Interview with Andre,
IFOAM President
December 16, 2013
IFOAM is the international umbrella organization for organic agriculture and operates in 120 countries. Thanks to my colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture National Organic Program, I was so fortunate and excited to score an interview with IFOAM's president, Andre Leu, who was lovely enough to give me nearly two hours of his time! Here is the transcript from our interview if you are interested in our in depth exchange and Andre's insightful responses:
Basics:
My question: in your
opinion, is organic agriculture the panacea that can feed the world or do we
need integrated management systems?
Andre’s answer: “Organic
can feed the world and we have enough science.
Swaminathan I also met, he is a perfect gentleman and lovely man but he
thinks of organic as the way we farmed 100 years ago. And he’s right, if we went back to the way we
farmed 100 years ago, we can’t feed the world.
But we don’t need synthetics.
We’re working in ecological and biological sciences now and we can fix
as much nitrogen as we need without a drop of synthetic fertilizer, which does
the opposite (it stops biological processes).
It’s about bringing ecological and biological sciences to the forefront. Before it was chemistry without any
relationship to biology. For chemistry,
we need organic chemistry to understand how metabolic processes work and more
importantly how soil processes and biology work to bring in and make nutrients
available and suppress disease. Then we
can use these systems and improve upon them.
This is exactly what is happening now.
With the new organic agriculture, we are getting more than 100%
increases in yields in traditional systems.
The other point that is critical to get across is – looking at who feeds
the world. 70% comes from smallholder
farmers and only 30% from the agribusiness channel. And in the developing world where we have the
food security issues, according to FAO, 80% of food comes from
smallholders. We can get 100% increase
in yield, so that’s it. It’s
simple. We’re not talking rocket
science. We’re talking about what we’ve
done already and through research, we can do it even better. We can, we have, and we are. And more importantly, with research, we’re
improving on it. The key is not
genetically modifying more plants and growing more GM maize in Kansas and GM
soy in Brazil in Argentina and sending it to China to feed cattle through
agribusiness chains. Those systems have
failed to feed the poor. With FAO
figures, you can make a graph from 1995-1996 when GMOs started and you’ll see
that the rise in GM and the rise in world hunger tracks precisely. That is because these systems aren’t designed
to feed the poor. No matter how much we
produce, the poor cannot afford to buy it because they’re market based. And in our countries, we have obesity
epidemics because we are over producing empty calories. The key is actually food sovereignty. We need to grow increased production locally
where they need it by the people who need it, rather than try to grow it
large-scale in other countries and ship it.”
My follow up question: Do you think that integrated systems, or Low External Input
Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) have a role or should we strive for 100%
organic with zero chemical tolerance?
Andre’s answer: “I
know that Swaminathan and others are saying this as a half way point. But use the example of nitrogen, people say,
“if we add a little urea, it will improve it.”
But science says the opposite. It
will stop natural nitrogen fixation. And
say “we’ll use some chemical pesticides.”
The data we have now shows that what we know about endocrine disruption
with neurodevelopment toxicity in children – there is no safe level and there
is absolutely no need. For every
chemical pesticide, we have a biopesticides that can do the job and they’re not
residual. In organic, we want 24-hour
breakdown for zero residues. So if we
don’t need pesticides or synthetic chemical fertilizers, why do we need to
integrate them? We can show farmers how
to get every nutrient at a lower cost and how to manage every pest through
ecological solutions such as ecosystem intensification with biopesticides as a
last resort.”
My
question: If Bhutan succeeds in achieving 100% organic
agriculture, what would this mean for the worldwide organic movement?
Andre’s answer: “It
would be very important because there is a lot of misunderstanding about organic. People are saying if we went organic, the
world would starve and they are confusing organic with old style
traditional. Seeing a country like
Bhutan go ahead with it is very important in providing an example to other
countries. I personally see Bhutan as a
shining beacon of light in the world, not because of organic but also the
concept of GNH. If you look where
everywhere else has gone down using GDP and the effects: overcrowding,
pollution, depression. Most of us would
agree that we haven’t developed the world the right way. Here we have an experiment that could show
the world the right way to go. Combining
the issue of human and social well being and the right level of development
that looks after the environment. To me,
this is very important, so I personally take a great interest in this
country. It may be a little country but
a huge shining beacon of light to the world.”
