PSM Comments on HLPE V0 Draft Report:

“Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems

that enhance food security and nutrition”

Introduction

This compilation of comments on the HLPE V0 draft by PSM members is arranged with a series of general comments, followed by responses to the questions posed by the HLPE and, finally, comments on specific sections of the report. In addition, an Annex provides additional examples and references of innovations in sustainable agriculture across key aspects of the sector.

General Comment 1

The term “industrial agriculture” is frequently used in the document, but it provides no definition of what that means and seems to be an attempt to present a binary choice between agroecology and any other approach. This does not take into account the ongoing discussion on the variety of approaches addressing sustainable agriculture i.e. COAG October 2018 requested the Bureau to develop a draft resolution http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/Conference_2019/MY349_21/MY349_C_2019_21_en.pdf entitled ‘Further integration of sustainable agricultural practices in the work of the FAO’ which included the request to FAO to “strengthen normative, science and evidence based work on sustainable agricultural practices, including among others agroecology, climate smart agriculture, sustainable intensification, and biotechnology by developing appropriate metrics and support countries capacities to measure their compliance, tools and protocols to evaluate the contribution of these approaches to sustainable agriculture and food systems”. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/Progr_Comm/PC_125-documents/MX374e.pdf

The United Nations General Assembly at it’s 74th Plenary meeting in December 2017 also recognised the diversity of context and diversity of approaches and, in the Resolution 72/215 "Underlines the instrumental role of agricultural technology, agricultural research and innovation and technology transfer on mutually agreed terms and the sharing of knowledge and practices in furthering sustainable

1

development and in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals”. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/72/215 There is also a need to capture the dynamic evolution of the term agroecology and how it continues to evolve. It is suggested to review and consider:

“GlobaleAnsätze, Interpretationenund neueEntwicklungenin der Agrarökologie” Alexander Wezel ISARA-Lyon, France, Department of Agroecology and Environment, Fachgespräch Agrarökologie, Berlin, 7. Sept.

Many observers have concluded that sustainable intensification of smallholder farming is the best hope for keeping up with food demand and alleviating poverty in the developing world1 Jayne et al, 20102, studied survey data from five countries in eastern and southern Africa and concluded: “…there is no single or deterministic “future” of the small farm in Africa. The decisions made by governments primarily and international organizations secondarily will largely determine the future of smallholder agriculture in the region. Without renewed attention to sustained agricultural productivity growth, most small farms in Africa will become increasingly unviable economic and social units. Sustained agricultural productivity growth will require progress on a number of fronts, most importantly increased public goods investments to agriculture, a policy environment that supports private investment in input, output and financial marketing and provision of key support services, a more level global trade policy environment, supportive donor programs, and improved governance. Most of these challenges can be met; meaningful progress will start when there is a critical mass of commitment among African leaders and developed country governments.” They further observe that, “…strategies attempting to link African farmers to markets must take account of how low crop productivity and inequality in productive assets constrain most smallholders’ ability to participate in markets. There appears to be a vicious cycle in which low surplus production constrains the development of markets, which in turn constrains smallholders’ ability to use productive farm technologies in a sustainable manner, reinforcing semi-subsistence agriculture.”

Asfaw et at, 20123, surveyed smallholder farmers in Tanzania and Ethiopia and also concluded that, “The results from this paper generally confirms the potential direct role of agricultural technology adoption on improving rural household

1 Hounkonnou et al 2012. An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development in West Africa. Agricultural Systems 108:74-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.01.0072 Jayne, T.S.,, D. Mghenyi, E. Principal Challenges Facing Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. (2010) World Development 38: 1384-1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.06.002

3 Solomon Asfaw, Bekele Shiferaw, Franklin Simtowe, Leslie Lipper, 2012. Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia, Food Policy 37:283-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.013.

2

welfare, as higher gain of consumption expenditure from improved technology also mean less poverty.”

Falconnier et al, 20174, concluded that there was a need for a “strategic and multi-sectoral combination of interventions to improve livelihoods” for smallholders in Southern Mali. What they envisioned a scenario in which “Additional programs to promote Integrated Pest Management, small-scale mechanization and mineral fertilizer on traditional cereals could allow a drastic increase in productivity and would lift 94% of the farm population out of poverty.”

General Comment 2

With its focus on FSN, an omission in this document concerns the issue about what is probably one of the major causes of death, particularly in Africa, is fungal food contaminants like aflatoxin. This is particularly an issue with maize and groundnuts, which are extremely important food sources. These can cause acute poisoning but are more a cancer risk. References:

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/ aflatoxins

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2898859/

Some recommended reading around solutions to this problem:

Regional knowledge as promoted for agroecological systems does not seem to address this very real threat: http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/02/new-technology-alone-wont-halt-aflatoxin-menace-experts-warn/

There are potential solutions to this health issue. One is the use of certain bio-control agents that could be locally grown in even small-scale fermentations: https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2016/10/07/great-news-on-the-agricultural-front_c1433577

The other major solution could come through bioengineering of crops – something that has been promoted by groups like ICRISAT: https://www.deccanherald.com/content/647135/toxin-free-groundnut-icrisat-finds.html and others:

o https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/78875/ Schmidt.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

o https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12846 o https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-groundnut-resistant-

aflatoxin.html There are also efforts to develop enzyme-based products to address this

issue: https://www.feedstuffs.com/news/mars-partners-launch-uncommon-collaboration-solve-aflatoxin-puzzle

4 Gatien N. Falconnier, Katrien Descheemaeker, Bouba Traore, Arouna Bayoko, Ken E. Giller,Agricultural intensification and policy interventions: Exploring plausible futures for smallholder farmers in Southern Mali, Land Use Policy,Volume 70, 2018,Pages 623-634, ISSN 0264-8377,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.044.

3

Responses to questions posed by HLPE

1. The V0 draft is wide-ranging in analyzing the contribution of agroecological and other innovative approaches to ensuring food security and nutrition (FSN). Is the draft useful in clarifying the main concepts? Do you think that the draft appropriately covers agroecology as one of the possible innovative approaches? Does the draft strike the right balance between agroecology and other innovative approaches?

From the perspective of the PSM, acknowledging and exploring the importance and potential of additional innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems is critical to the value of this report. Heterogeneity in global food systems supports the need for options at all levels of the food value chain to provide flexibility and adaptability. However, the innovations as described are underrepresented in an essential area, measurement.

