By Madronna Holden
Updated 10. 25. 2012
“Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same land”.
The quote above comes from a review of a University of Michigan study that finds that organic farming is especially important in feeding developing nations. The video recently released (on “Food Day”: October 25.2012) by the Food Myths program gives a solid outline of why industrial farming is not only not needed, but counter-productive in feeding the world. In turn, if new technology, chemical inputs into agriculture, and genetic engineering will not feed the world, as I have argued elsewhere on this site, the propagation fair I attended in Eugene, Oregon illustrates what we need instead.
The fair consisted of a free exchange of plants and seeds. It also offered free scions of hundreds of varieties of pears, apples, and plums, carefully labeled as to taste, keeping qualities, and disease hardiness. Visitors could take these for free for grafting onto existing trees. Or they could use root stocks and/or take advantage of the help of experienced grafters offered at cost.
Workshops entailed such topics as seed saving and winter gardening. And informational booths ranged from a focus on honeybees and native pollinators to a school gardens program.
Notably, Vandana Shiva has noted that the same kinds of fairs existed in traditionally sustainable farming areas of India, where growers (largely women) got together to trade seeds and ideas.
Here are the hallmarks of this fair that illustrate what we do need to feed the world.
This fair expressed sharing for all rather than profit for a few. The volunteer grafters, the workshop leaders, those who staffed booths and those who brought plants and seeds to give away were enthusiastic about sharing both information and food-growing resources. This contrasts sharply with Monsanto’s “terminator gene”, developed to protect its patent—which also threatens our food supply through unpredictable and uncontrollable gene migration.
The fair also expressed the value of care— for the environment, for community, and for the varieties of trees and seeds to be preserved locally.
Care is a productive value when it comes to such things. Care such as Barbara McClintock’s “speaking with the corn”, treating each plant as an individual, led to work that earned her the Nobel Prize. This echoes the care with which indigenous peoples tended their fertile “gourmand’s paradise” in the Willamette Valley: care for both the natural lives that fed them and the human lives to come after them.
Indeed, such care sustained human communities and environments together throughout the indigenous Northwest.
It is such care that the government of Switzerland replicates in their constitution guaranteeing the “dignity” of all natural life.
Here are the characteristics of sustainable food-producing technologies exhibited at the propagation fair.
Sustainable food-producing technologies should be place-based.
As opposed to the “one size fits all” technology of globalization, place-based technology is as flexible and particular as the individual yard into which it would be set—as special as each person’s choice of and care for a heritage tree or vegetable seed.
Such technology does not depend on a large plot of land. As are many urban gardens today, a tree or vegetable plant can be placed in a backyard, on a parking strip, on a reclaimed vacant lot, or on a rooftop or terrace.
Seeds grown and saved from local gardens partnered with nature’s ability to adapt, rather than trying to force diverse ecological systems to adapt to human whims.
Sustainable food-producing technology should preserve biodiversity.
As Barbara Kingsolver observed, any society that relies on a single variety of an essential food source is one step from the devastating starvation suffered in the Irish potato famine when disease attacked the single kind of potato grown there.
Such a famine would not have happened in Peru, where the potato originated– and where traditional farmers grow uncounted varieties of this crop. Traditional farmers also keep wild areas open. There nature has a chance to grow whatever she wants—and farmers often find useful varieties arising in these wild places.
Maintaining this natural stock-producing area was also the practice of peasant farmers in Britain (where the hedgerows provided food to birds as well) and in Eastern Europe.
Sustainable food-producing technology should need few secondary material inputs.
Grafting needs no secondary technological inputs such as fossil fuels, pesticides and fertilizers, or expensive machinery. Its tools are as simple as a grafting knife—and care in the hands and knowledge in the minds of those who tend grafted trees.
I would suggest that the complexity of a technology, as in the complexity of the grafting process, should center not on material input and fancy inventions, but on the complexity of knowledge and experience passed from one person to another. Technology with this type of complexity relies not on depleting natural resources—but on the unlimited resource of human knowledge.
In an age of burgeoning human population and declining natural resources, we need this combination of complex knowledge and simple material input.
Sustainable food-producing technology should have a historical track record or careful research in terms of safety in line with the precautionary principle.
Grafting is an ancient human science. I once sat in an Arab garden on the Mount of Olives sustained by grafting techniques and local knowledge. The caretaker of his tiny garden offered shade and comfort to guests, even as his garden offered up honey, olives, grapes and a dozen other varieties of fruit to the family that cared for it. He told me that if something did not work on this land so densely planted that the leaves of the trees touches one another, he grafted other varieties that did.
He followed an ancient tradition that is all too little utilized in this war torn area.
Sustainable food-producing technology should have no deleterious side effects, for either the environment or other humans.
Side effects that negate the benefit of high-end technologies used in corporate farming include use of toxic chemicals and fossil fuels, drawing down the water table, and/ or carbon production.
Instead of such negative side effects, planting trees has the potential to ameliorate climate change and recharge ravaged water tables.
It is a wonderful that this process feeds us as well.
We have such technology and we can refine it. We have no need to use technology touted as part of the “green revolution” that devastated lands such as those in Bangladesh reclaimed by the traditional and diverse farming methods of New Agricultural Moment or similarly in Mexico by Jesus Leon Santos.
It is a fool’s bargain to trade away temporary profit for a few for the destruction of the land we need to sustain us. Indeed, it is clearly irrational to give economic rewards to those who undermine the sources of our survival and spread toxins to any part of the planet we share.
By contrast, any robust economic system and the technology it develops must reward those who produce what we need for the flourishing of humans and other lives on this planet: things such as nourishing food, secure livelihoods, clean air and water, good health, and a secure future for our children.
The more rare and precious are our natural resources, the more we must protect and care for them.
Filed under: Environmental ethics, environmental philosophy, Environmental psychology, Forest and farm, Land use, Our Earth and Ourselves | Tagged: genetic engineering, grafting, propagation fair, sustainable agriculture, sustainable technology |