My question: Do you
think any other country in the world is on track to make a similar declaration
of 100% organic?
Andre’s answer: “Cuba
has already done it. There are a couple
of Pacific islands and the other one is North Korea. Kim Jong Il started this process. We actually do have a project there. Our point of view is that we do not play
politics with governments. In our case,
it’s humanitarian – helping the country feed themselves. And it’s the same in every other countryl we
work in 120 countries with all different governments. We can’t afford to say one government is
better than another. We’re there to help
the people. If we have government that
work with us, so much the better – well work with them on that level. We are completely apolitical and neutral.”
My question: In
general, should it be farmers’ choice to go organic (according to Bhutan’s
National Organic Program) or should there be some kind of command and control
mechanism such as higher taxes on chemicals or a ban all together?
Andre’s answer: “I
actually believe in farmers’ choice and education. I gave the example of Tigray [Ethiopia], which
was farmers’ choice. Getting the right
organic system where they found that compost costs them nothing to make, just
an opportunity cost and gave them higher yield and better protection against
diseases. Farmers worked out quickly
which way they wanted to go. Farmers are
what I call fence watchers, not fence sitters.
They look over the fence to see what their neighbor is doing. They’ll only make a move if they see
something is successful. Farmers have to
be conservative. They stay with what
they know works because they cannot afford crop failure. They only move when they see that the early
adopters are doing well. I would rather
see a system where organic is working well and robustly and then other farmers
will move to adopt it. The government
won’t have to force them to do it.”
My question: Similar
to organic agriculture, discussions surrounding GMOs are saturated with
ideology. In both, how do we remove the
dogma and bring in the science?
Andre’s answer: “Next
year, we will show the reason why we don’t use GMOs because of the peer
reviewed science showing the serious problems that validate our position of
taking the precautionary approach. The
same as with nanotechnology. We put a
moratorium on it until we have science that shows that it is okay or where it’s
okay. From our point of view, we have a
principle of care and in this, taking the precautionary principle is an
essential part of how we approach new technologies. It’s not that we dismiss them outright but we
look at taking precaution and look at science as it comes in. And the science coming in behind GMOs and
synthetic pesticides are not good.”
Myth-busting and Addressing Critiques of Organic:
My question: In
global dialogue, is there is an over-emphasis on animal manure rather than
green manure? If green manure can
provide more nitrogen, such that an increase in cultivated land may not be
necessary, why is this information not widely known?
Andre’s answer: “The
emphasis on animal manure comes from the non-organic people talking about
organic because they know nothing about it.
They think without animal manure we can’t do it. There are heaps of organic systems that use
green manure and not animal manure and other natural minerals to bring in
fertility. Animal manure is not
necessary in an organic system. On the
other hand, we can integrate animals into systems to increase the efficiency,
get extra protein, and more outputs such as higher grain yields. This could be small animals like chickens,
goats, or pigs or larger ones like cattle.
It’s up to the farmer and the size of the farm, depending on what’s
suitable. Generally, animals will
improve the efficiency but strictly speaking, they are not necessary.”
My question: How do
we compensate for the high labor requirements (e.g. weeding in System of Rice
Intensification, preparing compost) and a diminishing “work culture”?
Andre’s answer: “With
the right systems. What I showed today
is the use of cover crops. The idea that
we have to nuke everything that’s not the crop is outmoded. By putting in the right agroecological
systems to do the work for us, we can suppress the weeds and give other
ecosystems services. And I gave up
turning compost years ago. Now I use
worms and they’ll turn it for you.
Similarly, with spreading out compost, the idea that we have to spread
it out over the whole field, no, just put it right next to the seed or
transplant, which gives it the extra boost and dramatically increases
yield. It’s about getting the system
right. The right organic system lowers
the amount of the work. And look at me,
I run an organic farm and am hardly there.
It’s about designing the system so that we have ecofunction intensification. We get functional biodiversity to provide all
ecosystem services rather than buying chemicals.”
On Scaling Up Organic Agriculture:
My question: Organic
farming requires diverse, integrated systems, so do you think it is possible to
‘re-complicate’ large-scale, conventional, monocropping systems (e.g. dairy,
beef, or cereal production)?
