Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Organic farming, 'the Green Revolution' and Norman Borlaug

darkfibre

New Member
At last... OK, it may be stating the obvious to some here, but it's nice to see admission of the facts in the mainstream media at last.

Organic farming 'could feed Africa'

Traditional practices increase yield by 128 per cent in east Africa, says UN

By Daniel Howden in Nairobi
Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition it has been locked in for decades, according to a major study from the United Nations to be presented today.

New evidence suggests that organic practices – derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad – are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa’s small farmers who remain among the poorest people on earth. The head of the UN’s Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, said the report “indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world maybe far higher than many had supposed”.

The “green revolution” in agriculture in the 1960s – when the production of food caught and surpassed the needs of the global population for the first time – largely bypassed Africa. Whereas each person today has 25 per cent more food on average than they did in 1960, in Africa they have 10 per cent less.

A combination of increasing population, decreasing rainfall and soil fertility and a surge in food prices has left Africa uniquely vulnerable to famine. Climate change is expected to make a bad situation worse by increasing the frequency of droughts and floods.

It has been conventional wisdom among African governments that modern, mechanised agriculture was needed to close the gap but efforts in this direction have had little impact on food poverty and done nothing to create a sustainable approach. Now, the global food crisis has led to renewed calls for a massive modernisation of agriculture on the hungriest continent on the planet, with calls to push ahead with genetically modified crops and large industrial farms to avoid potentially disastrous starvation.

Last month the UK’s former chief scientist Sir David King said anti-scientific attitudes among Western NGOs and the UN were responsible for holding back a much-needed green revolution in Africa. “The problem is that the Western world’s move toward organic farming – a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food – and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across the whole of Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences,” he said.

The research conducted by the UN Environment Programme suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings with it.

An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in east Africa.

“Organic farming can often lead to polarised views,” said Mr Steiner, a former economist. “With some viewing it as a saviour and others as a niche product or something of a luxury… this report suggests it could make a serious contribution to tackling poverty and food insecurity.”

The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming. It also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. And the research highlighted the role that learning organic practices could have in improving local education. Backers of GM foods insist that a technological fix is needed to feed the world.

(More)

Anyone in doubt about what a cock David King is, read this.

He said:
"The problem is that the western world's move toward organic farming - a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food - and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across the whole of Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences."

Twat. :rolleyes:

I've long suspected that the whole 'Green Revolution' had more to do with soaking up the massive nitrate manufacturing capacity we had at the end of WWII than anything else.

So eat shit, Norman Borlaug. :p
 
Backers of GM foods insist that a technological fix is needed to feed the world.

to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies..."They would say that, wouldn't They?"

mandy_rice_davies.gif





http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=105 :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, it's dodgy pro-GM/Industrial crap. You can produce a decent well-balanced diet from about 0.04 ha/human, if you use an organic version of 19th C French market gardening practices. it's fairly labour intensive and involves a lot of apples and potatos, but it's totally sustainable.
 
IMHO no one approach is wrong. There is obviously a need for a return to less intensive and more labour intensive agriculture and this can benefit places like
Africa but we shouldn't ignore technological developments in crops and agripractice because of dogma.

Some things that the GM industry have done such as terminator genes arewrong but
GM tech itself isn't the bogeyman its the way it is used.
 
You also need:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/82-PM-41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dushka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_Triumf

If you are serious about having a way to discourage capitalism from interfering with your peaceful anarchist vegetable growing. (The last one is quite expensive, but well worth it if it can fuck up the USAF should they try to bother you while you are peacefully growing organic vegatables fertilised with the corpses of investment bankers and daytime TV presenters.)
 
Have you seen the film (boskeysquelch posted above)? :confused:

No don't need to. I've made up my mind about GM which is that it is a wonderful and powerful technolgy that needs to be in the hands of independent agroscientists rather than corporations.

Its not a miracle cure for crop failure or increased yields but it still could produce blight resistant crops for certain areas.

A majority organic farming system with selected GM crops for resistance to disease and tolerance of adverse conditions could be the way to go.
 
If you are serious about having a way to discourage capitalism from bothering you.

We'll have spshll telly programmes by then...keep'em occupied towards teh Atrophy.


257.jpg





"A population explosion generates the need to grow more food, but agriculture is the cause of that population explosion, and agriculture creates the need for government. The hierarchical, specialized societies that agriculture builds are wholly dependent on the smooth operation of their infrastructure, on transportation, on stability. Dams must be built, canals must flow, roads must be maintained and government must be established to order these tasks. Government leaders emerge from the social hierarchy that agriculture's wealth makes possible. Failures are human and inevitable. To hold agriculture blameless and government responsible for famine is like holding a lion blameless for a child's death on the grounds that it was the lion's teeth that did the damage. Poverty, government and famine are co-evolved species, every bit as integral to catastrophic agriculture as wheat, bluegrass, smallpox and rats."

eg http://blogs.salon.com/0002007///2004/07/05.html
 
No don't need to. I've made up my mind about GM which is that it is a wonderful and powerful technolgy...

Thanks for your honesty. :)

Have you ever considered the notion that in some ways 'crop diseases' are part of a natural feedback process that tells you when you're doing something wrong? :p

What that film really hammers home is what a sketchy, hit and miss science GM really is - eg the same piece of genetic code having completely different (unpredictable) results depending on where in the sequence it's inserted, etc - it's like having a TV set that works if you bash it, then claiming that because the bashing makes it work for a bit, you've mastered the science of TV repair. :(
 
To pick up on Zachor's points again, I can see why it's attractive to view tecchnology such as GM as 'ethically neutral'.

