Intelligent farming…..shows the way
1. Introduction
Whilst growing food has occupied the minds of Ag-bureaucracy in India since 1966, the year we Indians were refused wheat shipment by the US government following three consecutive years of collapse of agriculture, a basic question remains unanswered even today: What is the maximum sustainable production threshold that a farmer can achieve from his land? And since we eat to nourish our body and mind, the second obvious question is: Are we growing nutrition or merely junk food? The second question also remains largely unanswered.
In my quest for low-cost, low-risk solution to the above two questions, I sought answers from sublime Gurus all over the world and found none convincing enough. May be I posed the question to the wrong people! Rather than solving the problems of India's farmers, I found that they were more enamored with their pet theories. And then I stumbled into Soil and Health Library, owned and managed by Steve Solomon [Image 1], an American who now lives in Tasmania, Australia. I strongly recommend anyone seriously interested in farming and gardening for health and personal freedom to download all the books and read them; may be read them twice, even thrice. The url iswww.soilandhealth.org. Steve's philosophy is: Health begins in the soil; Healing begins with hygiene; Liberty begins with freedom. Actually I am now convinced that one's personal liberty is directly proportional to the amount of food one can grow.
2. A small farm in Tasmania
Image 1 Steve Solomon in his veggy garden [Exeter, Tasmania, Oct 2005] | |
3. Learning the lost art of growing nutritious food
Farmers all over the world are learning the lost art of growing nutritious food and, in the process, re-discovering the power of Nature which, incidentally, comes free of cost. Indian farmers are not far behind; many are far ahead of their western counterparts. Trapped in the vicious downward spiral of static or falling output from land, increasing cost of inputs [seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and diesel], falling water table, and crashing ex-farm price, they have no choice but to seek sustainable options and intelligent solutions. Learning the lost art of intelligent farming is now a compulsion because industrial farming methods have destroyed our farmlands, destroyed the bio-diversity, destroyed the nutrition in the food nature gave us, poisoned our water and soil and given us poor health and diseases. Unfortunately, there is no standard formula for intelligent farming. Let us look at an example of intelligent farming and gardening right here in Himachal Pradesh.
3.1 A small garden in Banjar, Kullu district, Himachal Pradesh
Like Steve, a friend of mine is also a farmer, an economist by training, and an activist. About six years ago he purchased 2.5 bigha of land near the coach-station of Banjar town. The sectional view of the plot is shown in Figure 1. The slope was steep, the flat part, about 200 square metres, was barely sufficient to construct a house. The problem was to stabilize the slope at lowest cost and leave as much land to grow food and flowers. Since the slope faces north and there is a high hill to the south, the plot gets barely four hours of sunlight during winter.
The house was constructed at the top of the plot and a compost pit for toilet waste was constructed at the edge with a retaining wall of stone. The top of the toilet sump now doubles as extended terrace. The stone wall now is covered with grapevine. [Figure 2]
Over the next two years, he spent a small amount on labour for strengthening the retaining walls [called Korh, the upper edge and Beed, the lower edge; in between is the land that is used for
Image 2 Slope stabilization using suitable fruit trees and hedges, hardy plants that also act as pest repellant. Even after two days of heavy rain there was little evidence of erosion or subsidence. See the roots holding the soil. | |
Over the last three years, the Beed and Korh have firmed up to the extent that two days of heavy rain [4th & 5thAugust, 2006] had virtually no impact on the structural integrity of the terraced garden. It demonstrates that with a bit of care it is possible to create stable slopes and increase the cultivable area in the Himalayan region at virtually no cost.
3.2 The vermi-compost "factory"
Image 3 Vermi-compost "factory" | |
A compost heap was created in a corner where kitchen and agriculture waste is recycled by Eisenia foetida [surface feeding earthworms] into rich vermi-compost.
Managing vermi-compost factory was not easy. The experts had told him to build a horizontal pit, which posed problem of water accumulation and aeration. The idea to build a vertical pit came by trial and error. A vertical heap has three sides exposed to aeration, water seeps down, and earthworms chew upwards leaving rich compost below. When the food is finished, they crawl on to the adjacent heap. Today, his neighbours have imitated this technique and they recycle cow-dung and all organic wastes. In about a year's time, there was enough compost to revitalize his small farm. As the soil became rich weeds also flourished which were promptly removed and fed to the earthworms. Thus, once a degraded patch of land that turned into muddy slippery slope during the monsoon was turned into stable, highly fertile garden.