Andre’s answer: “With
organic highly diverse farming on any scale, we’re already doing this around
the world. I’ll give you an example
–pasture cropping in Australia. We have a highly biodiverse pasture and instead
of spraying and killing everything to put in our grain crop, we work with
nature. We bring in animals and graze it
right down, use modified no till equipment, and till the grains into it. It works in the principle that annuals always
come up in a perennial system and if you do it properly, the grain yields in
these systems are just as high as the ones where they spray out all the weeds,
plow it up, and pour in tons of chemicals.
The advantage of this system is minimal labor, less energy, and crop
yield is the same. And when you take the
crop off, you have a highly diverse perennial pasture, you put the animals back
on it and can get another crop. It’s using
no till equipment except instead of running it through dead sprayed out
material, the root mass is still alive, so you need to make [the equipment]
more robust to bust up the root mass where you are seeding. This is the only modification [to a seed
drill or thin knife for planting]. There
are different versions but the key is making one piece of planting equipment a
bit more robust. The head and harvesting
equipment is the same.”
My question: Should we attempt to scale up organic/natural farming beyond
just individual smallholder farmers? For
example, organic in the United States may mean a several hundred-hectare farm
with large-scale machinery, commercially acquired organic inputs, and monocropping
– is this desirable? Is it still organic
technically but not necessarily agroecological.
Andre’s answer: “I
have seen more organic farms across continental USA and particularly in the
Midwest where the biggest ones are and in the central valley of
California. In the Midwest with large-scale
farming in Nebraska or Kansas, it’s a square mile. People go in and say it’s a monoculture, but it’s
not. They are large fields that are
rotated. If you walk around that square
mile with one field or soy, corn, alfalfa and one that’s grazing and under
clover/pasture. If you go back next
year, each one will have been rotated.
It’s a four year rotational system.
Similarly, I’ve walked on fields of carrots in the central valley of CA
that are a 4,000 acre monoculture. Next
time I go back there, I’ll find it’ll be under cantaloupe, zucchini and a whole
range of other things broken up in that field.
They don’t do continuous monoculture year after year after year. In this rotation, there will be legumes. These fields are rotated for
biodiversity. It’s just a difference in
scale. And that rotation they’re doing
in vegetables is no different than most agroecological farms where fields are
just a lot smaller. It’s just the nature
of that part of the States and Australia, and Eastern Europe where field sizes
are larger, they have to plan out. They
are big fields in rotational systems throughout the year – not the same crop
year after year. We won’t allow non-rotational
systems.”
My question: Organic agroecological farming is time,
labor, and knowledge intensive rather than capital intensive. It implies self-reliance and on-farm
management rather than purchasing off-farm external inputs from the market. If this is the case, should we promote the
commercial production of compost, botanicals, and biopesticides?
Andre’s answer: “It’s the same thing again: we should allow
farmers’ choice. On my farm, I don’t use
anything. At the beginning, I had to buy
BT and wettable sulfur until my system built up. But some farmers find it more convenient to
buy it and bring it on as compost. Me, I
prefer to make it. Some things I bring
in like minerals (rock phosphate, gypsum, calcium phosphate) that my soil is deficient
in. Now it’s reached an equilibrium. I’ve always found it better and cheaper to
make it. But some farmers who are time
short prefer to buy it and it’s their business model, so let them do it. It’s about choice. For me, it gets down to the fact that we want
systems that don’t harm the environment or human health. I think that too many people quibble about
dotting the I’s and crossing the t’s and little details. There is no one size fits all regarding what
is organic. Each farmer has to decide
for himself, as long as we do it within a general set of principles. We’re still saying organic has to meet this
standard, but that is only a marketing tool.
On our website, we have the four principles of organic agriculture. Any farming system that fits in can be
considered organic. Organic is the English
word we use from Jerome Rodale when he wrote in the 1940s. But if I’m in Germany or France, they use
“bio” for organic (coming from biological).
If I’m in Spain, sometimes it’s agricultura ecologica. There are a lot of different words to
describe what we’re doing that fit under the organic paradigm: permaculture,
agroecology etc., and they’re all within this paradigm. For us, we use the four principles. If farmers want to call themselves something
else, so be it.”