Vital to this discussion of multiple innovations for contributing to food security and nutrition is that all options provided be accompanied by the necessary, evidence-based means of comparing the different systems at local, regional and global levels. Major national and international recommendations and policies that may result from this report need to be built upon quantitative measurements that allow decision-makers to compare the consequences and trade-offs that will occur. As this draft recognizes, food and nutrition systems are highly complex and changes to them have the potential to reach deep into social, economic and environmental structures. Without sufficient knowledge of the effects, there is potential for significant unintended harm. Stylianou et al. (2015) used the concept of the Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) to develop a common metric that could be applied to both environmental and human health impacts of diet. While the DALY may or may not have applications for agroecology and the other innovations in this report, it begins to show how common metrics for food and agriculture could be developed. “This case study provides the first quantitative epidemiology-based estimate of the complements and trade-offs between nutrition and environment human health burden expressed in DALYs…when making recommendations about sustainable diets and food choices.”

A plan for monitoring the effectiveness of different innovations, including agroecology, with quantitative criteria and within reasonable timeframes must also be a part of any recommendation, conclusion or indeed ensuing implementation.

The Draft discusses agroecology extensively; however, there are numerous references to still undecided aspects of agroecology. For example, page 29, lines 52-54, notes that there is still an open debate regarding whether agroecology

4

should allow the use of synthetic inputs or prohibit their use, as in organic agriculture.

The draft discusses multiple approaches to FSN, but it’s difficult to say the Draft “strikes the right balance between agroecology and other innovative approaches” because the draft fails to adequately discuss and assess the role technology (e.g., biotechnology, novel breeding techniques, etc.) can play in sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance FSN.

The Draft acknowledges that production per se is not the issue and notes that the FSN conversation needs to be driven by more than just production. For example, the Draft notes that current food production exceeds global caloric need, but also adds that the “current food system” results in food and nutritional insecurity in some regions and obesity in others. (pg13, lines 7–10; pg68, lines 16–19). The Draft continues that the world currently produces enough food on a caloric basis to feed over 9 billion people. In Section 3.2.2, however, the Draft makes efforts to note that the quantity of calories produced is not the sole focus of Agroecology and that a “systems-based” approach that goes beyond calorie production is needed. The Draft states, “While dietary intake is an important immediate determinant of FSN, the main underlying drivers are not production, but rather income, conflict, inequality at multiple scales (e.g. gender or racial inequality), environmental conditions (e.g. exposure to pathogens, climate), health care, consumption and childcare practices.” Additionally, Section 3.2.2 addresses food waste and loss, but does not directly discuss how or if Agroecology can or will address this issue.

The UN has already (December 2017) formally supported the need for convergence of all the available technologies and their use in integrated solutions that are able to address local needs and societal requirements:

"Recognizing the need to further enhance the linkages between agricultural technology and agroecological principles, such as recycling, resource use efficiency, reducing external inputs, diversification, integration, soil health and synergies, in order to design sustainable farming systems that strengthen the interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment for food security and nutrition, enhance productivity, improve nutrition and conserve the natural resource base, and attain more sustainable and innovative food systems".

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/72/215

2. Have an appropriate range of innovative approaches been identified and documented in the draft? If there are key gaps in coverage of approaches, what are these and how would they be appropriately incorporated in the draft? Does the draft illustrates correctly the contributions of these approaches to FSN and sustainable development? The HLPE acknowledges that these approaches could be better articulated in the draft, and their main points of convergence or divergence among these

5

approaches could be better illustrated. Could the following set of “salient dimensions” help to characterize and compare these different approaches: human-rights base, farm size, local or global markets and food systems (short or long supply chain), labor or capital intensity (including mechanization), specialization or diversification, dependence to external (chemical) inputs or circular economy, ownership and use of modern knowledge and technology or use of local and traditional knowledge and practices?

The PSM believe that the primary literature cited in the determination of the v0 draft’s working definition of innovation presents an overly narrow view and limiting framework in which to consider the value of and provide recommendations on innovation. As a fundamental underpinning of this report are the assumptions made to determine qualifying innovations, it would be prudent to provide opportunities for the intended users of this report to more equitably judge different schools of thought on the subject.

There are numerous resources available describing or critiquing the many different modern theories of innovation. Naqshbandi and Singh (2015) alone identify:

Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction Diffusion of Innovations Incremental and Radical Innovations Henderson-Clark Model Open Innovation Model Disruptive Innovation The Teece Model

And the reference touches upon several others.

A large range of innovative approaches have been identified and documented in the Draft; however, as stated in response to question 1, the Draft does not include the use of modern agricultural technology as an innovative approach to FSN, despite an extensive discussion of the state of the current uses of GM technology. Additionally, the proposed list of “salient dimensions” to help characterize the different approaches to innovation is a list of common criticisms of large-scale agriculture. By soliciting comments on these “salient dimensions” the Drafters risk diverting the conversation away from approaches to FSN and towards criticizing large-scale agricultural techniques. 

We encourage the HLPE to broaden the thinking on innovation from the current draft which demonstrates an extremely narrow focus placed solely on social process of innovation. For example, the recent UN General Assembly resolution (op cit.) concerning Agricultural technology for sustainable development notes that:

“agricultural technology, as well as technological, social, economic and institutional innovations that build on the knowledge and capacities and respond to

6

the needs and realities of smallholders and family farmers, in particular women and youth in rural areas, can contribute to their transition from subsistence farming to innovative, commercial production, helping them to increase their own food security and nutrition, generate marketable surpluses and add value to their production.”

3. The V0 draft outlines 17 key agroecological principles and organizes them in four overarching and interlinked operational principles for more sustainable food systems (SFS): resource efficiency, resilience, social equity / responsibility and ecological footprint. Are there any key aspects of agroecology that are not reflected in this set of 17 principles? Could the set of principles be more concise, and if so, which principles could be combined or reformulated to achieve this?

The key principles of agroecology as outlined in the v0 draft are, on the whole, positive rather than prescriptive and supportive of small-scale farming and the sociopolitical structures that could enhance this. However, even though they recognize rights to intellectual property and open participation in decision-making at all levels, the principles do not explicitly recognize that small-scale food producers, given the means and the opportunity, will often choose to expand both their farms and their business opportunities in the best interest of themselves, their families and their communities. Encouraging and recognizing, as stated in the draft, the “needs and interests of family farmer, smallholder and peasant food producers as sustainable managers and guardians of natural and genetic resources” is important, but the principles of self-determination alluded to throughout the document means that access to external inputs or an array of production and business practices beyond those considered in this document as “agroecological” must be allowed, at the discretion of the individual producer. Explicit recognition of this is something that we would recommend be added to this report.

Simply put, it is critical to recognize that farmers throughout the world are business owners. They need to be provided with all of the means, in terms of both information and physical tools that could support their objectives. Guidance and resources can be developed at the global level, but decision-making for farmers should remain local. As concluded in Schaubroek and Rugani (2017), “human well-being, encompassing health and happiness,” needs to be the main goal of sustainability; providing farmers with options and flexibility to thrive and grow cannot be secondary.

The “external inputs” that are criticized in this document could mean relief from backbreaking labor, particularly for the poor, women and children on whom this task often falls based on “local knowledge and traditional”. From a social just perspective this needs to be recognized. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20103346597

7

We would also ask for greater appreciation of the role that research, science and technology play in innovation. With appropriate consideration given to potential consequences and trade-offs, responsible research should be the foundation of practices recognized as genuinely innovative. Additionally, there is a persistent need for a platform(s) to support the dissemination of science in addition to the need, recognized in the v0 draft, for farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing mechanisms.

The Draft’s addition of “enhance ecological footprint” to the three principles of sustainable agriculture is—on its face—reasonable, but is likely an indirect critique on the use of synthetic inputs in agricultural production. The Draft notes that this concept was derived from an aspect “fundamental” to Agroecology, agroforestry, permaculture, and organic agriculture: “the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems, harnessing natural processes, and creating beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of agroecosystems.”

These approaches also tend to be perceived as more natural forms of agricultural production in which producers may be pre-disposed to having an aversion to synthetic inputs—if they are not specifically prohibited. Additionally, the Draft notes that it is important to expand the operational principles to include a dimension that sufficiently addresses environmental externalities, but in doing so, the Draft assumes that the aforementioned approaches to sustainable food systems for FSN are concerned about the ecological footprint of agriculture and other methods of production are not. This is simply false. Synthetic inputs help growers use water, soil, and other natural resources more efficiently and growers understand that these inputs work best when they are used in the right place, at the right time and in the right amount. Farmers, whether large-scale family farmers or small-scale organic farmers, understand that they are dependent upon the land for their livelihoods today and into the future and, as such, farmers understand the need to be good stewards of the land. Furthermore, synthetic inputs are not free and farmers must use them judiciously to ensure the economic viability of their operations.  The interpretation of the 17 principles is also articulated in Table 3, page 36.This table attempts to compare the eight defined approaches to innovations in sustainable food systems with Agroecology using 17 key aspects set forth by the Drafters. The desire to present a quick comparison between approaches is understandable, however, the brevity provided by the chart can cause readers to pre-determine their thoughts on any given approach based on whether a certain box contains a check mark or an X. Although the chart may be an easy reference tool for readers, it is not able to accurately reflect and capture the complexities and nuance involved with each aspect within each approach and should, therefore, be revised with the requisite rigor to provide full context and appreciation of each approach.  It may also be instructive to provide examples of where and the extent to which each approach has proved successful in practice.

8

4. The V0 draft is structured around a conceptual framework that links innovative approaches to FSN outcomes via their contribution to the four abovementioned overarching operational principles of SFS and, thus, to the different dimensions of FSN. Along with the four agreed dimensions of FSN (availability, access, stability, utilization), the V0 draft also discusses a fifth dimension: agency. Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues? Is it applied appropriately and consistently across the different chapters of the draft to structure its overall narrative and main findings?

The proposed inclusion of “Agency” as the 5th pillar of food security seems inappropriate and inconsistent with the other four pillars. The four pillars of food security (availability, access, utilization, and stability) all relate, directly or indirectly, to access to a sufficient quantity of nutritious food. It would be more appropriate to include the concepts discussed in the proposed new pillar within each of the four original pillars, if at all. For example, the right to accurate information about food would fit in both the availability and utilization pillars. The origin, source, ingredients, inputs, etc., of food may affect whether food of sufficient quantities and of appropriate quality is available to a group of people or whether that food can be utilized for that group’s physiological well-being (e.g., a limitless supply of candy with no other food would likely mean the availability pillar is not met).   Additionally, as Drafted, the concept either ignores or disregards current market conditions for food and legislative processes throughout the world. Obviously, there are countries where the  “voice of the people” is not reflected in laws; however, in countless developed countries, legislators respond to their constituents because they wish to stay in power and be re-elected. These legislators respond to the voice of the majority and the inclusion of the proposed pillar could lead to governance structures reflecting the criticisms of the “vocal minority” and not the will of the majority (e.g., The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law in the U.S.).

Furthermore, we feel that the question of “agency” is very closely related to the principle of self-determination as discussed in the preceding answer. “Empowerment of citizens in defining and securing their own food and nutritional security…” should not be limited to food producers working within a specific production philosophy. The definition of Agency should include the rights to adapt, grow, and set individual priorities.

This viewpoint is validated by the challenges seen globally in attracting and empowering youth to view agriculture as a legitimate option for their futures. They will be far less likely to do so if given the impression that innovation is largely limited to the adoption of historical practices, with limited options to elevate themselves beyond earlier generations.

Significant attention has been paid to challenges facing youth in agriculture in recent years, and there are resources available describing the potential of

9

technology to attract and retain younger generations in farming and food production:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3947e.pdf https://www.scidev.net/sub-saharan-africa/agriculture/scidev-net-at-

large/technologies-innovation-youth-agriculture.html https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/country-living/education/

connected/technology-is-bringing-youth-back-to-agriculture/news-story/b36c9ae41f0f5f23ba2f58b3e82ad415

http://www.fao.org/e-agriculture/news/youth-and-technology-missing- link-agriculture

5. The V0 draft provides an opportunity to identify knowledge gaps, where more evidence is required to assess the contribution that agroecology and other innovative approaches can make progressing towards more sustainable food systems for enhanced FSN. Do you think that the key knowledge gaps are appropriately identified, that their underlying causes are sufficiently articulated in the draft? Is the draft missing any important knowledge gap? Is this assessment of the state of knowledge in the draft based on the best up-to-date available scientific evidence or does the draft miss critical references? How could the draft better integrate and consider local, traditional and empirical knowledge?

The most significant gap, as stated earlier, is the lack of an accurate, consistent measurement system to reliably compare different production systems and the fact that there is a primary theory of innovation elevated in the v0 draft when, in fact, there are many viable definitions, both old and new.

The Draft has an important knowledge gap regarding the role that technology will play in agroecology. New plant varieties created through methods of biotechnology and novel breeding techniques have the opportunity to provide growers with varieties that are adapted to their local conditions and resilient to a changing climate. The Draft discusses local/traditional knowledge, but that knowledge may not be useful in efforts to enhance FSN if the growing environment is drastically and rapidly altered due to climate change.

6. Chapter 2 suggests a typology of innovations. Do you think this typology is useful in structuring the exploration of what innovations are required to support FSN, identifying key drivers of, and barriers to, innovation (in Chapter 3) and the enabling conditions required to foster innovation (in Chapter 4)? Are there significant drivers, barriers or enabling conditions that are not adequately considered in the draft?

Please see above responses.

10

7. A series of divergent narratives are documented in Chapter 3 to help tease out key barriers and constraints to innovation for FSN. Is this presentation of these divergent narratives comprehensive, appropriate and correctly articulated? How could the presentation of the main controversies at stake and the related available evidence be improved?

The Draft’s discussion of key barriers and constraints fails to consider unjust fears of technology and emotion-driven policy-making that is not based on science. These barriers to innovation should be thoroughly discussed in Chapter 3 with the other key barriers and constraints. Chapter 3 does discuss the current status of GMOs but the discussion appears to have an anti-technology bias and fails to acknowledge, or cite evidence of, the benefits provided by crops that are genetically modified to be resistant to certain pests, drought, heat stress and diseases and tolerant to certain pesticides.

8. This preliminary version of the report presents tentative priorities for action in Chapter 4, as well as recommendations to enable innovative approaches to contribute to the radical transformations of current food systems needed to enhance FSN and sustainability. Do you think these preliminary findings can form an appropriate basis for further elaboration, in particular to design innovation policies? Do you think that key recommendations or priorities for action are missing or inadequately covered in the draft?

We would re-iterate the critical need for shared, science-based, quantifiable metrics of progress/success, along with a plan and timeline for reporting on them.

In general, this section appears incomplete and it is not possible to provide comments on content that has not yet be created. For example, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and submit feedback on conclusions, which are currently lacking and which may in the end be used to draft policies of global significance. As such, we would ask for a second period of open comment on the next version of the report.

11

9. Throughout the V0 draft there has been an attempt to indicate, sometimes with placeholders, specific case studies that would illustrate the main narrative with concrete examples and experience. Are the set of case studies appropriate in terms of subject and regional balance? Can you suggest further case studies that could help to enrich and strengthen the report?

The PSM submitted several examples of agroecology in practice for the “Marketplace of Innovation” displayed at the FAO’s 2nd International Symposium on Agroecology. One submission, on the Yahara Pride Conservation Board, was accepted and developed into a poster. We feel that this and the collection of other accepted submissions would be a natural source for case studies on agroecological innovation.

The PSM would propose a case study discussing Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) and drought-tolerant maize. As it relates to drought-tolerant crops, there is one reference to crops being bred for drought tolerance under the heading “current use of GM technology”; however, the reference lacks further substance.  The Water Efficient Maize for Africa project could be referenced for a real-world experience in this area.  https://wema.aatf-africa.org/ The drought-tolerant maize developed and made available through the WEMA project has helped create a food supply that is more stable and available for small-holders in sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, the better harvests achieved by drought-tolerant maize have improved the economic circumstances of small-holder growers which has enabled greater access to a more diverse diet and improved utilization—as defined in the four pillars of food security.

10.Are there any major omissions or gaps in the V0 draft? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions refuted, questionable or assertions with no evidence-base? If any of these are an issue, please share supporting evidence.

The international scientific and policy communities have published a great deal of work exploring options for the benefit of smallholder-based food production systems in the developing world. Many of the papers referred to below speak to the role of, and approaches to, various innovative modern technologies in that context.

Factors Influencing Technology Adoption

Overall, risk is a key limitation for the use of technologies by farmers. Wolgin (1975) 5used a data set from Kenya to document this and how it is confounded by

5 Wolgin, J.M., 1975. Resource Allocation and Risk: A Case Study of Smallholder Agriculture in Kenya. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57:622-630. https://doi.org/10.2307/1238880

12

limited access to credit. His conclusion was, “Risk plays an important role in farmer decision making; farmers are efficient in their allocation of resources; and lack of credit availability is a major bottleneck in obtaining increased agricultural productivity for the regions studied in Kenya.”

Kassie et al, 20136, studied the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) among smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on Tanzania. They found that, “rainfall, insects and disease shocks, government effectiveness in provision of extension services, tenure status of plot, social capital, plot location and size, and household assets, all influence farmer investment in SAPs. Policies that target SAPs and are aimed at organizing farmers into associations, improving land tenure security, and enhancing skills of civil servants can increase uptake of SAPs in smallholder systems.” In particular they found that land tenure is a key driver.

Chirwa, 20057 studied adoption technology adoption among maize farmers in Malawi and found that, “…fertiliser adoption was positively associated with higher levels of education, larger plot sizes and higher non-farm incomes, but negatively associated with households headed by women and distance from input markets. The adoption of hybrid seeds is positively associated with market-based land tenure systems and fertile soils, but negatively associated with age of the farmer and distance from input markets.” A similar analysis for maize farmers in the central highlands of Ethiopia found that, “The estimated results indicate that level of education, household labour, farm size, extension services, farm income, and timely availability of improved maize seeds significantly influence the adoption and intensity of use of improved maize. It also showed that the impact of off-farm income and age of the household head on adoption and intensity of use of improved maize seed was insignificant. (Alene et al 2000)8.

Ike and Inoni, 20069 concluded that small holder yam farmers in Nigeria are more likely to utilize technologies such as fertilizers, pesticides and improved plant

6 Menale Kassie, Moti Jaleta, Bekele Shiferaw, Frank Mmbando, Mulugetta Mekuria,Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 80, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 525-540, ISSN 0040-1625,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.007.

7 Chirwa, Ephraim 2005. Adoption of fertiliser and hybrid seeds by smallholder maize farmers in Southern Malawi. Development Southern Africa 22:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03768350500044065

8 Alene, A.D., Poonyth, D., Hassan, R.M. 2010. Determinants of adoption and intensity of use of improved maize varieties in the central highlands of Ethiopia: A Tobit analysis. Agrekon 39:633-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2000.9523679

9 Ike, Pius & Inoni, EMMANUEL. (2006). Determinants of yam production and economic efficiency among small holder farmers in Southeastern Nigeria. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 7.

13

genetics if they have more formal schooling and are thus better equipped to acquire technological knowledge which allows them to produce yields “closer to the frontier.”

Patt et al, 201010 found that many farmers did not understand the probability of loss or the working of insurance and that knowledge gap was a barrier to getting loan guarantees that might allow them to use technologies such as higher yielding plant varieties.

Apata et al, 201811 found that gender is a driver for poverty among small holder farmers in Nigeria as female farmers were less likely to have title to the land they farm and thus less access to credit to be able to invest in useful technologies.

Saka et al, 200512 found that relative cultivar yield potential and the frequency of extension contact were the “two most important factors determining choice of cultivation of improved rice varieties among the farmers” in Southwestern Nigeria.

Access to micro credit was found to be a “powerful anti-poverty tool” for Nigeria as it has been in many other regions (Anyuiro and Oriaku, 2011)13.

Irrigation-related Innovations

In drought prone regions such as Africa, farmers hesitate to invest in inputs because the almost annual potential for crop loss during intermittent drought and crop failure on a one in five year basis. Rockstrom et al, 200214 argue that, “…some of the most exciting opportunities for water productivity enhancements in rainfed agriculture are found in the realm of integrating components of irrigation

10 Patt, Anthony & Suarez, Pablo & Hess, Ulrich. (2010). How do Small-holder Farmers Understand Insurance, and How Much do they Want it? Evidence from Africa. Global Environmental Change. 20. 153-161. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.007.

11 Apata, Temidayo & Apata, Olasimbo & Igbalajobi, Olabisi & Awoniyi, Samuel. (2018). Determinants of rural poverty in Nigeria: Evidence from small holder farmers in South-western, Nigeria.

12 J.O, Saka & Okoruwa, Victor & B.O, Lawal & S, Ajijola. (2005). Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties among Small-Holder Farmers in South-Western Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1.

13 Anyiro, Chidozie & N Oriaku, B. (2011). ACCESS TO AND INVESTMENT OF FORMAL MICRO CREDIT BY SMALL HOLDER FARMERS IN ABIA STATE, NIGERIA. A CASE STUDY OF ABSU MICRO FINANCE BANK, UTURU. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 6. 10.4038/jas.v6i2.3861.

14 Rockström, Johan & Barron, Jennie & Fox, Patrick. (2002). Rainwater management for increased productivity among small-holder farmers in drought prone environments. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 27. 949–959. 10.1016/S1474-7065(02)00098-0.

14

management within the context of rainfed farming, e.g., supplemental or micro irrigation for dry spell mitigation. Combining such practices with management strategies that enhance soil infiltration, improve water holding capacity and plant water uptake potential, can have strong impact on agricultural water productivity. This suggests that it is probably time to abandon the largely obsolete distinction between irrigated and rainfed agriculture, and instead focus on integrated rainwater management.”

Improved Genetic Resources

Asfaw et al, 2012, surveyed farmers in Ethiopia and Tanzania to try to understand why there was limited adoption of improved varieties of chickpea and pigeon pea in spite of strong evidence of welfare benefits from doing so. They found that key barriers were access to a local supply of seed and a lack of access to information. They concluded that, “A more flexible seed system, which is sustainable (both financially and institutionally), that meets the seed needs of a diverse group of farmers and reduces the current seed supply crises is crucial to accelerate agricultural growth and commercialization. This requires lifting the entry barriers for participation of the private seed industry and encouraging the growth of the informal sector by providing adequate access to basic or foundation seed and extension advice on seed production, processing, treatment and storage.”

A study by Yousouf et al, 200215, found that Bt cotton had higher yields and lower insecticide costs than conventional cotton so that although seed costs were twice as high, the gross margins for the Bt growers were higher for the farmers using the technology.

Midega et al, 201516 describe a maize trait that involves a defense semiochemical produced in response to oviposition by a stem borer pest. The chemical attracts a natural enemy of the borer. This trait needs to be moved from the open pollinated lines in which it was discovered via introgression into more elite hybrids.

Pest Management Issues

Pretty et al, 201517, reviewed efforts to develop IPM programs for smallholder farmers in Africa and Asia and found that there can be substantial benefits (“Crop

15 Yousouf, I., Bennet, R.M., and Morse, S. 2002. Benefits from Bt Cotton Use by Smallholder Farmers. AgBioForum, 5(1) 2002: 1-5. http://hdl.handle.net/10355/312

16 MIDEGA, C. A., BRUCE, T. J., PICKETT, J. A. and KHAN, Z. R. (2015), Ecological management of cereal stemborers in African smallholder agriculture through behavioural manipulation. Ecol Entomol, 40: 70-81. doi:10.1111/een.12216

15

pests, diseases and weeds pose a substantial challenge to global food security, poverty alleviation and agricultural livelihoods. Approaches of IPM provide an array of methods by which damage can be reduced.”). They also observed that, “It is rare that one single intervention results in successful control of a pest, disease or weed. More commonly, a package of technologies and practices must be developed in partnership with local farmers so that these are fitted to local circumstances whilst at the same time increasing farmers’ knowledge through participatory research.”

Pests can be severely limiting for the viability of smallholder cultivation of export crops. "The most severe problem faced by cacao farmers in the region is the occurrence of pests and diseases. At a global level, yield loss due to disease is estimated at about 30%. In west Africa if ranges from 10 to 80%Cacao farmers in west and central Africa have typically received subsidies and state support to control pests and disease. Until the early 1990s the Cameroon government provided farmers with fungicides at no cost and treated their plantations with insecticides" (this was discontinued and many plantings were abandoned)” Duguma et al, 200118.

Mwatawala et al19 tested three IPM systems for control of an invasive fruit fly damaging mangos in Tanzania. All three systems were effective, but the authors concluded that while a system employing a commercial product (Spinosad) was best suited to commercial farmers targeting organic and export markets, commercial farmers targeting regional markets would best use a system including a broadcast spray of Karate (dimethoate/lambda cyhalothrin). For smallholder settings, their recommendation was a system employing a locally formulated, botanical bait based on crude extracts of Derris elliptica, molasses and brewery yeast waste. This is a good example of how IPM technologies can be customized for the specific class of grower.

Smallholder potato growers in Uganda face significant disease and insect issues, but were shown to have very limited knowledge of safe pesticide-handling practices, ability to read and understand product labels, or input from knowledgeable extension officers. Okonya and Kroschel 201520 who studied this

17 Pretty, J., and Bharucha, Z.P. 2015. Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6:152-182. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6010152

18 Duguma, B., Gockowski, J. & Bakala, J. Smallholder Cacao (Theobroma cacao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of West and Central Africa: challenges and opportunities. Agroforestry Systems (2001) 51: 177. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010747224249

19 Maulid Walad Mwatawala, Hendry Mziray, Hamis Malebo, Marc De Meyer,Guiding farmers' choice for an integrated pest management program against the invasive Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel (Diptera: Tephritidae) in mango orchards in Tanzania,Crop Protection,Volume 76,2015,Pages 103-107,ISSN 0261-2194,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.07.001.

20 Joshua Sikhu Okonya and Jürgen Kroschel, 2015. A Cross-Sectional Study of Pesticide Use and Knowledge of Smallholder Potato Farmers in Uganda, BioMed Research International, vol. 2015,

16

situation concluded that the best path forward for these farmers was the potential for an integrated pest management system utilizing lower hazard options such as fungicides in WHO class U (unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use.). In Bolivia, Jors et al 2014 21documented sustained improvements in safe pesticide handling and use for farmers who participated in a Farmers Field School program.

Smallholder sweetpotato growers in the highlands of Papua New Guinea suffer significant losses from insects and diseases but lack the biological and technical knowledge to actively manage the pests. This “hampers efforts to establish food security and constrains the development of sweetpotato as a cash crop (Gurr et al 2016)22

Mengistie et al, 201723, studied smallholder pesticide use practices in the Rift Valley of Ethopia. Although current use patterns are unacceptable from a farmer safety point of view, they argue that the solution is not the avoidance of all pesticides, but rather, “Bringing in new actors such as environmental authorities, suppliers, NGOs and private actors, as well as social and technological innovations, may contribute to changes in the actual performance of these pesticides buying and using practices. This article argues that a practice approach represents a promising perspective to analyse pesticide handling and use and to systematically identify ways to change these.”

In a meta-analysis of intercropping with legumes in Africa (Himmelstein et al 2017)24 the most clear-cut benefits in terms of yield and gross income were seen where that practice was supplemented with the use of herbicides to achieve adequate control of unwanted vegetation.

One vision for the future of pest management in regions like East Africa is indigenous production of plant-based insecticides with the historical production of

Article ID 759049, 9 pages, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/759049.

21 Jors,E., Lander, F., Omar Huici, Cervantes,R., Gulis, M.G., Konradsen,F. 2014. Do Bolivian small holder farmers improve and retain knowledge to reduce occupational pesticide poisonings after training on Integrated Pest Management? Environmental Health 2014 13:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-75

22 Goerr Gurr, Jian Liu, Ann Johnson, Deane Woruba, Gunnar Kirchhof, Ryosuke Fujinuma, William Sirabils, Yapo Jerrery, Ramakrishna Akkinapally, 2016. Pests, diseases and crop protection practices in the smallholder sweetpotato production system of the highlands of Papua New Guinea. PeerJ 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2703

23 Mengistie, B.T., Mol, A.P.J. & Oosterveer, P. Environ Dev Sustain (2017) 19: 301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9728-9

24 J. Himmelstein, A. Ares, D. Gallagher & J. Myers (2017) A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15:1, 1-10,DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332

17

pyrethrum by smallholder farmers in Kenya. (Stevenson et al 2017)25. This would require outside technical support for efficacy and safety oversight. One specific potential crop for production of a botanical crop protection tool (Ageratum conyzoides) has been described by Rioba et al, 201726.

Improved pest management is recognized as a major potential for smallholder agriculture. In a study of low cost improvements in agronomic practices for cassava production in Africa, Ekelema et al, 201627, describe a cooperative project involving “Nigerian agriculture and regulatory government agencies, farmer organizations, independent farmer groups, NGOs and chemical companies,” to develop “safe, practical, affordable, profitable and sustainable techniques that will best address weed management in cassava.” The authors believe that, “When combined with correct use of herbicides, yields approach double the current national average.”

Approaches for Conservation Agriculture

As in any region, tillage leads to soil degradation over time, but for small holder farmers there was been a shortage of viable mechanized options to allow direct drilling of seed. Johansen et al, 201128 describe planter attachments for two wheel tractors that have been successfully used to allow seeding and fertilizer placement in ways that reduce fuel and labor costs and make seed and fertilizer inputs more efficient. In addition: “In Africa, the introduction of animal-drawn rippers and direct seeders, originally developed for small-scale farmers in Brazil, is considered as a major breakthrough to small-scale farmer mechanization.” However, the authors argue that even greater benefits could be achieved if there were more safe and effective herbicide options available for resource-poor farmers that could be integrated with small-scale planter technologies.

25 Stevenson, Philip C., Murray B. Isman, Steven R. Belmain, (2017) Pesticidal plants in Africa: A global vision of new biological control products from local uses, Industrial Crops and Products,Volume 110,2017,Pages 2-9,ISSN 0926-6690,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.08.034.

26 Naomi B. Rioba, Philip C. Stevenson, Ageratum conyzoides L. for the management of pests and diseases by small holder farmers, Industrial Crops and Products,Volume 110,2017, Pages 22-29,ISSN 0926-6690, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.068.

27 Ekelema, F; Hauser, S., Atser, G. Dixon, A., Weller, S., Olorunmaiya, P, Usman, H., Olojede, A. Chikoya, D. 2016. Weed Management in Cassava in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Outlooks on Pest Management 27:208-212. https://doi.org/10.1564/v27_oct_04

28 Johansen, Candy & M.E., Haque & Bell, Richard & Thierfelder, Christian & R.J, Esdail. (2011). Conservation agriculture for small holder rainfed farming: Opportunities and constraints of new mechanized seeding systems. Field Crops Research. 132. 18-32. 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.11.026.

18

Shiferaw et al, 200929 observe that in addition to policies and institutional mechanisms for that encourage conservation agriculture, “linking farmers to better markets for their produce and inputs like fertilizer and credit generally makes a positive contribution in raising the returns to land and labor in agriculture.”

Fertilization

Advocates of the “low input” school of agroecology tend to reject inputs of fertilizers from outside of the region; however research suggests that this issue may not be best treated as an “either/or” decision. For instance, Akinnifesi et al, 200730, working with maize production systems in southern Malawi documented synergistic effects on maize yields when inorganic N and P fertilizers were combined with organic contributions from intercropping with the nitrogen fixing legume Gliricidia sepium.

Saka et al, 2005 found that while the greatest increase in yield potential for Nigerian rice farmers was with the most recently introduced, improved cultivars, the yield of local varieties was also improved with fertilizer input.

Tanner et al, 199331, found that increased fertilization increased wheat yield in Ethiopia, but that it also increased the density of wild oats and broadleaf weeds thus increasing labor requirements. It also increased stripe rust incidence. The implementation of increased fertilizer usage needs to be combined with other technologies such as an effective herbicide option and rust resistance traits.

Snapp et al, 200232, studied the potential for smallholder farmers in Malawi to utilize legumes within their production system as a source of nitrogen for the main maize crop. While there was a contribution, but likelihood of adoption would depend on the market potential of the legume crop and the impact on marginal maize yield potential.

29 Shiferaw, B.A., Okello, J. & Reddy, R.V.Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ Dev Sustain (2009) 11: 601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9132-1

30 Akinnifesi, Festus & Makumba, Wilkson & Sileshi, Gudeta & Ajayi, Oluyede .Olu & Mweta, David. (2007). Synergistic effect of inorganic N and P fertilizers and organic inputs from Gliricidia sepium on productivity of intercropped maize in Southern Malawi. Plant and Soil. 294. 203-217. 10.1007/s11104-007-9247-z.

31 Tanner, D.G., Gorfu, Amanuel & Taa, Asefa. (1993). Fertilizer effects on sustainability in the wheat-based small-holder farming systems of southeastern Ethiopia. Field Crops Research, 33. 235-248. 10.1023/A:1009698717015

32 Snapp, S.S., Rohrbach, D.D., Simtowe, F., Freeman, H.A.2002. Sustainable soil management options for Malawi: can smallholder farmers grow more legumes? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 91: 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00238-9

19

The overall perspective of this draft report is limiting or avoiding the use of mineral fertilizers altogether. Such an approach, however, would ignore the benefits that mineral fertilizer bring to farmers in regions where organic sources are not sufficiently available or soils are so depleted that organic nutrient application alone cannot achieve the necessary productivity levels for farms to be viable. This is the case in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, for example.

It should be noted that COAG 2018 recognised the need for diversity of approaches and acknowledgement of diverse environments. The Committee “supported the Ten Elements of Agroecology, as presented by FAO, as a guide to one of the ways to promote sustainable agriculture and food systems, as benefits each country’s national context, and requested FAO to further revise them to reflect the discussions of this session.” (op cit.)

Instead of taking an approach that focuses mainly on application rates without taking into account regional differences in soil health, water availability and climatic conditions, Fertilizer Best Management Practices (BMPs) may be considered as a key criteria for agroecological practices: they are designed to match nutrient supply with soil and crop requirements to optimize the nutrient uptake by the plant and minimize losses to the environment.

BMPs are also applicable and even recommended for organic nutrient sources. They represent an approach that is consistent with agroecology elements, as they contribute to increased productivity, improved farmers’ income and enhanced food security, while reducing environmental impacts. In addition, by including the concept of Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM) into agroecological practices allows complementing available organic nutrient sources available on the farm with mineral fertilizers as necessary to achieve desired yields and restore soil fertility, when soil testing shows low available nutrient levels. Scientific studies have proven IPNM to be the best solution for improving crop productivity and carbon sequestration in soils. (Chivenge P, Vanlauwe B, Six J. 2011. “Does the combined application of organic and mineral nutrient sources influence maize productivity?”)

Storage Technologies

Denning et al, 200933, point out that post-harvest pests such as the larger grain borer can undo benefits of crop yield enhancement in countries like Malawi. “There are no reliable national estimates of the losses caused by this pest. Without chemical treatment, household losses of 40% to 100% have been reported.”

33 Denning G, Kabambe P, Sanchez P, Malik A, Flor R, Harawa R, et al. (2009) Input Subsidies to Improve Smallholder Maize Productivity in Malawi: Toward an African Green Revolution. PLoS Biol 7(1): e1000023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000023

20

Tefera et al34 describe a metal grain bin technology that has shown considerable benefit for farmers. They observe that, “Secure post-harvest storage powers smallholder farmers. Post-harvest storage facilities not only off the opportunity to smooth hunger between stable crops harvest but also farmers are able to improve farm incomes by storing crops and selling it at premium prices when demand outstrips supply later in the postharvest period. As quality is an important determination of crop retail prices, effective storage is crucial to improve agricultural incomes and food security for smallholder farmers… Metal silo has improved the status and self-esteem of women farmers; this is because women farmer are the ones who manage metal silo content.”

Comments on report sections

Ch 2: Innovation for sustainable food systems

Page 43 lines 47 and 48: “Conservation agriculture has a long history of application, particularly in Latin America, while 48 sustainable intensification and ecological intensification are newer concepts”

Conservation agriculture is also widely practiced in North America and Australia, and certainly has been practiced in these regions as long as in South America.

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/20902500/DavidHuggins/NoTill.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919206000224 http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2058820/1/NAARM 89.pdf -

page=746

Page 45: lines 33-35: “Organic agriculture is based on principles and management practices that do not have adverse effects on the environment, such as: improved and/or decreased fertilization to lower nutrient losses;”

Organic fertilizers can actually lead to higher movement of nutrients into the ground or surface waters, because they continue to mineralize during times of year when the crop is not as actively taking up the nutrients. Please see:

Pang and Letey 2000 Dahan et al

34 Tefera, Tadele & Kanampiu, Fred & De Groote, Hugo & Hellin, Jon & Mugo, Stephen & Kimenju, Simon & Beyene, Yoseph & M. Boddupalli, Prasanna & Shiferaw, Bekele & Banziger, Marianne. (2011). The metal silo: an effective grain storage technology for reducing post-harvest insect and pathogen losses in maize while improving smallholder farmers' food security in developing countries. Crop Protection. Crop Protection. 30. 240-245. 10.1016/j.cropro.2010.11.015.

