I just emailed my Father-In-Law who is in New Zealand for a film festival.  Many people know him as the "Taro Man" here on the Big Island.

Applicants must fulfill the following qualifications:
1)    be a farmer actively growing kalo;
2)    have at least three years of kalo farming experience;
3)    be growing kalo on the island they seek to represent;
4)    and be capable of participating in task force activities, including traveling to other islands to attend meetings.

But the answer to this issue lies in the new “Post-Modern Green Revolution” not in the historic “Green Revolution” approach where yields are artificially increased by importing the practices of genetically engineered seeds and petroleum-based fertilizer. Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel prize-winner and the grandfather of the Green Revolution has been credited with saving tens millions of people around the world from starvation through his agrarian research which fed more people using fewer acres of farmland. And his methods did save many in South America and Asia.

But today’s carbon-depleted and environmentally damaged world is very different than the post World War II environment that found new peacetime uses for chemicals. Today we know more and we need to feed the world’s growing population in a way that does not compromise the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil that nourishes us.

While many have been fed through advances in modern agriculture that increases yields with petroleum-based fertilizer and toxic chemical pesticides, many have been harmed. In a recent report the World Bank said that overuse of chemical pesticides in developing countries contributes to costly health problems and questioned whether the risks of using pesticides outweighed the benefits. Additionally, excessive use of nitrogenous fertilizer has a significant negative impact on global warming, due to agriculture's contribution of non-carbon dioxide emissions. Chemical fertilizer use for the past 50 years has produced a huge greenhouse gas burden through its manufacturing, transport and routine escape into the atmosphere from agricultural fields. Additionally chemical runoff has polluted our waterways.

There is a better way. Rodale Institute has proved that organic agricultural methods can remove about 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air each year and store it in an acre of farmland. If all 434 million acres of American cropland was converted to these practices, it would be the equivalent of eliminating 217 million cars from the road, or a car for every two acres of farmland.

Rodale Institute's studies, which are the longest-running side-by-side studies of conventional and organic farming in the nation, also show that the organic approach does not compromise yield – in fact in drought years it increases it since more carbon in the soil allows it to hold more water. In wet years, the additional organic matter in the soil wicks water away from plant roots, limiting erosion and keeping plants in place.

Organic, regenerative farming is a site-specific approach that can affordably be adapted to any location. Most importantly, it helps people feed themselves with the materials that they already have, without hooking them on an increasingly expensive dependency on chemical inputs and high-cost seeds that are bred to only work with synthetic herbicides and pesticides. This holds farmers hostage to patented varieties at prices that continually rise – a practice that hurts all farmers, but especially those in developing countries where such hikes can mean the difference between a subsistence crop and starvation.

Changing the way we farm may be the single biggest action that the world can take to address global warming – and to help the world’s most vulnerable end the cycle of aid dependency and hunger. Most importantly, it can be done without new technology or expensive investments.

- from www.treehugger.com
by Timothy J. LaSalle is CEO of the Rodale Institute, a 60-year-old non-profit organization dedicated to researching sustainable farming and educating farmers and consumers about the food we eat.

Update from bloggers' row (well, sort of) here.

My take on a first pass through the main square here.

And a quantitative rundown of the day here.

Architecture for Humanity, and Lulan Artisans have a great-looking new project operating throughout mainland Southeast Asia that promises scalable support for traditional artisanal industries, in an effort to provide attractive and sustaining jobs for those who might otherwise be trafficked. They are applying for a grant from American Express, and could use your vote. You don't need to be a member. Click here for information on the project. Click here to nominate the project for the grant. [via BB]

Here's a fun quote on language in Old Cambodge, courtesy of New Mandala.

Lorenz of anthropologi.info has a good synopsis of the news that has begun changing the way archaeologists approach rainforest urbanism. The specific story is out of the Amazon, but the findings apply nicely to rainforest cities throughout the world.

Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog points to a map that shows how global 'agriculture value added' looks throughout the globe.

As developing countries confront the first global food crisis since the 1970s as well as unprecedented water scarcity, a new 53-city survey conducted by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) indicates that most of those studied (80 percent) are using untreated or partially treated wastewater for agriculture.

New 52-city Report Examines Use Of Wastewater In Urban Agriculture

The first incorrect assumption was that our tariff was 8 pence per unit, which at £50 a month would equate to consumption of "almost 7,000kWh a year!". (The maths is wrong for a start: it would be 625kWh a month or 7,500kWh a year.)

In fact, our tarriff was 10.45 pence per unit and our consumption was 5,600kWh in the last 12 months.

To the eco-worriers, that's still a frighteningly profligate amount and we should be setting targets to cut our use.

After all, average UK household use in 2005 was 4,700kWh (according to The Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2005) and even that is seen to be too high.

But hold on a second, we not living in a three-bed semi-detached house in the suburbs in south-east England and we're not buying most of our food at the supermarket.

We live on a working croft in north-east Scotland (long, dark winter nights), we don't have mains or bottled gas, and we produce a vast amount of our own food.

All that means a greater reliance on and a greater consumption of electricity—even though we work hard at minimising and reducing use.

On the farming side, we have the energy consumption of an electric fence, heat lamps, incubators, power tools, the borehole pump, water filter, arc lamps and the like to factor into the equation.

We minimise our use of these—arc lamps are mainly for emergency use, we use hand tools in preference to power tools, we use the most efficient appliances we can afford—but a working croft still has additional energy requirements over those of a suburban house.