3.3 Growing vegetables and cereals
Since 2002 onward, he has grown green chilli, cabbage, broccoli, pea, bitter gourd, sweet gourd, squash, radish, carrot, spinach, potato, tomato, okra, and cucumber as per the season and today he meets his household needs for vegetables from this garden.
At the time of my visit [fifth since 2001] the garden had growing stock of five cereals: rajma, mash [a local variety], moong, soya and rongi [also a local variety] in addition to many fruits and vegetables listed above.
Over the years fruit trees were planted: parsimmon, cherry, kiwi, picanut, sweet chestnut, pomegranate, queen's apple, ordinary apple, peach and lemon. In 2005 he got his first crop of fruits.
The vegetables, cereals and fruits are so inter-planted that confuses the pests. He has also installed low-cost traps for insects and pests but the lush growth of chrysanthemum and marigold, however, was observed to be far better pest repellant. The external lights also act as pest repellants at night.
Image 4 A veritable riot of greens. The fruit trees, veggies, cereals co-exist with flowers, hedges, creepers, aromatic and medicinal plants, on a plot that measures about 1960 square metres. | |
3.4 Other plants
In addition to the listed crops, there are about 50-60 varieties of aromatic, medicinal and decorative plants, too many to be listed here, that give a feeling of walking through a highly disorganized garden but each has a purpose, each nourishes the body and the mind, or protects those plants that nourish body and mind. Brahmi, a kind of surface creeper, is used in nearly all Ayurvedic medicines. It is here, growing vigorously on a 20' x 1' patch. So is aloe vera, growing in a discarded water tank.
3.5 Yield
2005 was the first year when he got his first yield of fruits [Table 1]. The yield of veggies is given in Table 2 and that of cereals in Table 3. For the purpose of comparison, the average ex-farm price range is also given along with the prices of these produce in Delhi market [from where I purchase my supplies]. I am summarizing the yields below:
u Fruits 2,795 to 3,303 Kgs
u Veggies 3,580 to 4,640 Kgs
u Cereals About 260 kgs
I have rough estimate from what his household consumes every day, which includes his family of four plus the guests who stay at his house and eat there; and they are a plenty. The above figure comes to 6,635 kgs to 8,203 kgs of food per year from about 2,000 square metres of land. He also gets about 5 MT of convertible bio-mass to enrich his soil, excluding the converted human waste.
A hectare is 10,000 square metres. The above data implies that Guman is producing 33 to 41 metric tonnes of food equivalent per hectare, from land that was five years ago a degraded patch. Whilst the fruit production may double or triple as the trees mature, the production of veggies and cereals may remain the same. There is no need to further enhance yield by doing anything outlandish like the use of chemical fertilizers or GM seeds, or high tech knowledge. The basics are all there in the heads of traditional farmers and Mother Nature is always ready, willing and able to help the land return heaps of highly nutritious food.
3.6 Maintaining soil fertility
Image 5 A handful of rich vermi-compost. If one handles the process of compost production properly, there is no need for any chemical fertilizer. | |
This sort of soil fertility needs regular importation of nutrients. It is important to remember that Guman's vermicomposting pit uses "imported cow-dung" as a key ingredient and all ag-wastes like weeds, discarded roots, stems and leaves and kitchen waste are fed to the earthworms. 5 MT of biomass and 1.5 MT of cow-dung processed by earthworms into rich vermi-compost go back into the soil every year. That 1.5 MT of cow-dung is the "import" into the system.
It should be remembered that in our traditional farming system, cow-dung [and animal manure] was put back into the soil. Today, farmers can do better than that: they can recycle all ag-waste into rich vermi-compost and add about 40-50 friendly bacteria that are produced in the gizzard of the earthworm that further enrich the soil.
