighty document, prepared essentially because pressure groups had demanded it, has made a number of "precautionary" recommendations (such as increasing the width of buffer zones) on the basis of no real evidence.

It falls to the Womens Food and Farming Union - a feisty and sensible bunch - to put this into perspective. In their press release - WFU calls for balanced reporting of pesticide industry - they say

"The Chairman Sir Tom Blundell admitted that there was no scientific evidence at all to connect any illness with crop spraying and yet recommended that trials and tests into health of residents and bystanders should be carried out. The flavour of the public meeting only served to demonstrate the ignorance of the majority of people about crop spraying especially some journalists. ...The anti’s opinion is given voice and credence. It is ‘frankenstein’ food all over again."

What more can I say?

On the organic plateau: all downhill from here?

2005-08-24T15:19:00.000+01:00

Organic food proponents would often have us believe that sales of organic produce are growing strongly and that soon most of Europe's countryside will be taken over by "sustainable" farms, havens for biodiversity and producing over-priced food for the masses. Indeed, by some measures, organic sales are increasing, as processed food manufacturers jump on the bandwagon. However, packaged, industrially produced food is not really in keeping with the original intentions of the organic movement, and organic fruit and vegetable sales certainly don't seem to be booming: visit your local supermarket and see how easy it is to get to the small organic section compared to "conventional" produce.

And now we have some recent statistics which tell us more about what European farmers are doing in practice. See, for example, a Euractiv report on a recent Eurostat study - Despite measures, organic farming remains tiny in EU. According to this, 3.8% of farmland was used for organic production in 2002, up from 1.8% in 1998. Given the incentives available and the dire state of farmers' finances, such growth is hardly surprising, but the more extreme plans for 10, 20 or even 30% conversion to organic now seem to have been quietly forgotten.

However, this rapid growth from a low baseline has not been continued. More recent statistics from DEFRA in the UK bring us up to January 2005. The figures show just over 690,000 hectares (4.1% of total farmland) either organic or in conversion. Interestingly, this is down 1% from the figure one year earlier. The fully organic land had increased by 1%, that in conversion on the other hand had decreased by 17%. The message seems to be that most of those farmers who want to turn organic have already done so.

And the organic sector is suffering from the same problems as the rest of the market, including unscrupulous suppliers just out to make a quick buck. This is particularly easy, because there is no analytical way to distinguish "organic" from "conventional". Organic standards are purely process-based, and the designation depends entirely on having the correct paper trail. So, the report in last Sunday's Observer (If you buy "organic produce" can you trust what you get) is hardly surprising. This centres on two particular recent prosecutions, but reports also that a number of other cases are pending. Such cases are hardly likely to contribute to further growth of the market: organic is a sector where trust is everything.

Finally, a couple of quotes from the Observer article:

Demand for meat and vegetables produced in healthy, humane conditions, which are free of pesticides, additives and other chemical nasties, is soaring, with the result that the organic food industry is a multi-million-pound business. Latest figures show it is worth £1.12 billion a year in the UK, a tenfold increase on eight years ago. Sales are currently growing by £2 million a week.

Well, actually, ignoring the hype, and resisting the urge to question most of the assumptions, £1.12 billion annually is still only the sales value for a single reasonably-sized food company. To put it into context, Tesco alone had sales of £27 billion and profits of £2 billion in the last financial year.

Some may be tempted to see organic food fraud as a victimless crime, the equivalent of Del Boy selling bottled tap water labelled 'Peckham Spring' to wealthy yuppies in the Eighties. But, Eade said, such a view was misplaced.

'People from all walks of life buy organic food and for all sorts of different reasons. Not just because they don't like pesticides; it might be for animal welfare reasons - organic regulations ensure a very high standard of animal welfare,' he explained.

What the Soil Association and others have managed to do is to convince many people that organic food is "better", but the reality seems to be that it will remain a niche market for both suppliers and consumers.

When is a superweed not a superweed?