I also think it's quite a dangerous view, for the simple reason that it isn't.

Mutant Seeds for Mesopotamia
by Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.

October 15, 2008

One would think that Iraqi farmers, now prospering under "freedom" and "democracy," would be able to plant the seeds of their choosing, but that choice, under little-known Order 81, would be illegal.

But first, it is important to set the context. Most people have never heard of the infamous "100 Orders," but they help explain why the majority of Iraqis remain opposed to foreign occupation. The 100 Orders allow multinational corporations to basically privatize an entire nation, and this degree of foreign and private control has not been witnessed since the days of the British East India Company and its extraterritoriality treaties.

A few examples of the 100 Orders are illuminating:
Order 39 allows for the tax-free remittance of all corporate profits.
Order 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, immunity from Iraq's laws.
Orders 57 and 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector general in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations. (1)

Back to one of the most blatant orders of all: Order 81. Under this mandate, Iraq's commercial farmers must now buy "registered seeds." These are normally imported by Monsanto, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company. Unfortunately, these registered seeds are "terminator" seeds, meaning "sterile." Imagine if all human men were infertile, and in order to reproduce women needed to buy sperm cells at a sperm bank. In agricultural terms, terminator seeds represent the same kind of sterility.

Terminator seeds have no agricultural value other than creating corporate monopolies. The Sierra Club, more of a mainstream "conservation" organization than a radical "environmentalist" one, makes the exact same case:

"This technology would protect the intellectual property interests of the seed company by making the seeds from a genetically engineered crop plant sterile, unable to germinate. Terminator would make it impossible for farmers to save seed from a crop for planting the next year, and would force them to buy seed from the supplier. In the third world, this inability to save seed could be a major, perhaps fatal, burden on poor farmers." (2)

What makes this Order 81 even more outrageous is that Iraqi farmers have been saving wheat and barley seeds since at least 4000 BC, when irrigated agriculture first emerged, and probably even to about 8000 BC, when wheat was first domesticated. Mesopotamia's farmers have now been trumped by white-smocked, corporate bio-engineers from Florida who strive to replace hundreds of natural varieties with a handful of genetically scrambled hybrids.

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m47991&hd=&size=1&l=e
 
A majority organic farming system with selected GM crops for resistance to disease and tolerance of adverse conditions could be the way to go.

why GM though? conventional plant breeding has achieved much in the way of disease resistance etc. without the need for gm
 
It's also worth noting what 'tolerance of adverse conditions' really means in practice in the context of GM.

Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready Soybeans' are basically resistant to an industrial herbicide which kills everything else. :(
 
Does anyone on here know much about the "terminator" seeds. I was told but somebody that out in Iraq, the farmers had been sold seeds that can create crops that can't produce pollun that is active after a year or two? Once these seeds are planted the crops have the habit of getting cross pollunated with other species and in effect kil them off. The farmers then need to go back and buy mroe seeeds each year in order to maintin their farming?

I may have got this totally mixed up but anyone knows anything about this I'd be interested to hear?

TomPaine
 
Does anyone on here know much about the "terminator" seeds. I was told but somebody that out in Iraq, the farmers had been sold seeds that can create crops that can't produce pollun that is active after a year or two? Once these seeds are planted the crops have the habit of getting cross pollunated with other species and in effect kil them off. The farmers then need to go back and buy mroe seeeds each year in order to maintin their farming?

I may have got this totally mixed up but anyone knows anything about this I'd be interested to hear?

TomPaine

The technology exists. They are evil scum. google "monsanto terminator" and have some kind of natural anti-depressant at the ready. Some Haydn perhaps or a nice cup of tea.
 
The technology exists. They are evil scum.

Essentially, yes. I'll elaborate a little -

The 'UN Convention on Biological Diversity' in 2000 supposedly imposed a moratorium on testing and developing the 'Terminator' seed technology, although there's been pressure for 'case-by-case' circumvention. I'm not certain what the current state of play is. The uruknet article I posted above would appear to confirm that it's being forced on Iraqi farmers.

The simple fact is that transgenic cross pollination occurs - that is, the genes from the non-plant species that were inserted into the GM plant have been shown to be unintentionally transferred to non-GM plants in the vicinity.

The proponents of GM technology have actually argued that in the case of the 'Terminator' (or 'Traitor', which differs in that it requires activation by the addition of a chemical to enable germination - you save your seed, they sell you the chemical key to make it grow! :mad: ) seeds, transgenic cross-pollination is a GOOD thing, as it would prevent the contaminated plants from developing progeny (they would 'self-terminate').

Twisted, huh?

They put a lot of resources into suppressing any critical information about GM - some of which are, frankly, creepy. :eek:

It's no real surprise, then, that the only way they can get anyone to grow this shit is by invading your country, making it 'illegal' not to buy and grow it and imprison/torture/kill you if you resist. Which I suppose is what BG and BS (neither of whom appear to remember what the first rule of 'fight club' is! :rolleyes:) are alluding to above.
 
IMHO we shouldn't ignore technological developments in crops and agripractice because of dogma.

I couldn't agree more.
Lets just go with the facts. Massive die offs of pollinating insects would be one I would go with. Of course, there are like ten of them, and they move into the area of private companies controlling third world food production. I don't mean to be pesky, but that whole "third reich" thing was soundly defeated some years ago, lets keep it that way. Corporations serve the public good, any corporate leader convicted of doing otherwise should be sentenced to life as the manager of a fast food restaurant.
 
I was poised to post that up last night, was just waiting for a second mention of the Green Revolution. I think this was one of his first ever proper articles - and, i would suggest, an update would be very interesting.
 
Back
Top Bottom