My question: Would scaling up necessitate organic agribusiness? Or is this not a desirable objective because
it would ultimately operate similarly to conventional agribusiness? (e.g. biopesticides factories).
Andre’s answer: “It’s
two sides to the coin here once again. I
think for us, one of the things that IFOAM is pushing is full sustainability in
organic systems and increasing the biodiversity. We want all organic systems to use applied
agroecology and where possible, minimize the amount of inputs they use. I’m not too worried if companies get into
production of organic agriculture that it will corporatize it. For instance, DOW chemical company came out
with the first organically allowed product over a decade ago. And has it been the end of the world for
organic? Has it corporatized it? No, I don’t think so. I think it’s the nature of organic and what
we’re trying to do. Corporatization will
never go away and can be minimized. If
we look at the world’s biggest organic business, it’s Organic Valley in the USA
and it’s all family farmers. Yes, we
have General Mills and some big brands with an organic line, but is this a bad
thing? Some people are blowing it out of
proportion and have an unrealistic notion in the world. The majority of people, whether we like it or
not, are going to supermarkets to buy food and we’re not going to change
them. Most people are going to keep
their lifestyle. And if they can get
healthy organic agriculture in the supermarket instead of toxic food, it’s
still better than what we have. It will
be a mixture. When organic products
first went into the supermarkets, we had all these people protesting it. Has it been terrible? No. Has it seen total
corporatization? No. It means that when people go into the
supermarket and start buying organic instead of conventional, it’s the time
they start thinking of food. And it has
directly led to the increase of farmers markets and buying local. It has been a paradigm shift and trigger in
them. So at the same time, we’re seeing
growth in these other systems. Again, it
gets down to choice. Consumers should
also have choice. If it’s more
convenient for them to go to local supermarket, then so be it. The best thing we can do is provide an organic
alternative. And from IFOAM’s point of
view, we are focusing on the famers market and local. We have to build this up as an alternative to
the large marketing system. It’s not about
either or; it’s about having both but making sure the weight is right. We want to see local and short chain systems
more promoted and accessible to the people.”
My question: Regarding scaling up organic, we need both
public and private support. In your
opinion, what does the organic farming movement most need in order to become
globally successful? What are the
largest barriers to scaling up?
Andre’s answer: “It’s
not one thing. It’s a lot of
things. One of the most important is
that we formed TP – technical information platform of IFOAM, where we brought
together scientists and researchers from all the continents. Part of the problem with organic is this lack
of understanding about it. Like
Swaminathan thinks about it as going back to the past, and most regulators and
researchers feel this way. By getting
organic to be seen as science and innovation based, we can start changing
that. We see that where we are applying
science, we are high yielding. And that
is critical. The other part is getting
the information out about the new science behind organic and give it to farmers
so they can improve their yields. Another
thing that is critical is that there is a mythology that conventional food is
safe, that our regulators have the pesticides totally under control. We actually have thousands of peer-reviewed
papers that it is not safe, that they’re working under a huge amount of
data-free assumptions. What we now know about endocrine disruptions, especially
chemical exposure to fetus and early development. U.S. President’s cancer report said that 80%
of cancers are due to chemicals and this has been ignored. We have substantial bodies of science that
show that pesticide use is not okay and this needs to come out. People are under the assumption that
everything is safe and okay with no pesticide residues in our food, so there is
no need for organic. But the rates of
the chronic disease records in the west is directly related to pesticide
residues in food.”
Organic Certification:
My question: Another problem is that organic produce is
not differentiated in most local markets, so it does not have a price premium –
should there be an organic certification/labeling system for domestic markets
or is this only necessary for export?
Andre’s answer: “No,
[certification] is not necessary in domestic markets. The longer your supply chain is between
producer and consumer, you need some sort of verification. People are buying organic for many reasons. Some people are cancer patients that want to
be free of pesticides and they have that right.
There is a duty that they get what they’re buying. And other people are buying organic for other
reasons and they’re paying a premium, so we have a duty to provide them with
value for their money. For longer
chains, we need more credible systems and third party seems to be the best at
this stage. But with some PGS systems
(e.g. India and Brazil), they can be just as credible for longer supply
chains. You have to ask the question: if
I am in the south of Brazil or south of India with a PGS product and selling it
to the north of the country, it’s further than going from one country in Europe
to another. I can think of crossing many
countries in that distance and yet you can do that with PGS in those two
countries. So I would argue that as we
improve PGS, it could be used for long chain as well. We are getting really behind PGS and
promoting it everywhere we go.