2005-07-29T16:13:00.000+01:00

Readers of much of the UK press will have found environmental journalists getting somewhat over-excited this week. Headlines included the Guardian's Weed discovery brings calls for GM ban (but then the Guardian is always calling for this), the Scotsman's Green body's fury at 'superweed' in field of GM crops (with the constant state of fury and outrage that many environmentalists find themselves in, I worry about their blood pressure) and, from the Daily Mail The GM superweed - Gene trial spawns a wild plant that won't be killed off (which makes me even more concerned about the health of the average Mail reader, unless they're so used to scare headlines that they've lost their power to shock). Even the Sun was driven to print a story under the headline Superweed - Scientists find mutant GM pest in British countryside (which, at risk of causing offence, I might suggest to be a bit indigestible for the average reader of this illustrious organ).

And the reason for this almost universal shock and horror? Scientists at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology published a report on a study to look for gene flow from GM herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape (grown on a trial basis during the recent government-sponsored Farm Scale Evaluations) to neighbouring plants. In the study, they collected over 95,000 seeds from plants related to rape, germinated them in greenhouses and looked for herbicide tolerance. They found just two (that's right, two) turnip rape plants (a closely-related species) tolerant to the weedkiller in question (glufosinate).

But the observation which sparked the "outrage" was the discovery of one plant (charlock - a common weed, but not closely related to rape) resistant to glufosinate in a field margin. On looking again next year, nothing was found. And, on such flimsy foundations, those people who just know that genetic modification is wrong, who having been looking unsuccessfully for so long for scientific confirmation, have built a story which is essentially a house of cards, ready to be demolished by the first breathe of rationality.

Fortunately, more balanced comments have appeared. Pride of place must go to Professor Joyce Tait in the Scotsman (We need to move past scare stories in the GM debate). Also notable were comments from Brian Johnson of English Nature. Brian has concerns about the potential environmental impact of some GM crops, but he also makes judgements based on the evidence. He was originally heavily mis-quoted by the Guardian, but his letter corrects this. To quote it in full:

"As the scientist quoted in your article (GM crops created superweed, say scientists, July 25), can I clarify that I specifically said the plants found during the research were not, in my view, "superweeds" because one of them appeared to have non-viable seed? I neither said nor implied that the plants found by the researchers would multiply rapidly or have a "huge selective advantage" - quite the opposite.

I did not say "there is every reason to suppose that the GM trait could be in the plant's pollen", but that it was just possible that the GM trait could be carried in the pollen, and the research did not analyse the pollen so we could not know if the trait was there, and, in any case, pollen from hybrids might not be viable.

Dr Brian Johnson, English Nature"

A case of irresponsible journalists clutching at (super)straws?

Meacher: Indecent Exposure

2005-07-20T15:38:00.000+01:00

Michael Meacher, freed from his responsibilites as a government Minister, continues to make mischief and act as the willing mouthpiece of the environmentalist lobby. In today's Grauniad, in a piece entitled Indecent Exposure, he tries to scare us all about the (unsubstantiated) links between pesticides and ill-health.

According to him "Government figures just released reveal startling evidence of the continued increase in the use of pesticides, despite their known toxic damage to the environment and probably to human health. In the past decade, the area of crops sprayed with pesticides in the UK has increased by a further million hectares. The use of pesticides has increased by more than 30% in the same period, even though the area of land under cultivation has decreased."

What he ignores, of course, is fact that crude figures tell you nothing: it's the environmental impact which is important. Increasingly, farmers are turning to the principles of Integrated Crop Management and, via schemes such as LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming), obtaining high yields of good quality crops while using crop protection products when needed rather than on a precautionary basis. As for "toxic damage to the environment" we know that all farming methods, including organic, have a massive impact on the farmed environment. Nitrogen run-off can have the same effect on water courses whether the nitrogen has been chemically fixed or added to the soil as animal or green manure. The deep ploughing needed to control weeds in organic systems results in greater carbon loss and increased soil erosion.

But the most egregious phrase is "toxic damage...and probably to human health". The impression is that pesticides harm health, but the "probably" has to be included because there's no evidence to support the statement. The article goes on to raise more fears of the "linked to" and "associated with" type, in the absence of hard data.

Where the article does quote figures, it gets them wrong in its eagerness to target Man-made chemicals. According to Meacher "The recent findings, which suggest that farmers who have been exposed to pesticides are 43 times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease, confirm suspicions that date back years." In fact, the reference is to a recent University of Aberdeen study which found that farmers had a 43% (note to Michael, that's not the same as 43 times) greater likelihood of developing Parkinson's disease. In fact, this study just looked at self-reported exposure to pesticides, in data collated from interviews in several countries (see link to original New Scientist story). This evidence is, at best, circumstantial, and the researchers themselves say that there are other more significant risk factors. It also has to be seen in light of the fact that these same farmers, exposed to these same chemicals, have a lower incidence of cancer than the general population. A clear warning that you need to take the broader picture rather than just pick out facts which apparently support your favourite case.

