August 8, 2013
After my long afternoon with TAN-EDAPS and an emphasis on
small-scale organic production, I was excited and eager to hear another side of
the story. The next day I had made an
appointment to speak with the production manager of an Arusha-based company
called Quality Food Products. They
export safflower oil to nutritional product and food companies worldwide. Safflower is an herbaceous, thistle-like
annual plant native to arid environments with a long dry season and short
rains. It is often cultivated
commercially for oil extraction from the seeds.
The top producers include India, US, Mexico, Ethiopia, Kazakstan, China,
Arab countries, Argentina, Australia, and also Tanzania. QFP provides high-tech, zero tillage planters
to small farmers as an entrepreneurship strategy. No till/low till/conservation farming aims to
increase and conserve water content, organic matter, and nutrients in soil, as
well as reduce erosion. It has the potential
to be more profitable because it reduces labor needs, fuel costs, irrigation,
machinery costs, and has a potential for increased carbon sequestration. However, zero till also requires specialized
drill seeding equipment for minimal soil disturbance. A critique of no till is that it may lead to
increased chemical use, since glyphosate (e.g. Round Up) herbicide is sprayed
to reduce weeds in seed bed preparation in lieu of tillage (which would
normally aerate the soil and reduce weeds), as well as reduced incorporation of
nutrients from fertilizers and crop residues.
However, there are alternatives to applying broad-spectrum herbicide in
bed preparation such as planting winter cover crops and also using cardboard on
the fields. QFP started four years ago
and since then, it has been giving small farmers access to modern agricultural
technologies at a “reasonable rate,” in addition to organizational and
technical guidance. Their products
include safflower oil, mung beans, chickpeas, rice, and wheat. They are using “sustainable agricultural
methods” and offer “the best supply chain” for farmers. On their website, they are good about
covering sustainability as we know it, with sections on people, planet, and
profit. For people, they claim to
improve food security by ensuring that farmers are also growing traditional
crops and vegetables for home use alongside the cash crops. QFP is also assisting with increased income
from the cash crops, which have a higher market appeal and they can get sales
from the surplus. They are also
assisting farmers by reducing their workload through the technologies, freeing
up time for other income generating activities.
For the planet section, QFP is reducing soil erosion through no till and
helping to mitigate deforestation as farmers can now continue to plant on the
same land for longer instead of slash and burn from one plot to the next. For profit, QFP initially invests in the
know-how, seeding, and machinery – farmers just have to provide the land
(through a land tenure agreement and proof of ownership from the village
council). Through this model, mechanized
harvesting is required (combine harvester) for the large scale. They are also ensuring good crop rotation
between food and commercial crops for the farmers. Their system is one of “barter trade,” in
which the safflower seed pays for the zero-till equipment, which farmers first
hire on credit. QFP provides rural
service stations and assists with the zero till equipment using credit and for
risk management, they split the cost in half with the farmer. Some of the challenges they’ve faced include
cattle grazing in cultivated fields (will lead to soil compaction and removal
of crop residues), so they are working with communities to educate on the
importance of separating arable land from grazing land. Secondly, they are dealing with the issue of
farm size threshold, meaning that often farms are too small such that they
cannot mechanize or grow cash crops commercially; thus, QFP is encouraging
farmers to loan idle land to neighbors to increase acreage. In terms of land tenure, which is a bit of a
sticky subject in Tanzania because the government technically owns all land and
farmers just have communal land ownership through the village; so QFP is
working with village governments to increase transparency and reduce
confusion. Another challenge is the risk
aversion factor. Farmers may want to
conserve natural resources and adopt new technologies, but oftentimes it is
expensive and risky. QFP minimizes
financial risk by providing all the equipment and for risk reduction, farmers
don’t need to provide initial capital and can pay back the investment after
harvesting. A final challenge is related to unknown
technologies, which can lead to further doubt and uncertainty. QFP aims to overcome this by building
trusting relationships with the farmers, discussing in depth the technology and
also incorporating traditional knowledge.
This was all the info I gained from the website and I was able to garner
more during my lunch appointment with the production manager. He informed me that they are “building
capacity for ‘unconventional’ agriculture” and are aiming to diversify their
crops too (away from just safflower).
Eventually, the hope is that QFP can step back and eventually just
become a trader, such that the farmers would be self-sufficient in operating
the zero-till machinery. He elaborated
on the field stations, which offer equipment and hire it out per acre for
planting, harvesting etc. The stations
will monitor the loans and field managers will facilitate and actually operate
the machinery, with the farmer providing the land and overseeing the process
(eventually will learn and become self-sufficient). Unfortunately, it can be a big expense to
shift to no till and of the cost and roughly 30% goes to services including the
equipment and labor with another 30% to the seed/diesel fuel/other inputs
(unfortunately, I missed what the last third goes towards). Right now, QFP is working with about 500-600
farmers in the regions of Arusha, Manyara, and Kondoa (some in groups and
others individually). They want to
encourage farmers to group up so they can increase their accountability among
themselves, as well as the efficiency, communication, and transparency. In 2911, it was a major drought year and QFP
(the trading company) had no crops to sell.