But when you get down
to it, shorter chains such as consumer support agriculture: why do you need
certification for that? You don’t. And there you have transparency and trust, so
why do you need certification? As a
consumer, you are directly certifying through that process. And we have farmer consumer coops, and most
organic products sold in Japan Taiwan or Korea are sold on those. They’re huge.
They may have 1,200,000 consumers and several thousand farmers supplying
them. Consumer and farmer representatives
meeting to plan the season, discuss prices, and have ways of verifying the
farmers. They take 84% of sale price
back to the farmer and the rest is used to run the cooperative. They have turnovers of hundreds of millions
of dollars. And this is just one example
out of many. These coops turn into
communities with events, newsletters, children’s days, aid programs to help
organic farmers in other countries, run shops with internet, run home delivery
(all out of 16% shared). What is
exciting in these systems is that consumers get best quality, generally local
organic vegetables at a price same or less than supermarket and those farmers
earn higher income than average wage in Korea (which is amongst the highest in
Asia, only Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan are higher). And the average size of the farm is less than
2 hectares. And this is the type of
model that we need to replicate and you don’t need certification there because
they have their own systems for verifying and guarantee. It’s about transparency. They all fit under PGS – participatory guarantee
system – consumers and farmers are participating. And CSAs are participatory;
when you subscribe you are actively participating. These are all systems that do not require
certification.”
My question: Is organic certification the only way for
organic farmers to receive the true value of their crop or is it just a money-making
tool for the West? Does third party
organic certification enslave farmers in the developing world by promoting
production for commercial export rather than home
consumption/self-sufficiency/local food security?
Andre’s answer: “This
is something I’ve heard time and time again.
What we’re doing is exploiting the poorest farmers in the developing world
to grow luxury products for the rich of the west. Sounds very nice. But go back to what I said about the 200,000
farmers in Uganda who can now feed their families because of organic
exports. We’re not saying, just grow
pineapples for a commercial market. We
say food on the table first – we want them to have kitchen gardens and to feed
their family first and then pineapples for the local community. And these farms are not just
monocultures. You go on these farms and
see coffee, a whole range of fruits and vegetables for local concern, and in
there, there are some cash crops because farmers don’t want to be subsistence,
growing only enough food to eat. How do
they pay for other expenses? Medicine, clothes, children’s clothing. I’ve heard horrible stories where women
cannot even go out and socialize because they don’t have decent clothes. And socializing in a community is so
important but they’re so poor that they are considered social outcasts. What we’ve done with this is not only improve
food security but also a cash income.
They’ve built houses. We’ve taken
them out of abject poverty into relative prosperity. We’re not talking about compared to someone
in Germany but in their own community, they have nice houses, their children go
to schools, they can afford medical bills, a phone, transport, decent clothes, can
socialize and have a good quality of life and that’s what it’s about.”
Agricultural Mechanization and Technologies:
My question: Do labor-saving agricultural machines have a role to play in
organic farming or is organic inherently labor intensive? Mechanization is paradoxical because it both
displaces small farmers (adding to unemployment in the cities), but also has
the potential to reduce drudgery of agriculture if the technology is
appropriate, incentivizing youth to farm.
Andre’s answer: “I think appropriate mechanization is very
important. I do that in my own
farm. I used to employ 30 people but our
labor costs in Australia, it’s not viable.
I have cherry pickers and each cherry picker replaces six other pickers.
It is almost impossible to get fruit pickers
in Australia. I’ve mechanized the packing
shed. Next step will be to computerize
it to make it smarter and easier to run. It’s the same thing in small
holders. We have appropriate scale
machinery that we can use in the smallest syetsms. Part of it is to take the drudgery out of
farming. And a lot of the youth don’t
want to end up with broken backs like their parents. And there’s no reason they have to. So having the right type of equipment, even
hand equipment. Teach them about using
it and maintaining it. There is
definitely a role. I mentioned SRI [System
of Rice Intensification] with small-scale mechanical planters and weeders
developed in Malaysia. This is the way
to go: appropriate machinery for the scale of operation.