The most indecent thing this article exposes is Meacher's belief in the insinuations and half-truths put out by those who believe that use of synthetic pesticides is an offence against nature.

Good news is no news: pesticide residues pose no threat to health

2005-07-01T09:08:00.000+01:00

The UK Pesticide Residues Committee has published its latest findings on its monitoring work. This is summarised in Is there a risk to health from eating pesticide residues in food? And the answer is a resounding NO.

Unfortunately, the good news really doesn't get reported, presumably because it doesn't lead to scare headlines. It was reported by the BBC on-line service on 29th June (Pesticide levels "pose no threat"), but the article isn't listed under the Health or Science/Nature sections and can only be found by searching (or clicking on the link I've helpfully supplied: all part of the service).

Of course, this doesn't satisfy those people who think that farmers are conspiring to poison them: facts apparently don't interest them. So, from the BBC story, we have:

But Pesticide Action Network spokeswoman Alison Craig told BBC News the MRL was "completely irrelevant to human health".

The report failed to take into account the "cocktail effect" of combining different pesticides or the "lifetime of exposure to pesticides that starts in the womb", she said.

"Pesticides are poisons, and consumers are entitled to no contamination at all."

So, that's clear then: ignore the evidence and the advice of experts and stick to your beliefs.

But, to put real and imagined risks in perspective, look at the next quote:

An FSA spokesman told BBC News "long-term use" had been factored into the committee's findings.

But he warned consumers to continue to wash and peel fresh fruit and vegetables - not to remove traces of pesticides, but to ensure food was free from bacteria.

Whose view do you support?

Are the days of the CAP numbered?

2005-06-20T14:28:00.000+01:00

The current crisis in the EU has one apparent root cause: the failure of the British government to compromise over its budget rebate, extracted by Margaret Thatcher amongst much acrimony back in the early 80's. This issue has been raised right now because President Chirac wanted to deflect blame from himself for the resounding "non" in the French referendum on the EU constitution, at the same time making Tony Blair's upcoming European presidency as uncomfortable as possible (there's no love lost between these two leaders).

However, with the next EU budget (running from 2007) due to be formally tabled next year, this row would have happened then if not now. The crux of the matter is that, although the budget is small as a percentage of GDP (1%) it is large in absolute terms (€100 billion), and there is plenty of concern about how it is spent, particularly on agriculture. The Common Agricultural Policy, accounting for nearly half of the total budget, is heavily skewed in favour of the rather inefficient French farming sector.

This has for long been a bone of contention between France and countries such as the UK which have previously gone through painful, but necessary, restructuring of their agricultural sectors. Last year's EU expansion has brought many other inefficient farmers into the fold, particularly in Poland. However, they are not going to receive the same benefits as their pampered French cousins, which may increase the pressure for change.

But, although there is plenty of argument locally about this €40 billion or so subsiding European farmers, the real sufferers are farmers in the developing world. Subsidising inefficient production and selling surpluses on the world market, so depressing prices, has a real negative impact on poor Third World farmers who may want to export cash crops to Europe. The most egregious example is surely sugar: in a rational world Europe wouldn't have its own sugar industry but would instead import cane sugar from the sub-tropics. Forget debt relief: opening up agricultural markets would give many poor countries the real boost they need.

Surely, in our prosperous continent, we can bite the bullet and phase out the CAP sooner rather than later. In the long run, such protection does no-one any good. Irrational agriculture is bad agriculture.

Protecting biodiversity "may clash with pursuit of MDGs"

2005-05-26T14:35:00.000+01:00

So reads the headline for a recent piece on the SciDev website. This covers the publication on 19th May by the biodiversity working group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of a new report: Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A biodiversity synthesis.

This report commits the sin (for environmentalists) of suggesting that there may be trade-offs to be made between the needs of poor people and conservation targets. It then compounds this by suggesting that the various targets will not be fully met. Heresy indeed.