On the domestic side, we bake eight loaves of bread a week, we make 50lb of jam a year, we produce 80-100lb of pickles, chutneys and relishes, we produce 20-30 gallons of home brew, we blanch and freeze 10-20lb of vegetables, we have two large freezers for meat, fish and vegetables, and we cook almost all our meals from scratch.

Again, we minimise our energy use by keeping one freezer off as much as possible and by having Savaplugs on all our freezers and the refrigerator. We don't have a tumble dryer nor do we use a dish washer.

We eat a lot of raw fruit and vegetables, and when we cook we often make one-pot meals that can be eaten over two or three nights (so less energy is needed for cooking).

We wash our clothes in cold water, we have solar hot water and time our dish washing and showers to suit, and we do all the usual energy saving things (no lights unless necessary, energy efficient lighting, restrict use of things like the television and computers, etc).

But, our energy use is going to appear to be higher than a suburban semi as we're still doing vastly more cooking and baking—and it's on an electric hob and in an electric oven as previous owners of the croft ripped out the wood-fuelled Rayburn.

Note that I say our energy use appears to be higher.

People living in a house in suburbia are actually using just as much energy, if not more than us, but because they outsource their consumption they don't see it or take it into account.

Take a jar of jam.

We propagate our raspberry bushes by hand, fertilise and prune them by hand, harvest them by hand, wash them in water pumped out of our borehole, cook them on our electric hob, bottle them in jars sterilised with solar hot water and dried in the oven at 100C, and then eat the resulting jam over the space of a year.

The suburban family drives to the shop, buys a jar of jam and drives home again.

As far as they're concerned, there's no obvious energy consumption and it certainly does not show up on their electricity meter as our jar of jam does.

But, that jar of jam will almost certainly be the produce of an industrialised farm, with raspberry bushes grown under plastic, sprayed by machinery burning oil, pruned and harvest at least partially mechanically, stored in refrigerated cool rooms, processed and bottled in a massive plant, transported hundreds (and possibly thousands of miles) to the supermarket, and then transported from the supermarket to the family home.

Even with the economies of scale, there's still a substantial amount of energy tied up in that jar of jam.

Or how about meals.

We harvest our fruit and vegetables by hand, clean them by hand, and cook them on the electric hob in one or two pans. If we're eating meat, it's from animals reared on the croft, kept in by electric fencing, transported 20 miles to slaughter and 20 miles back again, stored in our freezers and cooked on the hob or in the oven.

Back in the suburbs, our suburban family are zapping their ready meals in the microwave, apparently using much less electricity than us.

But their food has come from industrial farms with massive energy consumption, gone through industrial processing plants with massive energy consumption, in many cases is transported vast distances between those stages and then to the supermarket, and then been transported from the supermarket to the home.

Yes, their microwave uses less electricity in eight minutes than our hob uses in half an hour, but is the actual energy consumption of their meal really less than ours?

Or how about water?

We run our borehole pump for two, two-minute sessions a day. That's sufficient to keep the 12,000-litre header tank topped off without overflowing.

After that, water gravity feeds to the house on demand. If we ran the pump directly, we'd be running the pump every time we turned a tap on.

When the water does reach the house, it has to go through a UV filter and again that uses electricity.

To reduce our pumped water consumption, we also have rainwater harvesting with 5,000 litres of storage. This is used for watering livestock and some of our vegetable crops.

It's entirely gravity fed and transported around the croft by hand.

The result is that we are very away of just how much energy it takes to keep us supplied with water.

Our suburban family on the other hand, simply turn the taps on and the water flows out.

Yes, they're paying water rates but do they realise just how much energy is required to deliver that water to them? And then to take it away as waste?

The water has to be collected in vast dams and reservoirs or pumped out of aquifers. It has to be treated in huge plants. It has to be pumped to holding reservoirs and water towers, or pumped directly to the end user.

Once used, it has to be pumped to waste water plants, it has to be treated, and it then has to be pumped to its dispersal point.

The suburban family can appear more energy efficient than us because they have displaced or outsourced their energy consumption elsewhere.

It's no different to British companies reducing pollution and staffing costs by shifting operations to countries with less stringent regulations and lower wages, then proclaiming how clean and efficient they are.

Our energy use may appear to be higher than the UK domestic average, but that's because our consumption is more honest and transparent, making us much more responsible for what we use.

Can other people say the same?

+74% en 2 ans. Voilà le résultat de la facture. En 2006, ce chiffre s'établissait à 161 milliards de dollars annuels. L'auteur de ce calcul savant, c'est Lester Brown, agroéconomiste américain déjà à l'origine de nombreux ouvrages alarmistes, tel Le Plan B, sorti en 2007, devenu le livre de chevet de Nicolas Hulot ou Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet. 280 milliards de dollars par an, c'est, l'estime-t'il, le montant qui serait nécessaire aujourd'hui pour rendre l'économie mondiale sobre et en cohérence avec les ressources naturelles planétaires. Pour passer d'une économie suicidaire à une économie durable. Chaque année insouciante, cette facture grimpe de plus de 30%. Pour s'imaginer ce que cela représente, il suffit de mettre ce chiffre en face des dépenses militaires annuelles mondiales : 1000 milliards de dollars. Cela représenterait donc 1/4. A l'échelle mondiale, dans à peine cinq ans, le budget environnemental nécessaire aura dépassé le budget militaire.