So they are looking to stabilize and reduce this risk by also working
with farmers who have the ability to irrigate (right now, they are mainly
working with farmers that have no irrigation infrastructure or available water
source). Apparently markets are not a
problem because the farmers produce such a high quality product and because
customers provide next year’s price now, this guarantees farmers a profit. They are mainly exporting crude safflower oil
to Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and other European countries. QFP buys the crop/row product from the
farmers and then owns and operates a mill in Arusha, which allows them to export
a value added product (rendering them competitive). I asked about seeds, and they are using
mainly open pollinated for beans and safflower, and holding back some from the
best fields to reproduce their own seeds (QFP is licensed as a seed company as well). For the sunflowers, however, they are
importing hybrid seeds. “Seed is
important, but more important is the practice, e.g. timing, fertilizers use
etc.” he said. The production manager acknowledged that they are relying on a
lot more chemicals with zero till and that there isn’t a practical alternative
for their large-scale production (though they are rotating crops and are
careful with keeping out weed seeds). He
also said that planting with sunflower is best for weed control because if can
shut out light if planted densely. And
because they are exporting to Europe, they need to comply with the strict
export standards for pesticide residues, which forces farmers to communicate
their practices exactly. They have to
use synthetic fertilizers and pesticides because of the volume and scale at
which they are producing. In terms of
the business, QFP was originally grant funded as an innovative enterprise and
now has company shareholders. I asked
them about the farmers themselves and more specifically the community entry
process. He said that their reputation
attracts farmers and they have more than enough interested individuals, it’s
just a matter of finding the most committed. Moreover, QFP develops
relationships with farmers by first giving them seeds and then following up
with their progress. Neighbors and
friends will also refer each other. For
individual farmers, the land holding ranges: 30 acres for a small farmer, 50
for a medium and 500-800 for a large farmer.
This was interesting because it is definitely the largest land holding
I’ve examined in Tanzania (most of the farmers I talked to owned 5-10 acres at
most). In terms of yield and profit,
they are aiming to net $50/acre per season (200 kg per acre, which is a
relatively low yield) and farmers have a 50% margin, which is even better than
the company. QFP, however, is able to
profit from the value-added and trading aspects of the operation. Naturally, they are working mostly with men
and only about 5% women (women tend to dominate small-scale subsistence
agriculture), though he noted that women participate in field labor and bean
sorting (yippee). They are targeting
small-scale farmers as beneficiaries and business partners because “it
guarantees returns and there is a huge potential because there are millions of
them.” I’m always curious as to how
private companies and NGOs are interacting with the government and QFP has had
mixed experiences with agricultural extension officers. Officers are present in each district, but
because these farmers are operating a bit off the beaten path in areas that
shouldn’t be very agriculturally productive, the interactions with the
government are limited. In the future,
QFP hopes to offload old equipment to competent farmers to increase capacity
building. They also want to expand to
all of Tanzania but like everyone, they are waiting for cash flow and looking
for private equity and venture capitalists.
I was able to meet with another farmer/company owner who is
pursuing a somewhat similar business and production model to QFP. His name is Mick Dennis and he is an
Australian who has been farming in Tanzania since 2003. He used to be in the contract harvesting
business for wheat, safflower, and barley, then due to poor yield, he got out
of combine harvesting and started manufacturing zero till planters. His business Field Masters Ltd. currently
works with a cutting edge agricultural technology known as bio-exhaust
emissions. The inventor of the
“Emissions Systems Technology,” Gary Lewis, is Canadian and has a company known
as BioAgtive. They are currently
operating on more than 150 arms in Tanzania, Canada, Jamaica, USA, Australia,
England, South Africa, Kazakstan, and Japan.
According to their website, it "recycles your agriculture internal combustion engine emissions into plant nutrients by cooling the exhaust down through our Bio-Agtive™ System (NCQ BA8010) which is designed to capture, cool, condition and inject your emissions safely into the soil with no back-pressure or melted houses." This is the “newest technology in agriculture
today,” and it restores carbon and nitrogen balance in the soil, while
minimizing fossil fuel and fertilizer inputs by recycling tractor emissions and
turning it into plant nutrients. More
specifically, the technology involves taking tractor exhaust (which contains
CO2, water, nitrous oxide, and oxidized organic matter), cooling it, mixing it
with the seed, and planting it. This all
happens in real time as the planters move through the fields, increasing soil
nutrients by injecting the exhaust back into the ground via tine openers. They have wireless monitors on iphones, which
can assess temperature and gas amounts.