4. Basic questions still remain unanswered
Strictly speaking, his garden is not a "closed-system." Ideally, a small farm/garden must not bring into its system any importation while the farm continues to give high yield, whereas he brings in seeds and cow dung. So, strictly speaking this garden has yet to be tested for sustainability: can it go on and on with its high yield without any importation of external input? At present I can't answer this question.
The second question is, "Is the garden producing maximum achievable nutrition per unit weight of food crop?" Even this question can't be answered until we have analyzed the nutritive content over 12 months of all his food crops. Having said that, I hasten to add that there are researches that prove that natural food growing methods restore the naturally occurring nutrition in food crops while industrial methods cause substantial decline.
Putting the truth another way, there are conclusive evidences that prove that industrially grown foods are nutrient deficient although they may look very attractive, while naturally grown foods have rich taste and are nutrition-dense. Given below are some evidences from US and European researchers, which I quote not because I am enamoured with them but the firms from these regions, who have the penchant for misleading our farmers, should also quote these before they sell their poisons to us, poor Indians, and also, the US and European farmers need to note these facts.
[i] The vitamins and minerals drain
The National Academy of Sciences [USA] has issued an alert that it takes twice as many vegetables to get the daily requirement of vitamin A as previously thought. Carrots and pumpkin are exempt from the caveat. Despite the apparent increase of vitamin A in carrots, most vegetables are losing their vitamins and minerals. Nearly half the calcium and vitamin A in broccoli, for example, have disappeared. [Table 1]
| Table 1 Major losses in vitamins and minerals of four vegetables | |||||||||||
| Common vegetables | Vitamin C | Vitamin A | Calcium | Potassium | Magnesium | ||||||
| Spinach | -45% | -17% | +6.45% | +18.72% | -10% | ||||||
| Corn | -41% | -29% | -33% | -3.5% | -22% | ||||||
| Beets | -50% | +90% | No change | -10% | -8% | ||||||
| Collard greens | -61% | -41% | -28% | -51% | -84% | ||||||
| Source: Life Extension Magazine, 2001, cover story; Researched by Alex Jack and findings discussed with USDA subsequently. | |||||||||||
"Collards are not the greens they used to be. If one seeks minerals and vitamin A from them, the caveat is that the vitamin A content has fallen from 6500 IUs to 3800 IUs. Their potassium has dropped from 400 mg to 170 mg. Magnesium has fallen sharply-57 mg to 9. Cauliflower has lost almost half its vitamin C, along with its thiamin and riboflavin. Most of the calcium in pineapple is gone-from 17 mg (per 100 grams raw) to 7."
Table 2. Average changes in the mineral content of some fruits andvegetables*, 1963-1992 (From Paul Bergner's) Minerals Average % Change Calcium -29.82Iron -32.00 Magnesium -21.08Phosphorus -11.09 Potassium -6.48 * Fruits and vegetables measured: oranges, apples, bananas, carrots, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, celery, romaine lettuce, broccoli, iceberg lettuce, collard greens, and chard | |
The third major study being quoted here is by Anne Marie-Meyer, 2003. Anne's results are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Average ratio of mineral content and dry matter (new/old) for vegetables and 20 fruits* Ca Mg Fe Cu Na K P M. Vegetable ratio 0.81* 0.65* 0.78 0.19* 0.57* 0.86 0.94 0.97Fruit ratio 1.00 0.89* 0.68* 0.64* 0.90 0.80* 0.99 0.91
Her findings show a consistent decline of critical nutrients ranging from 19% to 97% in 20 popular fruits and vegetables. The study was conducted at Columbia University, USA.
Three longitudinal studies are going on in Denmark, the US and Britain and the results are due later this year to independently corroborate the above three findings. However, about 300-350 studies conducted in the last six years all consistently demonstrate loss of critical nutrients. Dr. Donald Davis, et al, [Bio-communications Research Institute, Wichita, Kansas, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas] have made a serious, replicable analysis of
"Changes in USDA Food Composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950-1999" and their findings are most illuminating: we are actually eating junk food…food that is deficient in critical minerals and nutrients.