But, if we try to look at the situation objectively, it seems to be pretty generally accepted that the initial goal of any concerted effort to lift people out of absolute poverty is to enable them to grow or buy sufficient food. It is also clear that agriculture has a major impact on the environment, eliminating some ecological niches and creating others. So, it's not entirely surprising that there may be some conflicts between the Millennium Development goals and some conservation targets. Not only that, but the evidence of our own eyes is that richer societies provide higher quality, less polluted environments for their citizens. It also seems self-evident that more productive, more intensive agriculture actually protects biodiversity by reducing the need to encroach on marginal lands to grow food.

This, however, does not please many in the environmentalist movement, who are reluctant to compromise their absolute beliefs and certainties. Hamdallah Zedan, executive director of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, for example, is quoted thus "What they are forgetting is that biological diversity is the source for our current and future food supplies. We will destroy this if we expand our current agricultural system." While there are many who would subscribe to this view, and few who would have no qualms at all about wanton destruction of species, the fact remains that Humankind ultimately depends on the productivity of a handful of domesticated crop species: not much biodiversity there.

My concerns about the absolutist position of some in the Green movement were reinforced when we read later in the article that there is good evidence that the rate of ecosystem degradation is slowing, but that such positive news is not seen as worthy of a high profile in the MEA report.

It looks like the propaganda must continue for the forces of good to triumph (excuse my cynicism)...

Farming in the First and Third Worlds

2005-05-24T09:32:00.000+01:00

Two items have come up in the past few days which merit some attention.

One relates to agriculture here in Europe, where farmers are a small and, in some cases, well-off part of society. The other concerns the developing world, where farmers generally constitute the largest single social group and the vast majority of whom live in real poverty.

First, up for debate by the European Union is the UK's rebate on net contributions. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this (and the UK is the only country willing to defend it) the reason why it was negotiated in the first place is that the UK receives considerably less than the other large European economies in direct payments from the EU. And the reason for this is simply that half the European budget is taken up by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), most of which goes to support inefficient farming in southern Europe (although those of us further north also take our share).

In the past, the subsidies paid resulted in needless over-production and the infamous "milk lake" and "beef mountain". The worst excesses have been organised out of the system, and the move is now towards paying farmers just for owning land rather than for producing anything. Of course, the rewards are higher if the land is managed in ways deemed to be environmentally friendly. But the result is that people will be paid £70 per acre just for owning farmland. To some extent, this is a recognition that the countryside we expect to see in much of Europe has been shaped by agriculture and that we effectively have to subsidise people to keep it this way. And, to some extent, it addresses the greater wrong of subsidised crops destabilising world markets and making it even harder for poor people to earn a living growing cash crops.

And this brings me on to my second point. The Department for International Development has started a consultation process on its new Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture, which will run for ten years from 2006. In many ways, this is eminently sensible, recognising that productive agriculture is the main route to lift people out of absolute poverty but that, as societies become more prosperous, farming becomes a less and less important part of their overall economies. However, there are some omissions. For example, the focus is clearly on developing crop varieties which are resistant to pests, diseases and other stresses, but makes no mention of crop protection. If Third World farmers really are to be helped, we should make available all the tools which can contribute to consistent harvests and, in many cases, that includes conventional crop protection.

For anyone who wants to make their views known, the public consultation runs until 13th June, and the website is SRSA-Consultation@dfid.gov.uk .

Soil quality in Europe

2005-05-05T12:54:00.000+01:00

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre has recently published its first ever Soil Atlas of Europe (see the Press Pack and the BBC online report on this). Perhaps the most important thing is that this focusses on the fact that soil is vital, but often comes in for little consideration. The very pertinent quote from the JRC site sums it up well:

"Man … despite his artistic pretensions and many accomplishments, owes his existence to a thin layer of topsoil … and the fact that it rains".

According to the report, there is cause for concern over degradation of soils. As the BBC puts it:

“The major threats to soil quality identified by the atlas are erosion, the overuse of fertilisers and pesticides, the loss of organic content, pollution from industry, the loss of biodiversity, salinity, the compacting of soil by agricultural vehicles, landslides and flooding."