Notamment en ligne de mire, le Brésil et sa gestion de la forêt amazonienne, considérée encore, à tort, comme le poumon de la planête. En captant l'humidité de l'Atlantique, l'Amazonie irrigue toutes les terres  brésiliennes du centre et du sud. Le gouvernement brésilien, qui veut faire du pays la première puissance agricole au monde, est donc vitalement dépendant de la gestion de cette forêt et de ce fleuve. Et pourtant… chaque année, 2 millions de ces hectares se transforment en bois exotique pour nos parquets, nos papiers, nos meubles ou tout simplement en fumée… et d'ici 2010, seulement 50 millions sont sous le coup d'un programme de protection. Autant dire une misère. C'est un drame pour le Brésil, mais encore plus pour le monde. La vision de ce monde grignoté de toutes parts est horrible.

Plus on attend, plus il sera cher de restaurer les forêts, les ressources halieutiques, les nappes phréatiques, plus la diversité de la flore et de la faune aura irrémédiablement été atteinte… et donc, par extension, l'Homme. Pendant qu'on fonce dans le mur avec insouciance, continuons de klaxonner !

A C-Terminal Protease-Resistant Prion Fragment Distinguishes Ovine "CH1641-Like" Scrapie from Bovine Classical and L-Type BSE in Ovine Transgenic Mice. 2008 PLoS Pathog 4(8): e1000137
The protease-resistant prion protein (PrPres) of a few natural scrapie isolates identified in sheep, reminiscent of the experimental isolate CH1641 derived from a British natural scrapie case, showed partial molecular similarities to ovine bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Recent discovery of an atypical form of BSE in cattle, L-type BSE or BASE, suggests that also this form of BSE might have been transmitted to sheep. We studied by Western blot the molecular features of PrPres in four "CH1641-like" natural scrapie isolates after transmission in an ovine transgenic model (TgOvPrP4), to see if "CH1641-like" isolates might be linked to L-type BSE. We found less diglycosylated PrPres than in classical BSE, but similar glycoform proportions and apparent molecular masses of the usual PrPres form (PrPres #1) to L-type BSE. However, the "CH1641-like" isolates differed from both L-type and classical BSE by an abundant, C-terminally cleaved PrPres product (PrPres #2) specifically recognised by a C-terminal antibody (SAF84). Differential immunoprecipitation of PrPres #1 and PrPres #2 resulted in enrichment in PrPres #2, and demonstrated the presence of mono- and diglycosylated PrPres products. PrPres #2 could not be obtained from several experimental scrapie sources (SSBP1, 79A, Chandler, C506M3) in TgOvPrP4 mice, but was identified in the 87V scrapie strain and, in lower and variable proportions, in 5 of 5 natural scrapie isolates with different molecular features to CH1641. PrPres #2 identification provides an additional method for the molecular discrimination of prion strains, and demonstrates differences between "CH1641-like" ovine scrapie and bovine L-type BSE transmitted in an ovine transgenic mouse model.

Related:

• New forms of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
• Four separate types of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?
• Genes contributing to prion pathogenesis
• What the heck are prions for?

Ritz, joined by members of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada at a news conference in Ottawa, denied allegations that the federal inspector responsible for the plant was mired in paperwork and was not present on the floor of the plant.

Wednesday's comments came amid growing questions about whether anticipated changes to the federal food inspection system, detailed in a government memo that was leaked last month, may already have been in use at the Toronto plant at the heart of the outbreak.

"When you go back and you look at the strategic review document? none of it has ever been implemented, but the thrust of what was discussed in that document was on the slaughter side, not on the processing side that we're talking about here today," said Ritz when asked why the proposed changes were already put into play on March 31.

The CFIA implemented a new system in March that offered inspectors greater oversight over a plant's safety procedures, he said.

The Tories had budgeted an extra $113 million in 2008 on food safety and will hire an additional 58 food inspectors by the end of the fiscal year on top of the 200 inspectors they hired since taking office in Jan. 2006, he added.

Eating foods spoiled with the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes can result in serious illness, including brain and blood infections and in extreme cases, death.

Health officials at the news conference revised the number of deaths that were a direct consequence of the outbreak to five from six.

Ten other deaths of people with the outbreak strain of listeriosis remain under investigation.

Inspectors not comfortable with changes

Earlier Wednesday, Bob Kingston, a union official and former inspector with the CFIA, told CBC News that inspectors at the plant had been relegated to auditing paperwork and dealing with several other facilities.

Since the changes were made, inspectors have spent less time on the factory floor, a move that reduces their awareness of the happenings on the floor, said Kingston.

But doing paperwork to review the results of testing at the plant is "fundamental" to ensuring the standard of food quality, said the CFIA's Paul Mayers, who was at the news conference with Ritz.

"Those that might characterize paperwork in a derogatory sense, I would challenge, given that that scientific review demonstrates the safety and security of the entire process used to produce food," he said.

Maple Leaf takes blame

Also Wednesday, the president of Maple Leaf Foods said his company should bear the responsibility for the distribution of meat that led to the outbreak, effectively absolving the Canadian food safety system of blame.

"This week, it's our best efforts that failed, not the regulators or the Canadian food safety system," Michael McCain said at a separate news conference Wednesday in Toronto.

"I emphasize: This is our accountability and it's ours to fix, which we are taking on fully. We have and we continue to improve on our action plans," he said.

The company recalled products well beyond those that had tested positive for the listeria bacterium, contacting all of its direct customers and warehouses and some 87 per cent of warehouses in the Canadian food chain, said McCain.

He said he wasn't aware of any changes to the nature of an inspector's job, adding a CFIA inspector is present on the plant every time the plant is running.

It remained unclear Wednesday when the Toronto plant at the heart of the outbreak, which was scheduled to resume production Thursday, would reopen, McCain said.

