Sustainable Horticulture

Food Prices Rising…Only the Start

Posted by sustainable_hort on May 23, 2011  |  No Comments

With all the recent headlines, the story of rising food prices has been on the news back burner. But, for many people, both here in the US and in most under-developed countries, these climbing costs are much more important than a royal wedding, the Trump comedy series about birth certificates, and, even, the elimination of Mr. Bin Laden. Hunger tends to trump (no pun intended) most other concerns.

Yet, for whatever reason(s), we are seeing food prices rise quickly. We have to go back to the 1970’s to find a similar situation. Then, oil prices and availability were not the key issue they are today. The increases in food prices then were driven mainly by Russian wheat crop failures. But, the pressures on food prices now are coming from rising energy and commodity prices, plus several weather related crop issues. As I have written on this blog, petroleum is more than gas for our cars…it is literally is the foundation material for much of the modern world. The majority of consumer products depend on these substrates at some level. Think plastic!

Food is no exception! The earth’s oil and natural gas are used to produce fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and plastics; they are used to power the tractors, sprayers, harvesters, and generate heat; and obviously they are the fuel for the trucks, trains and planes that move our food around the world. Whether it is speculation, increasing demand from the China and India, or peak oil’s decreasing output, oil prices will rise in the long term…and food prices can only follow.

I recently attended a talk by Gary Paul Nabhan, author of Coming Home to Eat: The Pleasures and Politics of Local Foods, whose main message was the importance of local “food sheds.” While this is not a new concept, it seems to gain importance as we watch drought, floods, tornados and rising production prices wreck havoc with US agriculture. It is the old cliché “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” It is in the interest of regions, at least, to be able to produce all the key components of a healthy diet. This idea is catching on.

For instance, here in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, we are seeing a return of wheat, and an organized effort to grow a wide range of beans, now all shipped in from great distances. It is an expansion of the local food movement, one that consumer consider more important than “organic.”

But, for many consumers, price is and will remain the primary consideration. This, I feel as a produce grower, is a misaligned focus. Food “quality” should equal nutrition, not cost. But, there is good news. Recent research indicates local foods, not necessarily organic, can cost less at your local farmers market than the national chain supermarket. And, even at a few cents more, local produce, especially the more delicate “greens” categories, will literally be a week fresher. Turn over those plastic tubs of greens at your local supermarket. While the “use by” date may be days off, I will bet you can see some early deterioration of the produce, particularly the red lettuces. If you store the package a few days, you are eating greens that are ten to two weeks old. Just how nutritious, let alone tasty, can this limp product be? Not much. If you want to read more, check out: www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/05/the-farmers-market-myth/238661.

Show Me the Research – Glyphosate and GM Problems Expand

Posted by sustainable_hort on May 24, 2010  |  No Comments

Monsanto’s PR team must be up nights…since the good news just keeps coming up around GM technology and their popular herbicide product…Round-Up. We have discussed several resistance issues recently (see both earlier “Show Me the Research” posts), but the concerns and problems are expanding.

First, Round-Up’s affects on plant health.
Microbiologist Robert Kremer USDA-ARS (US Department of Agriculture- Agricultural Research Service) was interviewed recently in the online “The Organic & Non-GM Report,” where he explained his concerns with glyphosate’s (Round-Up) impact on plant health. He was quoted as saying the compound “This system is altering the whole soil biology.” He expanded the observations, noting that “glyphosate can have toxic effects on microorganisms and can stimulate them to germinate spores and colonize root systems. Other researchers are showing that glyphosate can immobilize manganese, an essential plant micronutrient.”

In this month’s issue, the editors interviewed retired Purdue University Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology, Dr. Don Huber. He said that glyphosate can “significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use.” And that glyphosate stimulates the growth of fungi and enhances the virulence of pathogens such as Fusarium and “can have serious consequences for sustainable production of a wide range of susceptible crops.”

This all builds on an important work I have written about before…”Healthy Crops, A New Agricultural Revolution” by Francis Chaboussou. In it, he looks at 75 years of similar research on not just glyphosate, but many pesticides, herbicides and nitrogen-heavy fertilizers, and their negative impacts on disease and pest problems. I felt he showed clearly that while the compounds might solve a problem, they usually created others. Others that then required spraying of toxic compounds, which have the same affect. And the circle goes ‘round and the grower pays. Less toxic approaches might actually reduce other input costs…it at least deserves a closer, open-minded look.

GM Bt Cotton Causes Pest Explosion
And then, from China comes a report about a recent disaster that resulted from planting Bt cotton. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is one of best know “natural” insecticides, with the organism successfully controlling several pest outbreaks (various caterpillars). Then, it was inserted genetically into crops, including cotton, where it offered bollworm control. And that part of the equation worked, so growers could stop spraying toxic chemicals. Looked like a win-win.