My question: Should widespread mechanization be
implemented and if so, how? E.g. private
companies or leasing agencies that contract/hire out machines?
Andre’s answer: “I
think contracting is really good.
Instead of everyone buying one machine, if we could get a contract
harvester or planter to do it, it’s economically much better. And in my farm, I do the farming but the
picking and packing takes the time, so I have a contractor who does it. I do it on a commission basis, which is fair
for both of us. There are different ways
to work with contractors and in modern farming, if it’s done properly, it’s a
win-win for both parties. Particularly
with machinery, if you have every person buy one machine used once a year, this
doesn’t make sense for the environment and is not economical. Having a contractor come in, it’s economically
more cost effective and environmentally sound.”
My question: What do
you think about precision agriculture and its relevance to organic farming and
smallholders?
Andre’s answer: “I
have seen it used in small scale horticulture in New Zealand, using GPS to weed
lettuce. There is no reason why we can’t
use precision agriculture in organic.
Small-scale horticulture can use it.
Precision is small by nature and these days, it’s the way of the future.
I personally believe that working with my son (who is a computer programmer) to
turn cherry pickers into robots, which will pick and pack. The engineering side of it is very simple and
most of this can be bought off the shelf.
Now it’s about getting the software and algorithms right. You can get precision agriculture down to the
smallest equipment.”
My follow up question: But
what about the barriers of expense regarding precision agriculture and marginal
farmers?
Andre’s answer: “I
agree. I still weed by hand because I like doing it. ‘Horses for courses’ is a saying in Australia
– you get the right horse for the conditions of the course. It’s about choice and what you prefer to
do. By myself, I hand weed 30 acres of
trees. I do it strategically and I’ll go
through the rows with a tractor and motor but the last bits, I do by hand
because I love it. But I’m not everyone
and I think it’s about choice. I am a great believer in hand tools and with the
right hand tools, it can be done quicker than machinery if you teach people how
to do it. Any new technology is
expensive. I was one of the pioneers in
IT and music. I spent 8,000 $ 26 years
ago for a 274 K (8 bit) computer to start programming music and that is a
fraction of the price and a billion times more powerful (smart
phone/tablet). It’s always in the
beginning with these technologies, it’s the early adopters and first things
that are expensive. But people are
already doing it now. If I wanted to, I
could run my equipment from an app. And
that’s what’s going to happen. Smart
phones will be the future. I’ve been in
remote areas of Kenya and people have them.
If you go up to Gasa [in northern Bhutan] where they just got their road
(it used to be 4 days by donkey). All of
a sudden they have a road and phone tower and now everyone has a smart phone
and is on the Internet. This phone is
the way of the future. And a lot of
people mistake the lack of having the same form of education as us as stupidity,
but they’re wrong, these people have street smarts and can pick up this
technology and these phones really quickly.
They are driving this revolution and to me, as technology becomes more
affordable, precision agriculture will happen and in many cases, it will be the
farmers driving it, not companies.
Farmers will look at these things, modify and weld them together,
program them etc.”
Other topics (yield, seeds, biodynamic):
My question: The FAO says we
will need around 60% increase in productivity to feed the population by 2050
and with climate change, overall production is expected to decline. But today, we have enough food to feed 12
billion people and 40-50% of all food is wasted – so do we actually need yield
increases?
Andre’s answer: “For a
start, I’ll challenge FAO figures as to what we need to produce. They’re making whole range of assumptions
that aren’t right. We’re already producing
2.5 times more food than we need now. If we increase again, will it solve the
problem? It’s not solving it now. All that aside, the population is growing and
we’ll need to feed more people. But it’s
about time people start looking at zero population growth. It’s not just food, it’s highways, forests,
and all other resources we use as a human species. Maybe it’s not that we need to grow more food
but maybe reign it in and let the rest of the world have a fair go so we don’t
use up the whole planet. This has to be
a serious part of the argument. It gets
down to we need more empowerment of women in reproductive choices. Rio +20 did badly when they removed
that. I was shocked. Women’s control over reproductive rights has
to be a critical issue and it has to be really promoted. The other is climate change. I did present data today showing how organic
systems are more resilient in the face of climate change and much better at
coping with what we’re seeing now: longer drought periods broken by destructive
rain events. How our soils, from
building up organic matter, are better at capturing that rainfall, maintaining
integrity during destructive events and holding that during the dry period so
that they’re much more resilient during drought. I’m not going to say if you have a 9 year
drought and no rain, organic is the solution.
