[p2p-research] the new green revolution in AFrica

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Kevin Carson wrote:
> On 10/29/09, Paul D. Fernhout <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>> Having worked in organic agriculture for a time in a couple of ways, the
>> basic adage is, feed the soil for healthy plants, and healthy plants resist
>> pests.
>>
>>  And if you want to feed the soil, ground up rock does an excellent job:
>>   http://www.remineralize.org/
> 
> Louis Bromfield killed two birds with one stone, by planting
> deep-rooted legumes like red clover.  Not only did they fix nitrogen,
> but (thanks to the Ohio valley's glacial subsoil) the roots brought up
> lots of trace minerals and aerated the soil to a considerable depth
> (actually, I guess that's three birds).

Thanks for the info.

>>  So yes, that person does not know much other than (wrong) "conventional
>> farming" wisdom.
> 
> Borlaug and many of his ilk have also conflated the big-large
> distinction with the conventional-organic distinction.  Their
> evaluations of organic farming don't control for farm size, which
> means a lot of what they regard as "organic" is just large,
> conventional agribusiness without the chemical pesticides and
> fertilizers.  But generally speaking, small-scale production is more
> efficient in output per acre.
> 
> I should have added, in the bit for the blog, that Borlaug stacked his
> Green Revolution techniques against the strawman assumption of
> traditional native techniques--assuming that there were not multiple
> paths of development for making production more efficient.  Either the
> Third World adopted his techniques,  or it stood still; the
> possibility of progress through adopting more intensive forms of
> production that incorporated modern soil science was apparently out of
> the question.
> 
> Every time I see people like Ronald Bailey kiss Borlaug's ass, I get a
> little angrier.
>

Some more green revolution problems.

* Pesticides are likely causing cancer. (Make sure you get enough Vitamin D. :-)
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523595
"It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D level to 
40 to 60 ng/mL (100-150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases 
of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and 
three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, 
based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such 
intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have 
breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable 
risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D(3), or from a population 
serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally 
coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium."
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19269856
"Support for the UVB-vitamin D-cancer theory is now scientifically strong 
enough to warrant use of vitamin D in cancer prevention, and as a component 
of treatment"

I don't know about vitamin D deficiency in Africa or India. I imagine it 
might be a problem for people moving to some cities and adopting an indoor 
urban lifestyle? Could the entire (dark skinned) intelligentsia of Africa 
and the Indian subcontinent be at risk of vitamin D deficiency?

As less people farm, and more people move to cities, do more people become 
vitamin D deficient? Just speculation at this point...

* Many high-yield crops in terms of calories are often deficient in 
micronutrients (as mentioned), and in some cases this has been so bad as to 
cause serious problems, like birth defects and mental issues across wide 
areas. And the problem is getting worse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronutrient
"Micronutrient deficiencies are widespread. 50% of world cereal soils are 
deficient in zinc and 30% of cultivated soils globally are deficient in 
iron. Steady growth of crop yields during recent decades (in particular 
through the Green Revolution) compounded the problem by progressively 
depleting soil micronutrient pools. In general, farmers only apply 
micronutrients when crops show deficiency symptoms, while micronutrient 
deficiencies decrease yields before symptoms appear. Some common farming 
practices (such as liming acid soils) contribute to widespread occurrence of 
micronutrient deficiencies in crops by decreasing the availability of the 
micronutrients present in the soil. Also, extensive use of glyphosate is 
increasingly suspected to impair micronutrient uptake by crops, especially 
with regard to manganese, iron and zinc."

http://www.medicalgeek.com/community-medicine/8506-vitamin-deficiency-india.html

Also:
"Let them eat micronutrients"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160075
which misses the point that the soils have been destroyed by the Green 
Revolution and other poor farming practices.

* The political power structure shifts towards more centralization of wealth.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/Arun/The%20Green%20Revolution%20in%20India.pdf
"""
We have discussed in Chapter 3, some of the effects of the Green Revolution 
technology aids like new seeds, pesticides, fertilisers, excessive 
irrigation, indiscriminating tapping of ground water resources, and so on. 
This kind of technology requires more money just to get going and as a 
result the large amounts required have led to a debt trap for the poorer 
peasants. Those  who find this technology economically viable are those with 
medium and large farm holdings. A related issue is how today in India the 
politics of agriculture and rural economy is one that is  largely addressed 
to the concerns of the richer farmers, thus further marginalizing the poorer 
peasants, the landless and low income share croppers.
...
One of the major long-term consequences of the Green Revolution and of the 
post-Green  Revolution phase is the denial, neglect or lack of serious 
debate about other modes of agricultural production or other methods of 
agricultural knowledge practices. The Green Revolution culture is advertised 
as the major model of ‘successful’ and ‘progressive’ agriculture. Wherever 
such intensive large-scale deployment of technology and management has gone 
in as in oil seeds or operation flood (for creating milk surpluses), often, 
traditional,  more sustainable forms of food production that guaranteed food 
access to more of the poor tend to be overlooked. A feature that goes with 
these intensive applications of technology is the incorporation of ordinary 
food items like milk and oil as part of a centralized market economy with 
little possibility of control or influence by actual users."

So, in the absence of a basic income, the Green Revolution may create food 
insecurity where none existed before.

I could probably think of more issues if I tried. :-)

But overall, I believe in the power of technology to bring abundance. But it 
needs to be the appropriate technology, with some sort of social equity, and 
with continual montitoring and feedback about adverse impacts not a culture 
of denial and vested interests. Openness is part of getting the least pain 
from technology and the most benefit from it.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/