"We will not re-start the plant until this investigation is complete, and I've signed off on it personally."

New recalls in Quebec and elsewhere

In the latest food recall, a warning was issued late Wednesday not to serve or consume some food products sold at Costco stores under the Kirkland brand.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Kirkland Signature brand platters may be contaminated with listeria bacteria.

The platters contain a ready-to-eat deli meat product recalled by Maple Leaf. There have been no reported illnesses associated with consumption of the platters.

Also, Quebec officials recalled two types of cheese on Wednesday after a pair of store samples tested positive for listeria.

The strain found in the Quebec cheese is not linked to the processed meat made by the Maple Leaf Foods plant in Toronto, said Guy Auclair of the province's food and agricultural department.

Auclair, the department's director of food inspection, said it's a coincidence the cheese recall comes at the same time as that outbreak. Several recalls linked to listeriosis take place in Quebec each year, he said.

Two people with listeriosis have died in Quebec in recent days. One of them had the strain linked to Maple Leaf Foods, but in the other case the strain has not yet been determined.

With files from the Canadian Press

Toyota will build Prius in Miss.
Maple Leaf Foods Q2 losses widen
Tennessee to help build biofuel plant

I just noticed a breaking news item on the Honolulu Advertiser:

"Superferry Offering discounts on Local Ag Products"

Since when did the Superferry start selling local ag products?  And what is an Ag? ;)

Also I noticed inside the article:

Hawaii Superferry's ship, the Alakai, is outfitted with onboard reefer plugs that allow refrigerated trucks to maintain the same temperature throughout the voyage, a feature that helps produce maintain a longer shelf life.

What's a Reefer Plug?

Don't they mean outlets?

;)

Someone has taken the time to compare the new farm bill to the previous farm bill in an easy-to-read-side-by-side table. The sections on organic agriculture are interesting. Read them here.

This is the kind of stuff Extension folks love, for use in presentations. What other use could there be for information such as this?

Toute personne physique ou morale peut demander au préfet l'autorisation d'exploiter une parcelle susceptible d'une mise en valeur agricole ou pastorale et inculte ou manifestement sous-exploitée depuis au moins trois ans. Article L125-1 à 15 du code rural français.

C'est en vertu de cet article que Laurent Fouquet (blé pour la transformation en pain, plantes aromatiques et médicinales), Virginie Filleul (accueil spécialisé, poules pondeuses), Hervé Legrand (chèvres) et Jean-Philippe Bignonneau (apiculteur), ont investi le 7 juin dernier la ferme « Le Chêne » à Ansac-sur-Vienne en Charente, propriété de la société EDISIT et laissée inculte depuis 2002.

EDISIT souhaite y créer un centre d'enfouissement de déchets industriels. En attendant l'autorisation de la préfecture, les terres sont actuellement louées à une association de chasse de Haute-Vienne.

« Le Chêne » - Ansac-sur-Vienne

"La Tribu des Pas Fous en confolentais", comme ils se nomment, a pour objectif, avec le soutien des habitants de la région et des maires, d'installer plusieurs agriculteurs en bio sur ces 65 hectares gorgés d’eau potable."On a devant nous des gens volontaires, avec un projet qui demande peu de moyens. Ils sont prêts à payer un loyer, ils acceptent le bail de chasse… On a tout de suite été séduits par le projet", confirme Pascal Laurent, porte-parole de la Confédération paysanne.

De son côté, le directeur d'EDISIT, ne souhaite pas voir ces occupants rester sur place. Même si le projet de centre d'enfouissement de déchets industriels est arrêté. C'est pour lui une question de principe afin de ne pas créer un précédent qui pourrait gêner de futurs projets.

"On n'est pas là pour squatter" rétorquent les paysans. "Ce qu'on veut, c'est travailler, gagner notre vie, ne pas dépendre d'aides de l'Etat"

Le 7 juillet, suite à une décision de justice, le préfet a donné l’ordre d'expulser les agriculteurs. Depuis cette date, ils préparent avec la Confédération Paysanne un dossier d’installation à remettre au préfet en septembre, comprenant les pétitions et lettres de soutien.

"Le Préfet doit comprendre que l’agriculture paysanne fait vivre des gens tandis que la pollution de l’eau les fait mourir ; qu’il en va de sa responsabilité de déclencher l’un ou l’autre de ces processus. A lui de choisir : Autoriser l’installation du centre d’enfouissement ou lancer la procédure de constat d’état d’inculture des terres".

Si vous désirez les soutenir, n'hésitez pas à signer et diffuser la pétition pour appuyer leur dossier. Le 8 septembre 2008, ils sont convoqués au Palais de Justice d’Angoulême à 15h. Vous pouvez venir manifester votre soutien directement à cette occasion. Un festival de théâtre et de musique est également prévu les 12 et 13 septembre prochain.

One way we might try to pursue this line of thought is to consider whether gardens and local biofuel production might provide a basis for more sustainable human activity. Could we use more of our own time and labor to create some of the material necessities of our lives, and do so in a way that imposes a smaller footprint on the world's energy and resource system?

David Blume was a guest on NPR's Science Friday on August 15. Blume is the author of Alcohol Can Be a Gas!: Fueling an Ethanol Revolution for the 21st Century. Blume is an advocate for the idea that alcohol can be a large and ecologically positive component of our modern energy economy (website). And he believes that it is possible to imagine a more decentralized energy economy for the United States in which local producers and distillers satisfy a large percentage of the energy needs of a region.