Clearly, soil is important, and there are many factors which can threaten it. But there is an implication in reports such as this that this is all due to "modern" agriculture. In actual fact, one of the statistics quoted is that 75% of land in Southern Europe has an organic matter content low enough to cause concern. On the other hand, soils with low organic matter content in England and Wales accounted for 42% of land in 1995. It is generally recognised that farming in the UK is amongst the most intensive (and productive) in Europe, so clearly intensive farming is not the primary cause.

Indeed, if we moved towards less extensive, organic agriculture, as some would still have us believe is desirable, we would need to keep considerably greater areas of land in good condition in order to produce as much food. The situation is never quite as simple as it seems.

Agriculture and nanotechnology

2005-04-12T16:30:00.000+01:00

I didn't expect to be using these two words as a title for a posting (at least, not just yet). Agriculture, despite the enormous technological strides made over the centuries, is still seen as a very basic (though not necessarily "natural") activity. Nanotechnology, on the other hand, seems to epitomise the current cutting edge of science.

Nevertheless, a survey just published in Public Library of Science Medicine (Nanotechnology and the Developing World) puts agricultural productivity enhancement as second in its top ten of the most important development-related application areas for nanotechnology. Energy storage, production and conversion was first and this also arguably has a significant overlap with efficient farming systems.

Bear in mind that this report covers a Delphi study, so is essentially a collection of individual views of people with an understanding of the technology and its implications. In that sense, it is not objective, but should still be seen as a consensus view from people in a good position to know. Food for thought here, and confirmation, if we needed it, that all possible tools need to be made available if the world's poorest people are to be lifted out of poverty.

For sake of completeness, the particular applications the respondents identified in the agricultural area were:

Nanoporous zeolites for slow-release and effi cient dosage of water and fertilizers for plants, and of nutrients and drugs for livestock
Nanocapsules for herbicide delivery
Nanosensors for soil quality and for plant health monitoring
Nanomagnets for removal of soil contaminants

What do the Farm Scale Evaluations really tell us?

2005-03-28T09:43:00.000+01:00

Last week, the UK government-sponsored programme of Farm Scale Evaluations of GM crops was finally wound up, with the publication of the report on winter oilseed rape (see the summary, published at the same time as the scientific paper).

Inevitably, the results have been spun by those with fixed views. The BBC's on-line story was headlined GM study shows potential "harm": when quotation marks start being used, this is a sure sign that the interpretation is nuanced. To quote Les Firbanks, who led the scientific team: "It's one of those issues where you can look down either end of the telescope".

The important thing to realise is that these trials were about crop management rather than genetic modification. The GM oilseed rape was tolerant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glufosinate, and this was used to control weeds. The conventionally-bred rape used alternative crop protection products.

The result was that the GM crop had fewer broad-leafed weeds, and hence fewer weed seeds available for farmland birds to eat. This is the "harm" which was demonstrated, which highlights the question: why do we grow crops? The answer is, of course, to feed ourselves, not to encourage weeds and feed wildlife. Farms provide unnatural environments which, nevertheless, provide ecological niches exploited by some species.

Does this mean we should put the needs of these species first? In practice, growing food efficiently (ie, with little competition from weeds) means that less land need be actively farmed and more managed as wildlife habitat. "Harm" is often in the eye of the beholder. Fortunately, we have moved away from the paradigm that farmers should be encouraged to produce the most they could on every square inch of arable land. Today's farmers are able to grow high yields of crops while managing field margins and other unproductive areas for the benefit of wildlife. But they also need to make a living, so will only continue to manage their land in this way while they are rewarded for it.

The lesson from the Farm Scale Evaluations is surely that farming is a complex system, within which a range of desirable outcomes need to be balanced, while focussing on the primary intention of producing safe, affordable food.

UK farms "want to grow GM crops"

2005-03-16T10:02:00.000Z

So said Hugh Grant, president of Monsanto, in "Farming Today" programme on the radio this morning (at too ungentlemanly an hour for most of us, but reported on the BBC news website). He says that surveys show farmers to be generally positive, which seems to fit with previous surveys, and only goes to show that farmer need to earn a living and are more open-minded than some in the environmentalist movement.

Of course, whether or not UK farmers grow GM crops themselves, the EU is still dependent on imported GM soya for animal feed: we are by no means a GM-free zone, as some might like to think.