But then, the fields became infested with another pest, the Mirid Bug, causing serious damage. Scientists determined that the June spraying for bollworms had also knocked back the entire insect community, including other pest species and their natural predators. With no controls, in this case, the Mirid Bug won the race, finding a vast, rich food source, and quickly expanding its populations. It has even moved into other crops such as apples, strawberries, pears, peaches and vegetables, where it had never been a problem. All this started following the switch to Bt crops in 1997, showing up first in cotton in 2000, and moving to other crops by 2005. It seems their only short-term answer is go back to spraying, after paying more the Bt-cotton.

So, again unintended consequences. The GM technology still holds promise to help with world nutrition. The idea and reality of foods that create extra vitamins (improved rice variety) with the help of added genetic information could save lives. But, first it is caution with this new “tool.” It needs more study, more testing in the complexity of an environmental system, to understand those consequences. From these latest reports, it seems to solve single problems only to create others. Not a sustainable system.

For more:
• “Scientist warns of dire consequences with widespread use of glyphosate”, The Organic & Non-GMO Report, May 2010, @ http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may10/consequenceso_widespread_glyphosate_use.php

• “Scientist finding many negative impacts of Roundup Ready GM crops, USDA doesn’t want to publicize studies showing negative impact2, The Organic & Non-GMO Report, January 2010, @ http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/jan10/scientists_find_negative_impacts_of_GM_crops.php

Show Me the Research

Posted by sustainable_hort on April 4, 2010  |  No Comments

It seems that for decades the conventional agricultural community responded to organic claims with “ show me the scientific research.” That, in fact, was what led me back to Oregon State University many decades ago. I was growing food organically but did not feel I had my science in order. But, their response was valid in a sense. There was not recent research that could back it up. But, if one ventured back to before World War II, there was a body of work (see the earlier post titled Soil Health and Organic Fertilizers for a short list of key sources) that seemed to support organic agriculture strategies.

Time limits me to maybe one long article a week on this blog. But, as I do research for my writing, I come across many interesting and pertinent stories, articles, studies, and books. It is information I sense has a place on this blog. So, at least a few times a month, I will post “Show Me the Research” notes. As a visitor, this will help you identify the more in-depth pieces, from simpler informational pieces. Again, I want to thank everyone for their positive comments.
So, for the first “Show Me the Research.”

First, some more book recommendations. The first is the The Long Emergency, written by James Howard Kunstler. Though is was first published five years ago, its content and message remain topical, maybe even more so today. I first read it years ago, but recently found a used copy, bought it, and have been re-reading parts of it. It is not a diatribe against global warming, though it includes the topic as part of an overall discussion of our economy’s dangerous reliance on petroleum for much of our lifestyle, energy, food and industry. Kunstler clearly shows that petroleum is at the base of many products, and as the world economy moves to duplicate US and European models, it will become a limiting factor. His best-case scenario seems to be that everything will cost more, much more. The alternatives are less comfortable to imagine. Many other books cover some of the same ground, but none are as complete or so soundly based on solid research.

The other work is much newer. The End of Overeating by David A. Kessler, MD, jumps into the current discussion on diet with a slightly different approach. Kessler looks at how and why we eat, clearly showing how food manufacturers manipulate “sugar, fat and salt” to over stimulate our appetites. These “manipulations” work surprisingly well, leading us to both overeat and consume foods that are not as healthy. The dozens of books published on diet topics generally tell us what to eat, but don’t explain why it so difficult to control our eating. A fascinating work by the former commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration who successfully fought the tobacco industry. Now, with this book, takes a lead role in giving us tools to change what Michael Pollen describes as “the catastrophe that is the modern American diet.” Read it and then eat.

• Herbicide Resistance Identified…The Nebraska Rural Radio Association reported that “Kansas State University (KSU) scientists have completed long-term evaluations of a limited number of independent kochia (Kochia scoparia) populations on privately-owned land in western Kansas that are now confirmed to be glyphosate (Round-Up)-resistant.”

In the western U.S. and Canada, Kochia, or “fireweed,” is often found in arid and semi-arid croplands, rangelands, pastures, and non-agricultural sites. Very adaptable, Kochia even grows on saline and alkaline soils. It a serious “weed” and control will now be more complex and expensive. This resistance developed naturally, possibly due to growers using lower rates that left a few tougher plants, not through genetic modification. But, it points to why there is concern about this happening as “Round-Up resistant” crops are planted. I am not saying that genetic modification is all bad, but this type of natural resistance seems to require science to study this closely. This type of manipulation could actually lead to faster development of resistance in the environment.

• Since I also co-own an organic produce farm, I like to see people eat more vegetables. Now more proof fresh, nutritional produce is important…worth more of your food dollar.

1) Carolyn Lister, research leader at the New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research told www.newkerala.com that while fruit has tended to attract the greatest attention and the ‘super food’ label, there is a body of clinical research underlining the significant health benefits of vegetables in both raw and cooked form, with broccoli along with the other brassicas, tomatoes, onions and other alliums proving to be the vegetables with the strongest scientific evidence behind them.

“This evidence varies from in vitro studies through to human feeding studies,” she claims. “Although there is considerable variation in the results of different studies…looking at the summation of results, there is quite strong evidence for benefits to human health of a number of vegetables.”

Lister is a key scientists with the Vital Vegetables program, working to develop vegetables with increased health benefits, using traditional breeding techniques.

This is similar to a new study by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham has released a study indicating that anti-oxidants – plant-based substances in foods such as broccoli, berries, tomatoes, spinach, carrots, grapes and garlic, are a key in preventing the flu.

“The recent outbreak of H1N1 influenza and the rapid spread of this strain across the world highlights the need to better understand how this virus damages the lungs and to find new treatments. Additionally, our research shows that anti-oxidants may prove beneficial in the treatment of flu,” said study co-author Sadis Matalon.

2) Other work shows “flavonols” might reduce women’s stroke risk. This has been reported by Dutch researchers in the Journal of Nutrition.

“We showed for the first time, to our knowledge, that flavonol intake was inversely associated with stroke incidence,” wrote the researchers. “We conclude that evidence is accumulating that flavonol intake is inversely related to different cardiovascular disease outcomes,” they added.

Despite reporting a potential risk reducing effect of compounds from tea, onions, apples, and broccoli the results should be “interpreted with caution.” The study followed over 110,000 people, noting higher consumption of flavonols, mostly tea in the Dutch population; and from tea, onions, apples, and broccoli in US studies, accounted for the reduction in stroke risk.

Flavonols are “flavonoids,” which also include anthocyanins (berries), isoflavones (soy), flavones (parsley and thyme), flavanones (citrus), flavonols (tea) and proanthocyanidins (berries, wine and chocolate.) Boy I like those last two! An editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (July 2008, Vol. 88, pp. 12-13), echoed that statement, saying the “contribution of flavonones to a person’s antioxidant capacity was significant.”

• Finally, good news for those of us guys who are night people and require multiple cups of coffee to survive the morning.

A recent US study indicates that coffee may boost prostate health. It said “increased intake of coffee may reduce the risk of lethal and advanced prostate cancers by 60 per cent.” The study followed almost 50,000 men for over four years and found that males with the highest intake of coffee had significantly lower risks of aggressive prostrate cancer. The study is said to be the first study of its kind to look at both overall risk of prostate cancer and risk of localized, advanced and lethal disease.

“Coffee has effects on insulin and glucose metabolism as well as sex hormone levels, all of which play a role in prostate cancer. It was plausible that there may be an association between coffee and prostate cancer,” said Kathryn Wilson, PhD, from Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health. The researchers presented their findings at the American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research Conference late last year.

Well…that’s enough for one reading. See you next week with the second “Show Me the Research.”

Soil Health and Organic Fertilizers

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 12, 2010  |  No Comments

Below is another response to an online post. The basic question was “what are good organic fertilizers” and some responses questioned whether they work or not. These are my quick thoughts…the books listed below apply to sustainable horticulture in many ways.

First, I am not so sure that “plants don’t know the difference” between petroleum-based and organic nutrition. A healthy, vibrant soil community provides the nutrition, and often the protection, plants need to be in prime health. This does equal using “dry weight comparisons” as the measure of health. Plants can grow too fast, too much nitrogen actually enhances disease and pest issues, and NPK is not the only factor is consider in plant health.

There are some key works that support this idea of “healthy soils equals healthier plants,” some pre-World War II. I would suggest reading Health & the Soil and An Agricultural Testament by Sir Albert Howard, the works of Dr. William A. Albrecht, Science in Agriculture by Arden Andersen, and Ask The Plant by Charles Walters and Esper K Chandler. A more recent work, Healthy Crops, A New Agricultural Revolution, by Franci Chaboussou, examines 75 years of research in this area. It provides a fairly convincing argument against current application practices with nitrogen fertilizers and many pesticides and herbicides, since they can be shown to increase pest issues. Even recent popular works, such as Teaming with Microbes by Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis, are identifying a simpler approach to soils, what is in some ways, an older agriculture.

Secondly, I would agree there tends to be a lot of hype around these products…just look at the compost tea issue. Several decades ago, some organic products were being sold as “magic,” which over-shadowed similar products long-term benefits.

But, I went back to Oregon State University decades ago to study composting, got a horticulture degree, and ended up in the Oregon nursery industry, which grows many of its products in relatively artificial systems. I have tested the options, learned to grow most plants without excessive N, using organic pest controls (though few were even required). There is getting to be more research into soil health, we have major ag schools adding organic production to their curriculum, and the consumer is asking more questions. Meanwhile, my organic farm seems to be flourishing and early tests in a local ornamental nursery show “organic” shrubs and trees are not only possible, but may be even cost effective. These products work, you can achieve equal production, and many are sustainable…often taking consumer waste and turning it into plant food. These are natural cycles we should continue to tap.