Blume made an observation that I found intriguing: that the common wetland plant, the cattail, can be a fuel source for producing ethanol. (Here's a news story on Blume's comments about cattails on an earlier occasion.) Corn produces about 250-300 gallons of ethanol per acre, and it is estimated that cattails would produce something less than this. (Blume himself estimates that the yield of cattail ethanol production would be "many, many times" that of corn, and says that 7,000 gallons per acre is feasible. This seems unsupportable, given the potential yield of other biofuel crops.) But cattails also have ecological advantages: they soak up excess nutrients (e.g. agricultural fertilizer runoff or sewage waste plant effluent), and they require little cultivation. Here are a few news stories (story, story) with some interesting background.

So here's the question: what would be involved in creating a community that is energy self-sufficient based on ethanol production? Could households grow their own fuels? What would the economics of a cooperative community-based distillery look like? How much land, labor, and money would be required for the household?

It should be noted that there is serious disagreement about the most basic features of the commercial ethanol economy: does ethanol production lead to a net gain in energy, or do the inputs into the cultivation and distilling processes exceed the energy content of the resulting volume of alcohol? Here's a discussion at FuturePundit and a summary of the findings of a national expert, David Pimental from Cornell University. Here are the central conclusions of a recent study by Pimentel and Tad Patzek at UC-Berkeley:

Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California- Berkeley study. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

(Other studies reach a very different conclusion.  See a summary of studies on the energy balance of current ethanol production on this Oregon website.)

But still, let's think it through a bit. The scenario I'm imagining is labor-intensive and local, so the costs of energy associated with mechanization and transportation are reduced or eliminated. Could we imagine a local energy economy based on crops and distillation that could be fitted into an otherwise acceptable lifestyle? (The analysis will begin to sound like Piero Sraffa's exercise, Production of Commodities By Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory.)

A family's energy budget might look something like this, estimated in gallons of ethanol:

• transportation 800 gallons (10,000 miles)
• cooking 300 gallons (365 days)
• heating 1000 gallons (180 heating days)
• illumination 100 gallons (365 days)
• refrigeration 200 gallons

This adds up to 2,400 gallons of ethanol required for a year's energy use. But we aren't finished yet, because cultivation and distillation also have an energy cost, and this cost is a function of the volume of alcohol required. Let's take a more optimistic estimate than that provided by Pimental above, and assume that the energy cost of distillation is 30%. (We're working with a coop, after all!) To produce a gallon of ethanol we have to expend .3 gallons in the distillation process. And let's assume that cultivation is done by hand without mechanization, but that the crop needs to be transported to the distillation facility at a 10% cost. (That is, I assume that the net transportation cost of transporting the thousands of pounds of feed crop to the processor is 10% of the net alcohol product of the crop.) These estimates imply that the household requires 4,000 gallons of alcohol.

Now assume that the alcohol yield of an acre of cattails is 250 gallons; this implies a fuel farm size of 16 acres. (It would be nice to extend the exercise to include a food garden as well; this is left for the reader! Here's an interesting United Nations article from the 1980s on the economics of family gardening that can help get the analysis started.)

Now how many hours of labor time need to be devoted to cultivating and harvesting this crop? Evidently cattails don't require much by way of fertilizers, irrigation, and pest control. But I'm sure there is some level of maintenance needed, and 16 acres is a large area. In fact, it represents a rectangular plot that is 200 feet by 3,500 feet -- more than half a mile long. So let's assume that basic maintenance of the cattail crop requires 2 hours a day of adult labor. The large investment of labor, however, occurs at the harvest. About 14,000 pounds of cattails will be harvested per acre, or 224,000 pounds for the farm over the course of the harvest. If we assume that an adult can harvest 200 pounds per hour, this represents 1,120 hours of harvest work. Let's assume that harvesting can be spread out over a couple of four-week periods or 56 days; this implies 20 hours of adult labor per day during the harvest season. So it would take 10 hours a day, 7 days a week during the eight weeks of harvest season for two adults to harvest this volume of cattails. Two months of very hard work devoted to harvesting will eventually produce enough ethanol to support the household's chief energy needs.

Now what about the economics of the cooperative's distillery? If we assume a cooperative involving 100 households of the scale just discussed, the distillery needs to process 22,400,000 pounds of material in order to produce 400,000 gallons of ethanol. The households will be farming an area of 1,600 acres of cattails -- about three square miles. And the system will be supporting the energy needs of about 500 people. If we keep our assumption of a 30% ratio of input-to-output, this process will consume 120,000 gallons of ethanol. The coop members will need to fund the purchase and maintenance of the still and the labor costs associated with operation of the still. Perhaps it's a labor coop too? In this case, each household will need to devote several hours a week to work in the distillery. And we might imagine that the coop would require a "tax" of some small percentage of the alcohol produced to cover maintenance and operating expenses. Here's a research article from AGRIS that examines the costs of a small distillery of roughly this size. The conclusion is somewhat discouraging: "The analysis indicates that the distillery would not be profitable at current prices for corn and ethanol." In other words, the cost of inputs and operation of the distillery exceed the value of the alcohol produced, according to this analysis. But this conclusion isn't quite relevant to our scenario, because the raw materials are not purchased through the market and the product is not sold on the market. Nonetheless, the finding implies that there's a shortfall somewhere; and it may well be that it is the unpaid labor of the fuel farmers that is where the shortfall occurs.

So here's the upshot of this back-of-the-envelope calculation: it would be a major commitment of land and labor for a household or a village community to achieve energy self-sufficiency through cooperative-based ethanol distillation. And I've made an assumption I can't justify: that the energy input to the distillation process is 30% of the energy content of the resulting quantity of ethanol. If that ratio is 60% instead of 30%, then the land and labor requirements for each household are greatly increased; and if the ratio approaches or exceeds 100%, then the whole idea falls apart. But even on these assumptions, the life style associated with this model sounds a lot closer to that of a peasant village in medieval France or traditional China than to that of a modern US citizen. It involves hard physical labor during several months of the year and a moderate level of labor effort during the remainder of the year. And if we imagine that the scenario is extended by incorporating a substantial amount of food gardening for family consumption, then the balance of necessary labor to free labor tips even further in the direction of the peasant economy.

Expand Vertically and not Horizontally
Bangladesh, when it was in the proces of being East Pakistan, was supposed to compromise of Assam and Meghalaya with East Bengal, to take full advantage of the land area for development, but it never went through with the British Raj. Bangladesh has limited land, but that should not give the government of the country any reason to let poor people die starving.

For farming, Bangladesh has limited amount of land to expand her food growth if it was done by the conventional method. However, Bangladesh can go beyond many third world countries and stop importing food from other nations and start exporting. Bangladesh has many agricultural engineers, my own father being one of them, and they have knowledge and the capability to raise a surplus of food to not only feed everyone in the country, but also export and raise revenue.

If we can’t farm horizontally due to limited land then let’s farms vertically with farms that goes straight up as high as skyscrapers. The farms will be compromised of buildings with crops being grown inside. Each floor will have a certain crop, whether it’s for food or cash crops such as cotton.

Pros

• Unlimited types of crops can be grown.
• One acre of land can produce 10 acres of crops or how ever man number of floors in the vertical farm.
• Temperature controlled floors will enable Bangladesh’s agricultural engineers to raise virtually any crop.
• No monsoon threat to wash away crops since it’ll be protected inside the buildings.
• Water can be recycled and be used over and over again through electrolysis, combustion, and condensation.
• Benefit regular farmers in Bangladesh to grow crops which will guarantee profits and raise their standard of living; the farmers would be able to produce more foods out of their land.
• No pesticides or insecticides will be needed, which may harm the environment or the crop, it may also harm the consumers of the foods.
• It’ll be easier for agricultural engineers to research in reaching the maximum potential of the country’s agricultural sector.
• There will be a surplus of foods to export to other nations and reduction on imports of foods which will help raise the country’s GDP significantly.
• The money gained from the revenue of the crops will pay off any loans used to build these farms fast since there will be no weather disturbance to harm the crops and put weight on any payments.

Cons

• Energy is needed to create artificial sunlight within the building and to water the crops and to control temperature but Bangladesh is lacking a lot of energy. Energy is very costly and the power goes out too often in Bangladesh.
• There is too much corruption in the government. The project will not be able to pay for itself if bribes are given left and right to corrupt officials to approve of projects or renew licenses every year to conduct this project.
• Hartals, or strikes, casued by political parties such as the Awami League may cause problems to deliver foods and conduct business in a proper manner.

As you can see the pros outweight the cons; however, the main obstacles come from the political parties and the civil servants from the government. This venture looks to be very promising but the politicans who call themselves patriots are the ones who stand in the way of progress and development.

The farms can also be used to raise livestock, and stop the illegal importing of cows from India. The Indian federal government complains of the illegal imports of food from India to Bangladesh and with it they harm Bangladesh's image to the world.

In Bangladesh, land is expensive; however, the most rural areas can be used for this project. Rural areas are usually cheap since there are no townships or cities near them, which keeps their land value low. I checked on the statistics of land prices in Bangladesh and so far I found the Netrokona district to be the cheapest.

Financial
In America the cost of building a vertical farm is expected to be $200 million per project. However, supplies and labor to build such a project in a 3rd world country will be a lot cheaper than supplies and labor of an industrialized country; in Bangladesh it would be about 96% cheaper.

I did the calculations of prices of land in the Netrokona district and how much it would cost to NRBs. It’s about 5000 Bangladeshi taka (Bangladesh’s currency) for every 0.01 hectare of land in the Netrokona. To put it in simple terms I used dimensional analysis to figure out how much US dollars would cost for every acre. Let’s take a look at the calculations below.

Calculations

We want to know how much it would cost for every acre of land in Netrokona. I started off with 1 acre because we want to know how much it costs in that unit. I know for a fact that 2.47 acres of land is 0.01 hectare so, I used that for conversion. We were given the price of land per hectare which was 5000 BD Tk per hectare and so we use that for conversion from hectare. But we’re not done yet; we want to know how much the land would be in US dollars so I looked up the currecy rate on Yahoo financial and found that the current currency rate is 69 BD Tk to 1 US dollar. Now the 69:1 currecy rate is as of today, it will definately be lower or higher in the future so, this is just an example. I used the currency rate to convert and found the amount in dollars to be $2,933.75 total for every acre of land in the Netrokona district.

A venture in vertical farms can change Bangladesh for the better. Since many good Bangladeshis are powerless and oppressed by the government, it is up to the NRBs (non-resident Bangladeshi, which includes myself), to bring these development projects in existence. This project should remain in the private sector since, it can only improve while being built in the private sector. The poor people in Bangladesh are suffering and dying due to lack of food, and as NRBs, being well educated, with money and power, we should go back and help those in need.

What do you guys think? I would like to know your feedback.