According to Mick, the biochar/soot that comes from the exhaust is used
to coat the seed, which serves as a natural fungicide and seed dressing. This stimulates mychorizae and
nitrogen-fixing bacteria. When the seed
goes into the soil with the exhaust gas, the leaf of the plant becomes positive
charged, absorbing increased levels of CO2, which stimulates plant growth. He told me that this technology does the
opposite of what fertilizer does and in fact, fertilizers are actually counter
productive because they trick plants into thinking they have nutrients by
giving them a negative charge. This was
all a bit too chemical for my understanding and I think I’m going to have to
read more about it, but it seems like a pretty revolutionary system. He said that it mimics the natural chemical
process of composting and also increases the water levels in the root zone,
stimulating and optimizing natural processes.
This leads to longer roots (an increased root:shoot ratio) and thus
better established plants, as well as higher nodulation on beans for increased
nitrogen fixation. The Emissions Systems Technology "enhances plant physiology," and as part of a zero
till scheme, this system helps the soil retain moisture (he’s working in areas
that depend on rain for irrigation). And
in these areas, the soil has a pH of 9, so theoretically, growth shouldn’t even
be occurring (he got the land because no one else wanted it). However, the emissions system technology is
actually lowering the pH over time, render the soil more arable. Right now, the kit is $40-50,000 depending on
the size. Field Masters Ltd. contracts
out the equipment until local farmers learn how to operate it themselves (this
BioAgtive scheme is only in its second year operating in Africa). It can also be combined with roto-tillers and
smaller power tillers – he’s in the midst of researching new models and
prototypes to make it more accessible to a range of farmers. The eventual goal is to create a 75 horse
power tractor-design that could be mass produced for only $5-8,000. Right now, they are hiring out the plow
contract system for 35,000 tsh ($22 USD) per acre, which is the exact same
amount it costs a farmer to regularly plow one acre (so they’re quite
competitive). According to Mick,
“inorganic fertilizers function well for two years and then the nutrients start
to decrease. This technology is a long
term investment in the soil health and it pays back. It makes poor quality soil arable.” He is producing sorghum and safflower, which
he sells to local buyers (such as QFP), who then export the products. He also grows maize and beans and is
cultivating 2,500 acres between two farms.
Field Masters Ltd. is currently working with 300 farmers with a future
target of 7,000: “the demand is there but there isn’t enough equipment or
skilled labor.” He employs 18 local
Tanzanians and among them, they can plant 280 acres per day (using 400 L of
fuel), “this is mind boggling to small farmers.” And although conservation agriculture
increases/retains soil moisture and nutrients, “we have to use chemicals, but
we’re battling with climate change.”
This is an ongoing conflict it seems.
He uses OPV seeds, claiming that “improved OPVs are the best. We want something sturdy, consistent, and
medium yield. We’re not looking for high
input and high yield. It’s too
risky. OPVs express their full genetics,
unlike hybrids, and though we may look into hybrids in the future, we don’t
know the full genetic makeup of the seed and thus, how it’s going to react
to/resist pests and diseases.” And
similar to what the QFP production manager said, Mick noted that “soil is most
important. We don’t need GMOs or hybrids
if you take care of your soil. Crop
rotation is important, keep livestock out of the fields, reduce tillage,
decrease chemical usage, keep pH down, and dissolve salts with organic matter
because glyphosate locks up minerals in the soil.” He said that he started with zero tillage 10
years ago, but is now slowly introducing low till methods to decrease chemical
usage. “You have to adapt and change
methods. Every pass, we’re putting gas
and nutrients back into the soil, so tilling isn’t that bad. And carbonic acid gas contained in the
exhaust is fundamental to plant growth.”
He noted that accountability in the agriculture system is crucial,
“people have to change and reject indoctrination; we need a paradigm shift”
(presumably referring to the perceived need for inorganic fertilizers). He noted that “Young people in Tanzania want
to move to town and open up a shop, not farm.
But there are young Tanzanian farmers and entrepreneurs who are amassing
land and growing hybrid cash crops. They
will be the future [of Tanzanian agriculture].
But we need to reinvest money into farming and land.” Mick also encouraged me to read up on carbonic
acid and its role in agriculture. After
a quick google search, I came upon a New York Times article dated 1914 titled,
“On the Application of Carbonic Acid in Soil.”
It seemed like a good place to start, since I wasn’t aware of its role
in fertilizer. According to the article,
Liebig’s “Natural Laws of Husbandry” say that farmers shouldn’t feel like they
need to add nitrogen to the soil because it’s already there, locked up, and
just needs to be “activated” by a solvent.
