Tag Archives: agriculture

What Would Happen if the World’s Soils Disappeared?

The United Nations designated December 5th as World Soil Day to raise awareness about the dangers of soil loss. Youve likely heard about the environmental importance of soils. But how important are they, really? Lets take a quick look at how losing our precious soils would impact the world.

Could soil ever actually run out?

Yes. If we continue to harm and degrade topsoil at the current rate, its estimated that the world could lose all its topsoil within 60 years.

Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil on the surface of the earth. Its the most fertile type of soil that typically contains lots of nutrient-rich organic matter from broken down plants and other organisms. Topsoil is also alive with beneficial microbes, fungi and critters like earth worms, which feed on the organic matter.

The deeper layers of soil beneath the topsoil are not nearly as rich. They are primarily made up of decomposing rock that provides the raw material for future topsoil as well as a substrate for deeply rooted plants to anchor in.

If the delicate ecosystem within topsoil is disrupted, it will essentially die. Plants cant grow in topsoil that doesnt have abundant organic matter and thriving populations of microbes.

Agricultural Affects

Modern agricultural practices often use chemical fertilizers instead of organic matter. This does not feed the soil. It only provides a quick blast of limited nutrients that the plants soon consume. Whereas, plant debris and other organic matter will slowly break down and provide ongoing nutrition for growing plants and soil microorganisms.

The organic matter content that was once naturally high in topsoil is becoming more and more depleted as industrial farming practices continue. Due to this, topsoil is being lost between 10 and 40 times the rate at which it can be naturally replenished.

If this continues, agricultural soils will become less fertile and it will be more difficult to grow food. In areas where this is already happening, forest and wild areas are often being destroyed in order to make more agricultural land. Deforestation like this reduces organic matter in the soil even more, making the problem worse.

The extreme outcome of topsoil degradation would be widespread food shortages because depleted soils cant produce enough crops to provide food for everyone.

Impact on Water

Healthy topsoil will naturally retain water. Organic matter helps to maintain a good structure within soil that can absorb and release water as needed by the plants and surrounding ecosystem.

A few issues can start when topsoil becomes degraded. Flooding is perhaps the most dramatic result. When a landscape cant hold water, rainfall can only run off the surface and eventually wind up in the ocean. It will also cause erosion and take a great deal of soil with it.

Poor topsoil also creates a need for more irrigation. Many parts of the world already have water shortages, so an increased pressure on the local water supplies could lead to serious problems.

Plant and Animal Losses

If we lost the health of our soils, significant amounts of wild plants would die off around the world. This would clearly be a massive blow to biodiversity, habitat for animals and food sources. But it could also have a significant impact on climate change.

Plants naturally take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. This is the primary way carbon is removed from our atmosphere. If plant populations collapsed around the world, there could be a huge increase in the amount of circulating carbon.

Another issue is that all living things release carbon when they die, so any large-scale plant and animal die-offs would produce carbon as the organisms decompose. High levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere have already been linked to climate change and global warming. Mass die-offs would only add to this problem and potentially lead to more severe climate change.

How can we stop all this from happening?

Plant more plants. This is a vital step towards helping the worlds soils. More plants will create more organic matter, which will feed more soil microorganisms and keep soils thriving. You can start in your backyard or volunteer with an organization that reclaims and replants degraded areas.

Learn about soils. A lot of the damage done to our soils has been out of ignorance or simply taking whats under our feet for granted. But the more we can all learn about soil, the better well be able to take care of it.

Minimize hard surfaces. Large areas of pavement or other hard surfaces cause increased soil erosion around the edges and create soil dead spaces underneath. Consider making driveways, decks or sidewalks with paving stones or other materials that allow water to flow through them and the soil underneath to breathe.

Make a rain garden. This is a shallow depression you can create in your yard that will capture excess rain water and prevent soil erosion. You can plant moisture-loving plants in your rain garden, or leave it to provide water for animals.

Support your local farmers. Small-scale agriculture is often better for the health of soil. Many small farmers take the health of their land very seriously and promote fertility by non-chemical, sustainable means. Get to know the farmers at your local market and ask how they support their soils. Or better yet, go to visit their farms and check out the soil yourself.

Recycle human waste. It may be a solution no one wants to talk about, but a huge amount of organic matter that could go back into our soils is currently being flushed down the toilet. This has prompted a movement to make use of whats known as humanure, or human manure. The Humanure Handbook by Joseph Jenkins is a great place to start if youd like to explore this option.

Related
This Search Engine Plants Trees
11 Surprising Animals That Hibernate
What if All the Spiders Disappeared?

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Original link: 

What Would Happen if the World’s Soils Disappeared?

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Would Happen if the World’s Soils Disappeared?

California is betting $2 million that its traffic jams can generate electricity.

Yes, if Sen. Debbie Stabenow has her way. The Michigan Democrat announced The Urban Agriculture Act in Detroit on Monday.

The Department of Agriculture already offers support for city farmers, but this bill would add to those grants, loans, and education programs. It would also provide $10 million for urban ag research, $5 million for community gardens, incentives for farmers to provision neighbors with fresh food, and resources for composting and cleaning up contaminated soil.

So far Stabenow hasn’t released much more than a list of bullet points. The road from proposing a bill and passing a law is long, and details could change, which means there’s not much to analyze. But in general, urban ag is a mixed bag of policy greens.

Urban farms can build community, teach people about farming, and provide extra cash to laborers in cities, but they don’t create many good-paying jobs. If we farm vacant lots, rooftops, and former lawns, that’s likely a win for the environment. But if farms displace housing and spread cities out, that’s a loss. Similarly, if we replace plants grown under the sun with plants grown indoors under artificial lights, that’s no good for the climate.

For more on urban farms see our previous work, and this Next City analysis.

View post – 

California is betting $2 million that its traffic jams can generate electricity.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Oster, RSVP, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California is betting $2 million that its traffic jams can generate electricity.

The Government Says This Popular Pesticide Doesn’t Cause Cancer. Here’s the Problem With That.

Mother Jones

Back in 1996, seed and chemical giant Monsanto introduced crops engineered to withstand a weed killer called glyphosate (brand name: Roundup). Soon after, glyphosate emerged as by far the globe’s most prolific pesticide, its use spiking ninefold in the United States and nearly fifteenfold globally. All the while, it enjoyed a reputation as a relatively benign agrichemical compared with older, harsher herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba.

Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which evaluates potential carcinogens for the World Health Organization, detonated a stink bomb in global agriculture and public-health circles by declaring glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans,” after completing a lengthy assessment of the existing science.

But in a report released last week, staff scientists for the US Environmental Protection Agency—which is in the middle of reevaluating glyphosate and a host of other commonly used chemicals—pushed back, declaring that their own review of the scientific literature found the weed killer “not likely” to be carcinogenic to humans. The EPA will host a panel of outside scientists in October to evaluate the report.

The EPA’s in-house assessment criticized the IARC report, claiming that some of the more damning studies that led to the “probably carcinogenic” conclusion were “low quality” and therefore irrelevant.

The EPA isn’t the first major public authority to contradict the IARC’s finding. The European Food Safety Agency concluded last year that glyphosate is “unlikely” to cause cancer, though it did propose a “new safety measure that will tighten the control of glyphosate residues in food.” In May, another arm of the WHO teamed up with the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to assemble a panel to evaluate glyphosate. The joint WHO/FAO team, too, found it an unlikely carcinogen.

One subtle difference between the IARC’s review and that of the EPA, the EFSA, and the FAO involves the question of whether to evaluate glyphosate as an isolated chemical or the way it’s actually used in farm fields. To make a usable herbicide, agrichemical companies mix an active ingredient like glyphosate with other chemicals, called adjuvants and surfactants, that help ensure the pesticide penetrates beneath a weed’s surface, or coats its leaves, to administer the poison. As I’ve shown before, these chemical additives are lightly (at best) regulated by the EPA, and can have harmful effects.

The IARC indicates that it took data from studies that used both “pure” glyphosate and real-world formulations of glyphosate with other chemicals. The group found “strong” evidence that in both isolated and mixed forms, the famed herbicide can cause cancer.

While the EPA and the EFSA disagree with that conclusion about pure glyphosate, they have so far not taken a position on the stuff as it’s actually used. In its assessment, the EPA states that it evaluated only the “human carcinogenic potential for the active ingredient,” not that of “glyphosate-based pesticide formulations.” As for the EFSA, its conclusion, too, was based on pure glyphosate, and it acknowledged that one common ingredient in glyhpsate-based herbicides, POE-tallowamine, is more toxic than glyphosate itself. The carcinogenic potential of real-world glyphosate formulations “should be further considered and addressed,” EFSA added.

The European Union banned POE-tallowamine in July. In a blog post a few weeks later, Monsanto claimed that it had “already been preparing for a gradual transition away from tallowamine to other types of surfactants for commercial reasons,” adding that “tallowamine-based products do not pose an imminent risk for human health when used according to instructions.” (For more on this, see this excellent piece from the Intercept‘s Sharon Lerner.) The company did not say what it planned to replace POE-tallowamine with.

Here in the United States, more than 3.5 billion pounds of pure glyphosate have been applied since 1974, about two-thirds of that in the last decade alone. It’s great to know that on its own, glyphosate doesn’t likely trigger cancer. It would be better still to know more about its effects as it’s actually used, mixed with other, lightly studied chemicals.

Excerpt from: 

The Government Says This Popular Pesticide Doesn’t Cause Cancer. Here’s the Problem With That.

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Government Says This Popular Pesticide Doesn’t Cause Cancer. Here’s the Problem With That.

The Tricky Thing About Labeling Foods as Locally Grown

Were living in an age of conscious consumption. For many of us, settling for the cheapest, quickest option doesnt cut it; we want to know that our purchases arenot contributingto economic or environmental degradation.

One of the best places to spot this trend? Our food shopping habits. Weve learned about the demise of the small farmer, the incredible distances most ingredients travel to our plates, and the damage industrial farming is doing to our soil and airand we want something different. Recent polling shows that for most Americans, purchasing food from local producers is a high priority. According to a2014 survey by Cone Communications, almost three-quarters of Americans stated that buying locally was a significant factor in determining what they buy, and 77 percent of shoppers consider the sustainability factor of what they purchase.

According to anothersurveyfrom Consumer Reports, two-thirds of shoppers specifically look for a label indicating that a product has been grown locally. In New York, shoppers can now pick up a product and see on the label if its beengrown in-state. The new Empire State label goes beyond just identifying food origins, though. According to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, it indicates that a product has been inspected for the highest level of food safety and environmental sustainability standards.

New York State Grown & Certified is the first state program in the nation to combine modern food safety standards with environmental stewardship to achieve a premium level of certification, reads theNew York Governorswebsite. By certifying food at this level, New York is providing consumers with an assurance of quality in how and where the food is grown and produced while promoting New York State producers who are meeting a growing market demand for foods that are safely handled and grown in an environmentally responsible manner.

But pinning down what locally grown means can be adifficult task. There is no standardized definition provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, only corporate and state-level definitions. Vermont considers anything grown within its borders or 30miles outside them; a locally grown label in large states like California or Texas could mean a product has traveled as much as 800 miles from its source. Its clear that a local label has its limits, and if it goes unregulated by the USDA could become as meaningless as an all-natural label.

So whats a conscious consumer to do? Get educated about the food youre buying. After all, your local farmer might be cranking out beautiful producethats loaded with pesticides and GMOs. Shop local and organic as often as you can, and meanwhile, support producers that might not be local but use sustainable practices.

Written by Steve Holt. Reposted with permission from Thrive Market.

More from Thrive Market:
The Olympics Are Still Flooded with Junk Food Ads
Test Your Strength and Flexibility with Gymnastics-Inspired Moves
5 Surprising Places You’ll Find Fast Food

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

View the original here: 

The Tricky Thing About Labeling Foods as Locally Grown

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Tricky Thing About Labeling Foods as Locally Grown

A chicken tractor on steroids: Using chickens to build your soil

green4us

View the original here – 

A chicken tractor on steroids: Using chickens to build your soil

Posted in GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A chicken tractor on steroids: Using chickens to build your soil

Phosphorus pollution poses a major threat to the world’s lakes

Humans dump millions of tons of phosphorus into lakes every year, and it’s destroying their ecosystems. From: Phosphorus pollution poses a major threat to the world’s lakes ; ; ;

Originally posted here – 

Phosphorus pollution poses a major threat to the world’s lakes

Posted in ALPHA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, organic, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Phosphorus pollution poses a major threat to the world’s lakes

The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

IPOP pops

The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

By on Jun 30, 2016Share

The skyrocketing global demand for palm oil is devastating forests in Southeast Asia, and now a group that was created to stop the destruction has been cut down, too — razed by political forces that opposed the push to end deforestation. But all is not as dark as it might look.

Palm oil is everywhere: it’s in most processed foods, not to mention shampoos, soaps, and cosmetics. The Indonesia Palm Oil Pledge, or IPOP, was created at the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit as a means to allow sustainable-minded business interests and responsible palm oil companies to work with and influence government leaders, in an effort to preserve forests and stamp out human rights abuses by bad operators. But IPOP and its member companies became punching bags for their political opponents, who want to keep clearing land (more on the factions here).

The organization itself has not confirmed its dissolution — at least as of June 30 — but corporate members have said it is shutting down. “Cargill supports the dissolution of IPOP,” an associate vice president of the giant U.S.-based agribusiness wrote in a letter to stakeholders, explaining that the Indonesian government had stepped in to fill the role IPOP was originally supposed to perform. The government has instituted a moratorium on new palm oil plantations, protected areas with big trees and high biodiversity, and established an agency to restore carbon-rich peatland.

But the government will need industry support to bring these policies to fruition. Responsible companies should look to the successful strategy used to reduce soy and cattle deforestation in the Amazon, which involved blocking rogue companies from access to the market, said Glenn Hurowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. That strategy allowed agricultural production to double even as forest clearance was reduced to one third of what it had been.

The Amazon example shows that there’s plenty of room for Indonesia to grow its agriculture businesses without burning more trees. But to achieve that, responsible companies will have to engage in politics and fight for sustainability, Hurowitz said. Now business leaders will have to do that in some other form than IPOP.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit source: 

The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As recently as two weeks ago, the food industry was preparing to place labels on food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. But if a bi-partisan deal cobbled together last Thursday in the Senate Agriculture Committee gets signed into law, widespread labeling likely won’t come to pass. Instead, food companies will have the option of disclosing GM ingredients on their products with QR codes that can be read by smartphones, accompanied by only the words “scan here for more food information”—without direct on-package mention of GMOs.

The fight centers on a Vermont law, due to go into effect on July 1, that would require labeling in that state. Rather than go through the trouble of segregating out and labeling products destined for a state with a population 626,000, many huge food companies had instead resigned themselves to labeling nationwide. In recent months Mars, General Mills, Kellogg, ConAgra and Campbell Soup all announced plans for labeling.

The looming prospect provoked a massive legislative effort, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, to pass a bill in Congress to nullify state labeling initiatives, full stop. Ever since that bill failed to gain traction in the Senate in March, Senate Ag Committee Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) began working to cobble together a compromise. Under their bill, products that contain GM ingredients will only have to include a QR code, which in-the-know consumers with smartphones can scan.

This week, Roberts and Stabenow began pushing hard for the full Senate to consider their compromise bill, reports Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich. They have industrial agriculture interests at their backs, Evich adds, noting that the American Soybean Association urged its members to email and call their senators “repeatedly until this legislation passes.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), meanwhile, has vowed to “do everything I can to defeat this legislation.”

The Senate deal is widely viewed as a defeat for labeling advocates and a victory for the seed/pesticide industry. Andrew Kimbrell, a long-time industry critic and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, denounced the bill in an emailed statement. “This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill,” he wrote. “Clear, on-package GE food labeling should be mandatory to ensure all Americans have equal access to product information.” Meanwhile, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a deep-pocketed trade group called funded by major food processors as well as agrichemical/GMO titans like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, praised it as the “commonsense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses.”

If the proposed QR-code solution passes, it will preempt Vermont’s law. Whether it will pass the full Senate and House and be signed by President Obama remains to be seen. Stabenow had opposed previous efforts to preempt state labeling laws, so getting her on board was a big step closer to putting a halt to GMO labeling.

Source:

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Posted in FF, food processor, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Here come GMO labels!

GMO-it-all

Here come GMO labels!

By on Jun 23, 2016Share

I’m too high-minded to say “I told you so,” but after a lot of wrangling, the Senate struck a deal on Thursday that would lead to mandatory labels for genetically engineered ingredients across the United States. Just like I said it would.

It’s a compromise between Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee that would make labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, mandatory. But it would allow food makers to convey the information in a barcode or QR code, which you could see on your smartphone or on an in-store computer screen. And the compromise does not require the labeling of foods produced with gene-editing techniques. See more details here.

This deal cues up a full Senate vote, likely as soon as next week. After passing through the Senate, it would then have to be reconciled with similar bill that already passed the House, and get President Obama’s signature. If this bill becomes a law it would preempt a stricter GMO-labeling law in Vermont, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

The whole thing is unfolding just as I predicted. Republicans compromised by making the labels mandatory, and Democrats compromised by allowing a scannable code rather than simply printing the words “contains GMOs” on packages. Here’s why scannable codes are perhaps a better idea than you might think.

It’s the only workable bargain and a pragmatic one. It will allow people who really care about avoiding GMOs to do it, without making it seem like that’s the key concern.

But let’s not stop here. If we are going to put a label on the front of the box, let’s say something about its greenhouse gas emissions or its effect on biodiversity — stuff that matters a lot more than GMOs. Maybe one day, consumers will learn more about those things when they scan QR codes.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued: 

Here come GMO labels!

Posted in alo, Anchor, Brita, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar power, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here come GMO labels!

Your food is better traveled than you are

as kazakh as apple pie

Your food is better traveled than you are

By on Jun 14, 2016Share

Cuisine is a powerful source of national identity. America is apple pie. Italy is lasagna. France is wine. As the Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang wrote, “What is patriotism but the love of the food one ate as a child?”

But a new project from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture reminds us that our national dishes are made up of immigrants. The apples for American pie come originally from Central Asia, the tomatoes for Italian lasagnas and pizzas from the Andes, the grapes for French wine from North America (and North Africa), Thai chiles from Central America, Irish potatoes from South America. Some 70 percent of crops grown around the world are essentially foreign-born.

What we think of as national cuisines are really global cuisines. The more we try to use food to solidify our tribal boundaries, the more we wind up reaching into the communal fridge.

Play with the interactive graphic showing where crops originated, here. Hat tip to Jeremy Cherfas at NPR’s The Salt.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here – 

Your food is better traveled than you are

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Your food is better traveled than you are