The Peoria Journal Star caught up with Carol Mosley Braun recently.  As you'll recall, Mosley Braun was a full-time, high-flying politico over the last 20 years, ranging from a stint as Ambassador to New Zealand and a United States Senator.

Now, she runs Ambassador Organics, which is a Demeter certified company where they "search worldwide for farmers growing the highest quality Biodynamic® and organic foods for a healthier, more robust, and sustainable world for generations to come."

According to the PJ Star,

Moseley Braun's issue is biodynamic farming, a sustainable farming technique that stresses the union between food, body, spirit and farming.

Biodynamic farming is sometimes called authentic organic farming. "Everything on the farm is treated as one unit," she explains, "with particular attention paid to the quality of the soil and the quality of the water. The idea is the whole farm is a complete organism."

Products the company currently sells are grown on biodynamic farms in Sri Lanka, India and Mexico. Moseley Braun wants to see biodynamic farming expand in the United States and see more locally produced biodynamic products on the market. She knows that's going to take education and a change in attitude, from the ground up to more government support for sustainable agriculture.

With Ambassador Braun's connections and intellect, Ambassador Organics is poised to break out to mainstream shelves as she is our first official rock star on the Biodynamic® stage.

B and L were up early the next morning (oh and we were too, but we are always up early...) and set off for the long drive ahead.

The Hadzabe are one of the last peoples of East-Africa, who want and are able to maintain their skilful, traditional and peaceful  hunter-gatherer culture within their own homeland.

Naftal Kitandu and Richard Balo, who - due to trumped up and false charges - even had been imprisoned at the beginning of the legal tussle, were in the name of their people the stout and outspoken main opponents against the clandestine deal concerning the illegally started Arab hunting concession, which had close links to highest office bearers in Tanzania.

The Hadzabe, who live in close family groups, and their lands are regularly suffering from illegal invasions by cattle barons, aggressive expansion by neighbouring slash-and-burn agriculturalists, wealthy sports-hunters and lately again prospectors for gold and other precious minerals.

Thari Kulissa, spokesperson of ECOTERRA Intl., congratulated the judiciary and the Tanzanian Authorities  for having brought this case to a just end and praised the two Hadza defenders for their consequent actions, which safeguarded their people from great harm.

WTN
Arusha / Tanzania
28. Aug. 2008

Khairunnisa Sulaiman:Utusan Malaysia 22/08/2008

Kepakaran dalam bidang profesional masing-masing mendorong golongan tersebut memanfaatkan apa yang mereka miliki untuk diaplikasi dalam bidang pertanian. Ketika pertanian telah mula mendapat sambutan, golongan profesional seperti akauntan, peguam, malah jurutera sekali pun tidak mahu ketinggalan merebut peluang untuk memanfaatkan kemahiran mereka dalam bidang tersebut.

Golongan jurutera sebagai contoh, sama ada awam, mekanikal, kimia atau jentera - berpendapat mereka boleh mengaplikasikan apa yang dipelajari untuk ‘memudahkan lagi’ industri pertanian.  Contoh terdekat boleh di ambil ialah bagaimana Adrian Yeoh, berkelulusan dalam bidang kejuruteraan awam dari Universiti Central Oklahoma, Amerika Syarikat (AS), memulakan kerjaya sebagai jurutera binaan.

Beliau bagaimanapun tidak betah bertugas sebagai jurutera yang disifatkannya penuh dengan tekanan. Pada masa yang sama, Adrian berjinak-jinak dengan teknologi maklumat dengan melayari Internet atas tujuan mencari bidang-bidang lain yang boleh diceburi. Beliau tidak mengambil masa lama, sebaliknya dalam tempoh dua tahun, Adrian menjalankan kajian mengenai bidang pertanian dan komoditi termasuk akuakultur dan kelapa sawit. etelah membanding pelbagai jenis industri, hati Adrian terpaut dengan akuakultur yang menurut katanya menguntungkan dibanding dengan bidang pertanian lain.

Bidang perikanan, menurut kata Andrian, mempunyai banyak potensi memandangkan ia merupakan sumber protein utama. Mengkaji pelbagai jenis ikan air tawar yang berpotensi termasuk keli, tilapia, kelah dan ikan ketutu, Andrian meneliti lebih lanjut mengenai pemakanan, kelakuan dan pasaran setiap jenis ikan. “Menerusi pelbagai kajian yang dijalankan, saya mendapati ikan pemangsa ini lebih mudah diselenggarakan berbanding ikan lain. “Ikan pemangsa yang hanya duduk diam ini mudah diternak jika kita tahu mengenai kelakuannya,” katanya.

Beliau yang juga pengarah VCA Aquafarm Sdn. Bhd., bertanggungjawab membangunkan penyelidikan dan pembangunan (R&D) ikan ketutu. Kajian yang memakan masa lima tahun, membantu beliau menternak ikan ketutu dengan lebih sistematik dengan reka bentuk kolam yang sesuai untuk tumbesaran ikan. Rekaan kolam yang mengambil masa lima tahun untuk disiapkan menggunakan kolam gentian kaca yang tahan sehingga 30 tahun.

“Saya lebih gemar menggunakan gentian kaca kerana ia lebih tahan lasak dan boleh diselenggara dengan mudah jika pecah atau bocor,” katanya yang membelanjakan lebih RM1 juta bagi tujuan penyelidikan dan pembangunan (R&D).

Adrian juga mereka bentuk penapis kolam dengan 12 lapisan bagi memudahkan penternak menukar air hanya dua tahun sekali. Kolam yang sebesar empat kali lapan kaki ini boleh menampung sehingga 300 ekor ikan ketutu pada satu-satu masa. Adrian berkata, ikan ketutu cepat membesar jika mendapat pemakanan yang mencukupi.

