Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Organic food becomes latest casualty of the credit crunch
Cahal Milmo, The Independent
Dairy farmers are turning their backs on Britain’s organic milk market as economic pessimism dents consumers’ previously buoyant demand for organic produce.
The organic goods market at large is being “credit crunched”, particularly among new products like organic ready meals and home-delivery vegetable boxes.
Figures show there has been a dramatic reversal in the numbers of dairy farmers converting to organic farming from conventional methods.
Rises of up to 80 per cent in the price of organic feed for dairy herds mean that hundreds of organic milk producers are now running at a loss. So far this year, farms which were undergoing conversion to organic, and were capable of producing five million litres of milk, have abandoned the process and returned to fertiliser-intensive, non-organic farming.
The situation has prompted warnings of shortages and a “mass exit” by existing organic producers unless retailers agree to increase the farm-gate price paid for milk, to ensure farmers can cover rapidly escalating costs. For non-organic dairy farmers, joining the organic movement is no longer an attractive option.
The cost of feed – much of it sourced from as far away as China – has increased by between 50 and 80 per cent to about £400 per tonne.
(4 August 2008)
It looks as if organic agriculture is being hit at those points where it is dependent on cheap fuels. -BA
The climate costs of a glass of milk
Raúl Pierri, IPS News
MONTEVIDEO, Aug 1 (Tierramérica) – A simple glass of milk on the breakfast table can carry high environmental costs. Because of this, some farmers and scientists are looking for ways to reduce the impacts of agriculture and livestock, which are responsible for 12 to 14 percent of global emissions of greenhouse gases.
There are already studies to measure the climate costs of that glass of milk, or of a country’s entire milk production, from raising the cow to the final product on the table.
The farming sector’s emissions of climate change gases grew nearly 17 percent between 1990 and 2005 worldwide, and the biggest increase took place in the developing South (32 percent).
The intestinal fermentation in ruminant livestock, like cattle, releases into the atmosphere methane and nitrous oxide, two potent greenhouse gases. Further emissions come from animal manure and urine, the burning of plant biomass to clear pastures, rice production and biological and chemical processes occurring in soil.
The two gases contribute 70 percent of the emissions coming from the agricultural sector.
(1 August 2008)
Congress takes another potshot at family farmers
Jeff Pausma, The Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
Many parents were appalled when we saw on our television screens a video of workers abusing a downer cow with electric shocks because the cow was too sick to stand up. We were even more horrified to learn that meat from that cow had gone into lunches served by the federal School Lunch Program.
The scandal at the Hallmark/Westland plant in Chino, Calif., has sparked interest in the trend of securing local meat from sources that are grass-fed, organic and come from animals raised humanely. Our kids deserve the safest meat in their food. Sadly, Congress is now considering squashing such efforts to get local foods into the School Lunch Program.
In June, the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, at the behest of Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said it was considering a provision that would force schools to buy meat for the School Lunch Program from sources enrolled in the federal government’s National Animal Identification System. NAIS is hugely controversial among family farmers like me. The U.S. government wants us to inventory, identify and track the movement of all agriculture-related animals.
Step one is a premise registration where a federal ID number is assigned to a farm. The second step involves tagging each animal with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. And finally, farmers must report to the government any planned movement of animals.
These onerous and far-reaching conditions have spawned a revolt among many of us seeking to provide high-quality, safe food for consumers and our communities. Most animal disease occurs in factory farm operations, where thousands of animals are confined in filthy conditions. Yet perversely, factory farms are allowed to have one group ID number, while my 60 cow grass-based dairy would need individual RFID tags that cost $3 each in Wisconsin, even with government subsidies. Then I would be forced to purchase a $1,000 electric wand in order to read the tags and report animal movements to the government.
(4 August 2008)
Another example of government doing exactly the wrong thing – making it hard for small farmers when they should be making it easier. See http://energybulletin.net/node/46116. -BA