Predictably, Friends of the Earth (has anyone asked Gaia whether she wants friends like these?) come out with their mantra of "much more research is needed". This is because all the research that has taken place in the last decade or so has failed to demonstrate the dire consequences they predict. So, if you don't have facts to back up your case, keep doing research until something negative turns up. Then trumpet this as proof that you are right, and ignore the vast majority of evidence which does not support your case. No wonder some of the more unthinking environmentalists are losing credibility with the public and Greenpeace is now taking a much more measured approach to the emerging issue of nanotechnology.

Biological pest control can carry its own dangers

2005-03-16T09:45:00.000Z

Several UK news sources have carried a story about the threat to native ladybird populations by the harlequin ladybird (see, for example Survey to track "alien" ladybird on the BBC news website).

This species was introduced into parts of northern Europe in order to reduce aphid infestation. However, they were spotted in the UK last autumn - some having arrived on Tesco flowers from the Netherlands - and there is now some concern about their ecological impact. Apparently, once they've polished off the aphids - which they do avidly and thus out- compete native ladybirds for food - they start to feed on the native species themselves.

Of course, if we look at this over a longer timescale, the current ecological balance is not a static one. Climate changes (yes, climate changed even before we started to become alarmed about it in recent years) and different land use patterns will have contributed to significant changes to the balance of species. Going back far enough, many of our current "native" farmland specialist birds would not have been present, and the UK would have been dominated by woodland species.

All of which leads to the conclusion that any changes to farming practice - including sensible moves towards biological pest control - will have consequences, and it is unrealistic to expect that we should engineer the landscape to take us back to some mythical golden age of biodiversity, (which normally coincides with our childhood years). Species of birds, animals, insects and plants, whether already present or introduced, will exploit whatever ecological niches they are best suited to, often to the detriment of other species. What is then "good" or "bad" is purely in the eye of the beholder.

European Commission to address outstanding issues on GM crops

2005-02-26T10:23:00.000Z

Despite the fact that new approvals (at least for import) are gradually coming through the convoluted European regulatory system, there are still a number of loose ends to tie up, including rationalisation of the decision-making process and introduction of an EU-wide coexistence framework.

According to a Reuters report, available via Checkbiotech (EU Commission plans GMO debate, end policy void) there are some moves towards resolving these issues. But don't hold your breath: no date has been set yet.

Public sector research in crop biotechnology

2005-02-23T12:18:00.000Z

One of the (many) criticisms made of agricultural biotechnology (at least as it pertains to GM crops) is that it is a technology under the control of the private sector. This is largely a result of the withdrawal from crop breeding by many governments in the developed world a few decades ago: private industry moved in to fill the vacuum and surely can't be blamed for that.

However, a consequence of this is that projects for developing world crops are often not high on the agenda. This is a pity: countries which have real food security problems should at least have the option of using potentially useful technologies. A step in the right direction may well be the Public Research and Recognition initiative, which is holding its first forum at the beginning of March in the USA. Chaired by Professor Phil Dale of the UK John Innes Centre, this has attracted the support of many other researchers from a wide range of countries. More information at the link.

GM for all

2005-02-15T09:34:00.000Z

One of the criticisms levelled at crop biotechnology by opponents is that it is controlled by foreign multinationals (although the golden rice example shows that any intellectual property issues are surmountable). Now, however, comes a development analogous to open-source software: a freely-available, public domain transformation technique. Researchers at CAMBIA in Australia have developed the use of bacteria other than the classic Agrobacterium to introduce genes into plant cells. Although the method is patented, open-source licences will be available for researchers in developing countries. As for the Linux operating system, results will be shared, with no-one having monopoly control of inventions, thus building up a bank of freely-available improved crop plants. The original work was published in Nature on February 10th, but the link is to a summary on the SciDev website.

Making such tools available to countries with food security problems, particularly those by-passed by the green revolution, is another positive step in lifting people out of poverty.

Activist outrage at open-mindedness

2005-02-08T17:10:00.000Z

The Canadian-based ETC group (Erosion, Technology and Concentration) is among the more radical of the environmental NGOs, being suspicious of all new technologies, at least when coming from the private sector. Their latest press release (see link) really takes the biscuit. According to this, the Canadian government is secretly trying to foist so-called "Terminator" technology on an unsuspecting world.