No such study has been commissioned in India as yet and it is time that India's Agricultural scientists, instead of selling spurious products and technology of trans-national corporations, work diligently to assess the nutritive content of natural produce versus industrially produced foods. We grow food to nourish our body and mind, not merely to fill our belly as the bureaucrats believe. The root causes of poverty, hunger and malnutrition unfortunately are not the focus of Agriculture extension programmes; rather, these programmes seek to brain-wash farmers into producing more, sell to the market, and earn cash to buy food for themselves. This is mass-annihilation strategy because even now 70% of our population depends on agriculture.
[ii] Alternative farming methods do work
However, it is worth pointing out that natural, traditional, farming has consistently shown higher nutritive content of foods grown. [Table 4]
Table 4. Average difference in nutrient levels
*Biodynamic, non-biodynamic and all organic crops compared to similar conventional crops
Biodynamic Other organic All organic
Nutrient % difference % difference % difference
Vitamin C +47.6% +11.9% +22.7%
Iron +33.9% +15.6% +17.2%
Calcium +07.4% +38.4% +30.8%
Phosphorus +06.6% +14.3% +12.5%
Sodium +20.3% +19.3% +19.6%
Potassium +07.9% +16.2% +14.1%
Magnesium +13.2% +28.3% +24.4%
Beta-carotene +14.0% -09.2% -00.3%
Nitrates -49.8% -30.9% -33.9%
Source: Virginia Worthington; "Nutrition and Biodynamics: Evidence for the Nutritional Superiority of Organic Crops; Biodynamics v.224, Jul/Aug 1999.
Dr Worthington compared the nutritive content of foods grown under conventional, organic and biodynamic management and found that there is significant enhancement of nutrition. How soon farmers, especially rural household can transit to sustainable farming is, therefore, a moot question. But the transition has to occur. It is a compulsion; there is no choice now.
5. Taste is the simplest test of nutrition
Image 5 The 7 grapevines in a row creeping up the stone wall of the composting toilet sump. Three have grown up to the terrace level and yielded 150 kg of grapes in 2005. | |
The chillies grown here by my friend can make you sweat, just as his cucumbers bring fresh smell when they are sliced. The tomatoes are tangy, the spinach are tasty [from bitter to sweet], the bitter gourd awfully bitter. The grapes are sweet as grapes should be. The okra is soft, deep green and tasty as it should be. The squash so tasty that they reminded me of the squash that I used to eat in the 1960s. When you chop the onions they make your eyes water…painful. The garlic is potent, full of their inherent qualities; strong, full flavoured, and pungent. The cauliflower is rich in juice and tasty; the broccoli rich green and tasty. The lemon and other citrus fruits are so tangy that one can barely eat one-half. One can make paranthas or roti wherein the flour is actually kneaded with spinach, cauli and broccoli. This is what we need: rich, highly nutritious food.
We don't need tasteless tomato, cucumber, cauli, potato, chillies, etc. They may look beautiful in superstores but they don't contain much nutrition. Industrially produced vegetables and fruits are as good as beautifully packaged wheat flour of multi-national corporations that are convenient to purchase but give us solid constipation and eventually all sorts of diseases, facts that have been kept away from consumers under wraps.
We need nutritious food. Until such time as we have independently corroborated evidence that naturally grown foods are more nutritious, let us just rely on time-tested validation that tasty foods are more nutritious. If your veggies do not taste good, simply pay less for them. Better still: do not buy tasteless vegetables no matter how beautiful they look.
Most importantly, as all natural farmers show, we have yet to discover the maximum sustainable threshold of yield and nutrition. In their innocuous way they have resolved a basic problem and raised serious questions on the dubious claims of the agriculture scientists, especially those who still ritually genuflect to MS Swaminathan, the spurious God of Green Revolution.
Arun Shrivastava is a management consultant.