There is no silver bullet here.
But we have good peer reviewed science that shows that in these events,
organic is more resilient and high yielding.”
My question: If hybrids are basically the same as OPVs
(except you cannot save them), then why is there so much controversy around
them? Do they have a place in organic
farming in the future or should we shift back to traditional seeds?
Andre’s answer: “We
have a lot of evidence that traditional seeds actually have very good drought
tolerant varieties in the mix of farmer land races. One of the biggest issues is the loss of
traditional seed and animal varieties.
This is the largest extinction event – the thousands of varieties we’re
losing each year. And even in those
places with seed banks, we’re losing the knowledge of the seed capabilities
under certain conditions. We don’t know
if the seeds cope with wet years or are drought tolerant. These are the issues we need to focus on and
where these are being saved, I will use the example of MASIPAG in the Philippines. They will work with farmers to do their own
breeding. Participatory plant breeding is
really the key as well. In-situ
conservation is good for genetics but in terms of keeping high biodiversity,
these seeds didn’t just appear magically, they were developed over time by
farmers. We still need to have this
process of continuous improvement to cope as the climate continues to change
and as part of that, we need to keep a huge gene pool so we have access to
various genetics so farmers can assess what performs well under different
conditions.”
My follow up comment: But it’s
not necessarily positive that hybrids require farmers to be dependent on seed
companies each year.
Andre’s answer: “Yes
and no. It depends on how you do
it. In hybrids, the first cross F1 has
hybrid virgor, which is part of the yield.
And F2 has variability. But what
you can do from those is pick the best of the F2s in quality and yield and then
self pollinate them to get an F3 – still some variability, pick the best, self
pollinate again, and by F4, you have an OPV of that. I’m a plant breeder amongst many things with
40 years of experience. What I am trying
to say is that if a hybrid turns out to be good, a farmer can turn it into an
OPV line that comes true from seed. We
are teaching farmers how to do this in participatory plant breeding. It’s surprisingly easy. Breeding and cross pollination – once you
teach farmers the basics of how genetics works, you’d be surprised how easy it
is and how quickly farmers pick it up.
My question: What
do you think about biodynamic farming?
Some of the BD preparations involve obscure or expensive ingredients and
modern science tends to doubt the legitimacy.
What is the value of the BD cropping calendar?
Andre’s answer: “To
me, biodynamic is within the continuum. The
best biodynamic farmers will use different whole organic systems and biodynamic
preps on top of this. I know some people
find them laughable and particularly they find it difficult to read Steiner,
but now there is a bit of science to underpin it. I think you’ll find the last laugh is on the
BD farmers. What we’re learning about
compost teas, brewing up different microbe brews, we’re starting to validate
what BD farmers have been doing all along.
Maybe not for the reasons Steiner has said, may or may not come to pass,
but the fact is that there is now some scientific validity. A very good peer-reviewed study done by London
University with potato seedlings and BD preparation 500. They applied it in recommended dilution and
then ran it against growth hormones as a comparison and a control group. If you believe the skeptics, there should
have been no difference between the BD prep and control. But there was an enormous difference. The BD at the prescribed level has the same
increase in growth as the best growth hormone.
This was a peer reviewed paper that shows there is some response that
comes from these preparations its not
just mire, muck and magic. These people theorized
growth hormone factor, others would say it’s like a compost tea or
microbial. There are many different
theories as to why it worked and the jury is still out but the fact is that
there is a response that happens with this.
So I think people have to be a
bit careful about just writing it off.
And some of the best farms I’ve been on are biodynamic and something is
happening there. So I won’t write it off
and say it’s nonsensical because these are some of our most profitable farms.
They’re in business as their neighbors are going out of business. Something is going on, so now we have to move
from the dogma into the science and stop ridiculing it and dismissing it. We have to look and find out why, if we
understand why, we may be able to improve it, do it better, and replicate it
more efficiently.”
.jpg)
Andre and I after a very intensive and of course informative two hour interview :)
No comments:
Post a Comment