This technology, more accurately called GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) was first developed as a concept by the USDA as a theoretical way to avoid the spread of GM traits by making seed unviable without special treatment. This approach can, of course, also be used to protect proprietary technology, by ensuring that farmers have to buy seed of the protected varieties each year. This is nothing new: hybrid seed doesn't breed true, and nearly all the maize grown in the developed world is from seed purchased from the breeder each year.

All the Canadian government seems to be suggesting is that, at the UN meeting being held now in Bangkok, its delegation push for a reversal of the current activist-inspired moratorium on GURT use to allow for trials of a technology which has not yet even been proven to work. The moral seems to be that sensible, open-minded approaches will not be allowed unless they happen to suit the agenda of unaccountable NGOs, claiming (usually falsely) to represent a much wider constituency. Such is life...

Gordon Conway's new job

2005-02-08T08:40:00.000Z

Gordon Conway, ex-head of the Rockefeller Foundation, is now the Chief Scientist at the UK Department for International Development. He is the first appointee to this new position, and it's difficult to think of someone better equipped to do the job. He is refreshingly clear-sighted and non-doctrinare, focussing on the needs of the poor rather than fashionable views on development. The useful SciDev website carries a report of a speech he made a few days ago, which gives a good illustration of his style (see link).

GM sugar beet

2005-02-07T09:39:00.000Z

Another story which is not new, but nicely illustrates the problem with entrenched views and closed minds. Earlier this year, a team from the Brooms Barn research station (a division of Rothamsted Research, specialising in research on beet) published results of trials which showed that flexible management of GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet could provide a good food supply for farmland birds without compromising yield. There seems little wrong with that: surely most people would at least say this was interesting and worth doing more work on. Not so the zealots of the "Five Year Freeze" campaign, who are dead set against GM seeds.

The story was reported by the Independent on 19th January (see link) under the headline "GM sugar beet could aid wildlife, say researchers". Despite this, the first sentence reads "Campaigners battling genetically-modified crops today attacked a new study which claimed GM sugar beet could be beneficial to wildlife." It looks like the Indie couldn't quite bring itself to print a balanced article: it remains true to its prejudices.

By the way, the "Five Year Freeze" has had its way for more than five years now: time to call it a day?

Organic food

2005-02-06T11:17:00.000Z

Although this is not new, I thought I would bring to your attention an article in January's food monthly supplement in the Observer (see link). This compares the treatment of "organic" and "non-organic" fruit and vegetables, in a way guaranteed to increase the yuk factor and reinforce Guardian and Ob readers' prejudicies about the way their food is being "poisoned". The distance food is shipped, often from abroad, is also subject to criticism.

This tells us nothing about the nutritional value or eating quality of the produce. It tells us nothing about the many toxins and carcinogens naturally present in foods at much higher levels than any residues of synthetic pesticides. It tells us nothing about the harmful effect that local sourcing of all our food would have on the economies of developing countries, whose main competitive advantage lies in the supply of out-of-season fresh produce to the industrialised world.

In my view, unbalanced and partially-informed comment of the worst kind. Implicit in this is that "natural" = good and anything else is bad. Recent figures show that organic produce sales are levelling off (at least in the UK) and experience in supermarkets certainly shows this is still a niche market. Nevertheless, this sort of food snobbishness reinforces the public view that "organic" is better, despite the singular lack of evidence to support this view. Fruit and vegetable quality is determined by a whole range of factors, including variety, degree of ripeness and freshness, and the cultivation method is but one of these.

Now I've got that off my chest, I'll go back to enjoying my weekend!

Introduction

2005-01-31T12:30:00.000Z

Modern societies depend absolutely on agriculture. The transition from a hunter/gatherer existence to farming, starting around 10,000 years ago, enabled permanent settlements to be built and gave people time to pursue activities over and above pure subsistence. And yet agriculture forms a very small part of the economies of industrialised countries. In Europe, we have abundant, affordable food and have the luxury of deciding how to farm and how to manage the countryside.

Not so in many developing countries. With still about 800 million people (that's nearly twice the population of the expanded EU) undernourished in today's world, subsistence agriculture is an all-too-real fact of life. Helping to provide food security for the world's poorest is a moral imperative. This means making available all technologies which may help and allowing people to decide what is best: it's not a case of one size fits all. There is no place for doctrinare approaches.

This blog is dedicated to a discussion of all options available to farmers in both the industrialised and developing worlds. Comments are welcomed.