He can be contacted at arun1951@gmail.com.
| Table 1 Status of fruit plants, yield, ex-farm price and cash equivalent if sold | |||||||||||||
| Fruits | Stock | Average Yield | Price [Range] | Revenue Potential | |||||||||
|
| Growing | Producing | Per tree [in Kg] | Ex-farm [in Rs. Per kg] | 2006 | 2010 | |||||||
| Pears | 20 | 15 | 100 to 125 | 15 to 20 | 22,500 | 52,500 | |||||||
| Parsimmon | 5 | 1 | 40 to 50 | 5 to 10 | 200 | 1,200 | |||||||
| Apricot | 0 | 4 | 10 to 12 | 10 to 12 | 400 | 400 | |||||||
| Cherry | 7 | 1 | 40 to 50 | 20 to 25 | 800 | 6,400 | |||||||
| Kiwi | 0 | 3 | 15 to 20 | 20 to 25 | 900 | 900 | |||||||
| Grapes | 7 | 2 | 70 to 80 | 10 to 15 | 1,400 | 6,300 | |||||||
| Picanut | 3 | 0 | About 70 | 100 to 200 | 0 | 21,000 | |||||||
| Sweet Chestnut | 1 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||||||
| Pomegranate | 8 | 0 | About 50 | 10 to 20 | 0 | 4,000 | |||||||
| Queen's Apple | 1 | 0 | NA | 30 to 40 | NA | NA | |||||||
| Apple | 0 | 8 | About 100 | 10 to 15 | 8,000 | 8,000 | |||||||
| Peach | 0 | 2 | 70 to 100 | 10 to 15 | 1,400 | 1,400 | |||||||
| Lemon | 3 | 2 | 25 to 30 | 2 to 3 | 100 | 250 | |||||||
| Total |
|
| 2795 to 3303 |
| 35,700 | 102,350 | |||||||
| Table 2 Veggies cultivated, yield, ex-farm price and cash equivalent if sold | |||||||||||||
| Vegetables | Stock | Average Yield | Price [Range] | Revenue Potential | |||||||||
|
| Growing | Producing | Per season [in Kg] | Ex-farm [in Rs. Per kg] | 2006 | 2010 | |||||||
| Green chilli |
|
| 50 to 60 | 50 to 70 | 2,500 | 2,500 | |||||||
| Cabbage |
|
| 1500 to 2000 | 1 to 2 | 1,500 | 1,500 | |||||||
| Broccoli |
|
| 20 to 30 | 5 to 7 | 100 | 100 | |||||||
| Pea |
|
| 200 to 300 | 5 to 7 | 1,000 | 1,000 | |||||||
| Bitter gourd |
|
| 20 to 30 | 5 to 7 | 100 | 100 | |||||||
| Sweet gourd |
|
| 500 to 700 | 1 to 2 | 500 | 500 | |||||||
| Squash |
|
| About 50 | 2 to 3 | 100 | 100 | |||||||
| Radish |
|
| About 200 | About 1 | 200 | 200 | |||||||
| Carrot |
|
| 40 to 50 | 3 to 4 | 120 | 120 | |||||||
| Spinach | all year round | 200 to 250 | 2 to 3 | 400 | 400 | ||||||||
| Potato |
|
| 200 to 250 | 2 to 3 | 400 | 400 | |||||||
| Tomato |
|
| 300 to 400 | 3 to 5 | 900 | 900 | |||||||
| Okra |
|
| 100 to 120 | About 5 | 500 | 500 | |||||||
| Cucumber |
|
| About 200 | 3 to 5 | 600 | 600 | |||||||
| Total |
|
| 3580-4640 |
| 8,920 | 8,920 | |||||||
| Table 3 Cultivation of cereals, yield, ex-farm price and cash equivalent if sold | |||||||||||||
| Cereals | Average Yield | Price [Range] | Revenue Potential |
| |||||||||
|
| Per season [in Kg] | Ex-farm [in Rs.] | 2006 | 2010 |
| ||||||||
| Rajma | About 100 | 20 to 25 | 2,000 | 2,000 |
| ||||||||
| Mash | About 50 | 20 to 25 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| ||||||||
| Moong | About 30 | 20 to 25 | 600 | 600 |
| ||||||||
| Soya | About 30 | 20 to 25 | 600 | 600 |
| ||||||||
| Rongi | About 50 | 20 to 25 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| ||||||||
| Total | About 260 |
| 5,200 | 5,200 |
| ||||||||
Note: All 2010 revenue computation on the assumption that prices remain constant
No comments:
Post a Comment