“Bagi memudahkan ikan mendapatkan makanan yang mencukupi saya telah mendirikan ‘kondo’ bagi kediaman ikan,” katanya yang mereka bentuk kolam ternakan yang murah serta mudah alih.

‘Kondo’ yang disusun berhampiran bukan saja sebagai tempat berehat ikan ketutu tetapi juga membolehkan ikan mendapatkan makanan dengan mudah.

Ikan ketutu lebih senang berehat dalam ‘kondo’ yang disediakan dan hanya akan makan jika anak-anak ikan berhampiran dengannya. “Setiap rumah boleh memuatkan seekor atau dua ekor ikan dengan jarak antara kondo yang agak dekat. “Oleh kerana ikan ketutu adalah ikan yang pemalas, tinggal di ‘kondo’ akan memudahkannya mendapatkan makanan,” katanya. Biasanya anak-anak ikan yang berenang di sekeliling akan mudah untuk dijadikan mangsa ikan ketutu.

Disebabkan ikan ketutu tinggal di kawasan dasar lombong, tasik atau sungai yang gelap, Adrian menyediakan habitat yang lebih kurang sama. “Biasanya pada siang hari, saya akan membiarkan persekitaran agak gelap dengan menutup semua pintu dan tingkap. “Ketika itu ikan ketutu akan lebih cergas mencari makanan dan tumbesaran akan menjadi lebih cepat,” katanya. Lebih menarik Adrian berjaya mengurangkan penggunaan antibiotik pada ikan dengan menggantikannya dengan rawatan alternatif.

“Di sini saya menggunakan teknologi ultra lembayung (UV) untuk membasmi kuman sehingga 99.9 peratus,” katanya yang telah mempatenkan semua rekaannya. Berdasarkan kajian yang dijalankan, Adrian mendapati ikan ketutu merupakan antara ikan komersial yang mendapat permintaan dan harga yang tinggi.

“Saya sendiri tidak dapat memenuhi permintaan ikan ketutu di dalam negara terutama semasa Tahun Baru Cina dan musim perkahwinan yang biasanya semasa cuti sekolah. “Permintaan ikan ketutu di luar negara seperti Hong Kong, Taiwan, China manakala negara seperti Jerman, Libya dan Kanada mempunyai potensi pasaran yang besar,” katanya. Sentiasa memandang ke hadapan Adrian sedang menjalankan R&D bagi proses ternakan ikan yang menepati HACCP untuk memudahkan pengeksportan keluar negara terutama di negara-negara Eropah.

Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First and the Progressive party voted for it. National, United Future, Act, the Maori Party, Gordon Copeland and Phillip Field opposed it.

The Maori Party  media release on the Bill makes interesting reading:

We remain strong in our belief that, fundamentally, the ETS is still just an Emissions Trading Scheme, when what is required is an Emissions Reduction Programme," said Co-leader Tariana Turia.

"A 2% reduction in emissions over ten years is simply fiddling while Rome burns. The time for scheming is over. Now is the time for a programme of action," said Mrs Turia.

"A real Emissions Reduction Programme will require significant changes in our lifestyle, but the alternative, of doing almost nothing, will be a lot worse," she said.

Doing something is not always better than doing nothing - this something will sabotage the economy for little or no environmental gain

"A sound programme would be comprehensive, covering all industries and all gases. The government's scheme is on the right track in that respect.

"But a scheme worth supporting would also be fair to all industries and consumers, and transparent, so everyone can see how the costs and credits have been allocated," she said.

"Pollution is a cost of business that should be identified at source, and that business must be held responsible. Any cost they pass on to consumers will at least encourage environmentally responsible choices. The principle must be that polluters pay, because the purpose of the programme is to cut emissions.

But there's no point in levying what is effectively a tax on primary production when science has yet to come up with much in the way of effective ways to counter emissions.

"Instead we have deferred liability and masses of free credits going to the biggest industries and the worst polluters for years to come. This negates any incentive for them to make changes. This is not 'polluter pays' - it's 'pay the polluters'," said Mrs Turia.

"Credits to assist export-exposed industries to adjust to the new regime should be allocated on the basis of need - not by blanket donations and exemptions to huge corporate lobbyists.

"Those free credits could be invested by the government in speeding up energy savings and moving to renewable sources, in building resilient and sustainable communities, and supporting poor and vulnerable people who will be worst affected by the social and economic upheaval," said Mrs Turia.

"The government is not willing to fully explain the disastrous consequences of doing so little to save the planet, for fear of a voter backlash. We have to know the truth, so we can make the tough decisions that are needed right now.

Of course there would be a voter backlash if it was understood that the ETS will impose such huge costs for little or no gain.

"We are told the Green Party and NZ First have signed up to it. I predict that the concessions won by them will seem like a mere thirty pieces of silver, once the full impacts of climate change start to be felt," she said.

"We maintain our original position - that we need a radical rethink of the whole approach. This scheme represents a failure of leadership.

"The need to make drastic changes to curb greenhouse gas emissions is what defines this moment in our history. We have no time to lose. The common interest must prevail in the pursuit of environmental justice, and social and cultural wellbeing," said Mrs Turia.

Regardless of the science, the politics requires action. Good leadership would have achieved cross party consensus which balanced costs and benefits. But bulldozing through this legislation will do economic and social harm with little or no environmental good to show for it.

Hat tip: The Hive