“Water, with the cooperation of carbonic acid, decomposes the silicates
and makes undissolved phosphates soluble and diffusible through the soil.” One can add carbonic acid by adding humus
through manure, though the author acknowledges the difficulties in dealing with
large volumes. Carbonic acid can also be
artificially made and injected into the soil, which seems to be similar (if not
exact) to what BioAgtive Emissions System Technology is doing. During our brief interview, Mick’s girlfriend
was there and noted, “fertilizer companies don’t like Mick. They aren’t making money off of him and he’s
going totally against their business.”
We should keep in mind that inorganic fertilizers were created following
WWII when there was an abundance of nitrates available (and they needed to do
something with them). The gist of what
they were saying is that farmers today are essentially brainwashed into
thinking that they need synthetic fertilizers.
And when I asked about how Tanzania farmers are receiving the technology
I was told that although many were at first bewildered, they have been overall
receptive because they are coming at it with fresh eyes and untarnished views,
whereas before they were just putting seeds into the ground somewhat
mindlessly.
This meeting, perhaps more than any other thus far, has made
me ponder the tension inherent in my project.
This Emissions Systems Technology seems to genuinely embody the “modern
technology” concept I proposed to research in a way that all of my other
encounters have not. Mostly, I seem to
be experience appropriate technology – that which is simple, affordable, easy
to use and maintain, small-scale and locally produced. This technology, in contrast, is the exact
opposite. As it is a bit abstract and
chemically complex, I am having difficulties wrapping my head around the
concept, which Mick expressed so simply.
He emphasized evolution/survival of the fittest in agriculture and the
importance of a creative entrepreneurial spirit in the younger generation of
farmers, those people who are going to come in and replace their parents and
grandparents, bringing with them a revolutionary wave of technological
acceptance. These notions are hopeful
but also seemed to directly challenge that which I have been encouraged to
believe throughout my time as an undergrad at Hamilton. I.e. Slow Food values of looking to older
generations and the importance of safeguarding the wisdom of elders, that
traditional knowledge which has been so successful and paramount for
centuries. But has it been
successful? How do we measure success
and sustainability? The farmers I’ve met
in Tanzania can barely afford a hand pump to irrigate their two acre
fields. Some want chemical inputs but
can’t afford those either. If this is
how their parents “taught” them to farm, can we count their struggles as a
success? Or have we entered a new age
where climate change (drought, erratic weather patterns etc.), depleted soil,
land and water shortages, and chemicals rule?
Is this new context making old knowledge obsolete? I don’t know.
I don’t think there is a clear or easy answer. I don’t think recent trends could possibly
negate indigenous wisdom entirely, as there seem to be basic farming practices
that are reliable, age-old truisms such as crop rotation and applying animal
manure. But only some farmers I’ve
talked to have been trained in intercropping, mulching, the use of homemade
biopesticides, etc. Did their parents
know about these “best practices” and simply neglected to share with their
children? Or have open land and the
freedom to slash/burn/and move on become so acceptable that actively and
consciously restoring the nutrient content of existing soil is seemed
unnecessary? I don’t know. Similar to the way I’ve been conceiving of a
lot of issues recently (e.g. taking both a top down and bottom up approach are
necessary), it seems that this may be a similar example, except involving
old/new: that in the future, soil, climate, and water conditions are going to undoubtedly
change (here they already have and as I read news headlines from around the
world, Tanzania is not alone), and new methods of mitigation and adaptation
will have to take place, at least to some degree. These may exhibit the combination of “modern”
technology and traditional wisdom – that precarious balance that seems like a
contradictory and inaccessible space.
Moreover, I still haven’t been able to come up with any
solid thoughts about globalization versus localization of the food system. My heart is telling me that local is the way
to go. That local production and
consumption with shorter value chains and more transparency/accountability are
the answer. But I just read a study that
undermined the commonsensical notion of food miles. However, it is also important to note that we
cannot reduce the local food movement to food miles along because “local” also
benefits the local economy, produces better tasting/fresh/more nutritious food,
and increases education among many factors.
Yet, signs here are pointing to exporting to foreign markets as one of
the solutions to poverty for these small subsistence farmers. That if only they could scale up and produce
enough for the world market, then maybe they could become financially
stable. But the world market seems so
risky with speculation of food prices, government subsidies, and infinite
players in the value chain. And the film
The Economics of Happiness by Helena
Norgberg-Hodge speaks to me, it really does (it emphasizes localization instead
of globalization). But after watching it
for a second time at home with the family (I wanted to show them the region of
Ladakh in northern India, my next destination after Tanzania), I began to
question how much of it is founded on hard facts and numerical data. I feel like I am being torn in two separate
directions: indigenous wisdom or technological fix. And I guess this is what the Watson is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment