By Jim Ewing
In case you missed it, there's a new organization (started in April) called Mississippi Women for Agriculture. Its a "professional association for women interested in giving voice to agriculture."
It's based on Annie's Project, an educational program "dedicated to strengthening the roles of women in the modern farm enterprise."
The story of Annie's Project is an interesting one, and perhaps helpful to women in Mississippi, too. It's based on the life of a farm woman in Illinois.
According to the organization, Annie grew up in a small town and had a goal to marry a farmer. She spent a lifetime learning how to be an involved business partner, and faced the challenges of three generations living under one roof, low profitability, changing farm enterprises and raising a family. Her daughter, Ruth Hambleton, founded Annie's Project out of needs she observed in farm women she knew.
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Organic Farming Can Be More Profitable in the Long-Term than Conventional Agriculture
By Jeremy Hance
Organic farming is more profitable and economically secure than conventional farming even over the long-term, according to a new study in Agronomy Journal. Using experimental farm plots, researchers with the University of Minnesota found that organic beat conventional even if organic price premiums (i.e. customers willing to pay more for organic) were to drop as much as 50 percent.
"Doing an economic study like this, it's important to get as complete a picture of the yield variability as we can," explains Timothy Delbridge, lead author of the study and a doctoral student studying agricultural economics at the University of Minnesota. "So, the length of this trial is a big asset. We're pretty confident that the full extent of the yield variability came through in the results."
Conducted over 18 years, the study found that a conventional farm, rotating corn, soy, oat, and alfalfa over 4 years brought in $273, while an organic farm netted $538. Even if the organic premium dropped by half, it would still be more profitable given that the cost of production was lower for organic, since organic farmers would spend nothing on chemicals.
"What we're looking at here are results between an established organic and an established conventional system. This research doesn't take into consideration the issue of the transition itself: how difficult or costly that may be," cautions Delbridge.
Organic farming is more profitable and economically secure than conventional farming even over the long-term, according to a new study in Agronomy Journal. Using experimental farm plots, researchers with the University of Minnesota found that organic beat conventional even if organic price premiums (i.e. customers willing to pay more for organic) were to drop as much as 50 percent.
"Doing an economic study like this, it's important to get as complete a picture of the yield variability as we can," explains Timothy Delbridge, lead author of the study and a doctoral student studying agricultural economics at the University of Minnesota. "So, the length of this trial is a big asset. We're pretty confident that the full extent of the yield variability came through in the results."
Conducted over 18 years, the study found that a conventional farm, rotating corn, soy, oat, and alfalfa over 4 years brought in $273, while an organic farm netted $538. Even if the organic premium dropped by half, it would still be more profitable given that the cost of production was lower for organic, since organic farmers would spend nothing on chemicals.
"What we're looking at here are results between an established organic and an established conventional system. This research doesn't take into consideration the issue of the transition itself: how difficult or costly that may be," cautions Delbridge.
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Agriculture Leaders Convene to Strenthen the Organic Seed Systems in the Southeast
By Kristina Hubbard
Organic Seed Alliance's advisory services director Dan Hobbs, along with board members Tony Kleese and Ira Wallace, hosted an exploratory meeting in April 2011 with university personnel, extension agents, NGOs, and farmers. Five states were represented in this meeting. Hobbs shared OSA's past success in supporting the development of regional seed systems that provide for the diverse needs of organic farmers. A brainstorming session followed, where the group identified and discussed the following objectives for this project:
- Building infrastructure to facilitate commercial-scale organic seed production - Developing new and improved vegetable varieties - Encouraging better coordination among growers and buyers
Special interest was expressed in breeding for vegetables and cover crops adapted to agricultural conditions of the Southeast, cooperative seed development, and educational opportunities.
Organic Seed Alliance's advisory services director Dan Hobbs, along with board members Tony Kleese and Ira Wallace, hosted an exploratory meeting in April 2011 with university personnel, extension agents, NGOs, and farmers. Five states were represented in this meeting. Hobbs shared OSA's past success in supporting the development of regional seed systems that provide for the diverse needs of organic farmers. A brainstorming session followed, where the group identified and discussed the following objectives for this project:
- Building infrastructure to facilitate commercial-scale organic seed production - Developing new and improved vegetable varieties - Encouraging better coordination among growers and buyers
Special interest was expressed in breeding for vegetables and cover crops adapted to agricultural conditions of the Southeast, cooperative seed development, and educational opportunities.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
What Would the World Look Like If We Relied on Industrial Agriculture to Feed Everyone?
By Ari LeVaux
The world's population will probably hit 9 billion by 2050. That's about the only thing agreed upon by partisans in a long-waged debate over how best to feed all those bellies.
On March 8, Dr. Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, released a report arguing that the use of small-scale, diverse farming methods, which he calls "agroecology," can double agricultural production in poverty-stricken areas, increase the economic prospects of the inhabitants, and improve their local environment.
This argument refutes a common dismissal of sustainable agriculture: that it could never feed the world. That's the contention of those who believe in agriculture methods that involve the intensive use of energy, water, machinery, and chemicals to grow cash crop monocultures. I recently discussed these competing paradigms with De Schutter, in the context of what it might look like if industrial agriculture were, in fact, to feed the world.
"I'm surprised at the simplistic diagnosis that appears to be dominant in public discourse," De Schutter said. "The official mantra is we need a 70 percent increase in agricultural production to feed the world. But this completely oversimplifies the debate. It only pays attention at the supply side of the equation, when we must also work on demand -- for instance the overconsumption of meat in industrialized countries. By 2050, if the current curves continue, 50 percent of global cereal production will go either to feeding cattle or to the irresponsible push towards biofuels production and consumption through fiscal stimuli and subsidies."
The world's population will probably hit 9 billion by 2050. That's about the only thing agreed upon by partisans in a long-waged debate over how best to feed all those bellies.
On March 8, Dr. Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, released a report arguing that the use of small-scale, diverse farming methods, which he calls "agroecology," can double agricultural production in poverty-stricken areas, increase the economic prospects of the inhabitants, and improve their local environment.
This argument refutes a common dismissal of sustainable agriculture: that it could never feed the world. That's the contention of those who believe in agriculture methods that involve the intensive use of energy, water, machinery, and chemicals to grow cash crop monocultures. I recently discussed these competing paradigms with De Schutter, in the context of what it might look like if industrial agriculture were, in fact, to feed the world.
"I'm surprised at the simplistic diagnosis that appears to be dominant in public discourse," De Schutter said. "The official mantra is we need a 70 percent increase in agricultural production to feed the world. But this completely oversimplifies the debate. It only pays attention at the supply side of the equation, when we must also work on demand -- for instance the overconsumption of meat in industrialized countries. By 2050, if the current curves continue, 50 percent of global cereal production will go either to feeding cattle or to the irresponsible push towards biofuels production and consumption through fiscal stimuli and subsidies."
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Sustainable Peasant and Family Farm Agriculture Can Feed the World
The 2008 world food price crisis, and more recent price hikes this year, have focused attention on the ability of the world food system to "feed the world." In La Vía Campesina, the global alliance of peasant and family farm organizations, we believe that agroecological food production by small farmers is the agricultural model best suited to meeting future food needs.
The contemporary food crisis is not really a crisis of our ability to produce. It is more due to factors like the food speculation and hoarding that transnational food corporations and investment funds engage in, the global injustices that mean some eat too much while many others don't have money to buy adequate food, and/or lack land on which to grow it, and misguided policies like the promotion agrofuels that devote farm land to feeding cars instead of feeding people. However, we cannot deny that our collective ability to grow enough food - including, crucially, how we grow it -is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of ending hunger.
The contemporary food crisis is not really a crisis of our ability to produce. It is more due to factors like the food speculation and hoarding that transnational food corporations and investment funds engage in, the global injustices that mean some eat too much while many others don't have money to buy adequate food, and/or lack land on which to grow it, and misguided policies like the promotion agrofuels that devote farm land to feeding cars instead of feeding people. However, we cannot deny that our collective ability to grow enough food - including, crucially, how we grow it -is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of ending hunger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