21

Page 45 lines 40-50. “There is still much debate about whether organic agriculture can produce sufficient food to feed the increasing world population that might require more land than with conventional agriculture (de Ponti et al., 2012, Muller et al., 2017). Other systematic reviews found in average 8–25 percent lower yield in organic compared to conventional systems (Pension et al., 2015; Reganold and Wachter, 2016). More importantly, Ponisio et al. (2015) found entirely different effects of crop types and management practices related to the yield gap compared with previous studies. For example, they found no significant differences in yields for leguminous versus non-leguminous crops, perennials versus annuals or developed versus developing countries. Instead, two agricultural diversification practices, multi-cropping and crop rotations, substantially reduce the yield gap (to 9 ± 4 percent and 8 ± 5 percent, respectively) when the methods were applied in only organic systems.”

Academic organic/conventional yield comparisons are subject to the criticism that they don’t accurately reflect the optimal or typical version of either system. A yield analysis based on a large body of real-world commercial crop yield data compiled by the US Department of Agriculture suggests that the typical “yield gap” of organic is around 20% with some crops showing dramatically larger gaps: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161673

Page 46 lines 1-4: “The main opportunities of organic farming in developing countries includes 2 environmental benefits that improve soil and plant health and biodiversity conservation and reduce 3 energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions”

In fact, the production of composts, which is common in organic farming, leads to very significant greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.

References on GHG emissions during composting:

Hao, X., Chang, C., Larney, J., Travis, G. 2001  Greenhouse gas emissions during cattle feedlot manure composting. Journal of Environmental Quality 30:376-386

Osada, T., Kuroda, K., Yonaga, M. 2000   Determination of nitrous oxide, methane, and ammonia emissions from swine waste composting process. Journal of material cycles and waste management 1:51-56

Hellebrand, H.1998 Emission of nitrous oxide and other trace gases during composting of grass and green waste. Agric. Engng Res. 69:365-375

Sommer, S., Holler, H.2000 Emission of greenhouse gases during composting of deep litter from pig production – effect of straw content. The Journal of Agricultural Science 134_327-335

Hao, X., Chang, C., Larney, F. 2004 Carbon, nitrogen balances and greenhouse gas emission during cattle feedlot manure composting. Journal of Environmental Quality 33:37-44

Jackel, U., Thummes, K, Kampfer, P. 2005 Thermophilic methane production and oxidation in compost. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 52:175-184. (looking for microbes which might help reduce the methane emissions from composting)

22

Hellmann, B., Zelles, L., Palojarvi,A, Bai, Q. 1997 Emission of climate-relevant trace gases and succession of microbial communities during open-windrow composting. Applied and Environmental Microbiol 63:1011-1018

Page 46: “The health benefit of organic farming relates to the reduction of toxic chemicals and nitrate in the food supply (Lairon, 2010) and also reduces these health hazards to farmers and their families. Studies have found that organic foods have significantly lower levels of pesticide residues compared to conventionally-produced foods, and that children who consume organically produced foods have lower levels of organophosphate pesticide metabolites in their urine (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). The American Academy of Pediatrics (2012) reports that an organic diet reduces children’s exposure to pesticides. The ban of the many plant protection chemicals like pesticides, including herbicides, is a one of the consistent approaches of organic farming that rely on preventive and ecological measures to regulate pests and diseases in crops and livestock.”

A major meta-analysis of the data carried out by Stanford University faculty found no real evidence of health benefits from an “organic diet.” https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html

Also, publicly available data from the USDA Pesticide Detection Program documents the fact that “synthetic pesticide residues” are often detected on organic products at concentrations very similar to those on “conventional” options. https://www.agweb.com/article/forbes-pesticides-are-on-organics-and-that-is-ok-naa-christopher-walljasper/. In fact, for the US food supply pesticide residues on either organic or conventional are not considered to be dangerous. A study from Canada also demonstrated this issue: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pesticide-residue-found-on-nearly-half-of-organic-produce-1.2487712

Also, there are many pesticides allowed for use in organic production under certifying agencies in various countries. https://www.omri.org/omri-lists

The criteria for what pesticides are allowed in organic is not based on any toxicological information, only their committee designation as “natural.” For instance, copper sulfate – an old but still useful fungicide qualifies as “natural” for use in organic but is not without risk to humans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6535851?dopt=Abstract

There is also an issue of fraud when it comes to the marketing of organic products, particularly those imported to rich world nations like the US or Canada:

https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/12/usdas-organic-enforcement- efforts-find-fraudulent-certificates/ - disqus_thread

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-labels-said- organic-but-these-massive-imports-of-corn-and-soybeans-werent/

23

2017/05/12/6d165984-2b76-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_term=.cf206f904ff4&wpisrc=nl_draw&wpmm=1

Even organizations supportive of organic have made this criticism about fraud issues: https://www.wisfarmer.com/story/opinion/2016/10/18/5000-organic-stakeholders-calling-new-management-usda-national-organic-program/92366306/

24

HLPE REPORT

Agroecology and Other Innovations for Food Security and Nutrition

Additional Technical Papers and References submitted by PSM

25

Annex 1

CHAPTER I: Agricultural Production

CHAPTER II: Soil Health, Manure & Pest Management

CHAPTER III: Technology Adoption

CHAPTER IV: Livestock

26

CHAPTER I

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

REFERENCE NO. 1Balafoutis, A.; Beck, B.; Fountas, S.; Vangeyte, J.; Wal, T.; Soto, I.; Gómez-Barbero, M.; Barnes, A.; Eory, V. Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1339.Link: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081339Keywords: Resource use efficiency, Improved footprint of agriculture, Reducing external inputs, Diversification, Soil health, Water efficiency.Summary: Precision agriculture practices using high-tech equipment has the ability to reduce agricultural inputs by site-specific applications, as it better target inputs to spatial and temporal needs of the fields, which can result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Precision agriculture can also have a positive impact on farm productivity and economics, as it provides higher or equal yields with lower production cost than conventional practices. In this work, precision agriculture technologies that have the potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are presented providing a short description of the technology and the impacts that have been reported in literature on greenhouse gases reduction and the associated impacts on farm productivity and economics. The technologies presented span all agricultural practices, including variable rate sowing/planting, fertilizing, spraying, weeding and irrigation.

REFERENCE NO. 2Vanlauwe, B., Descheemaeker, K. K. E., Giller, K. E., Huising, J., Merckx, R., Nziguheba, G., ... & Zingore, S. (2014). Integrated soil fertility management in sub- Saharan Africa: unravelling local adaptation. Soil, 1(2014), 1239-1286.Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/soild-1-1239-2014Keywords: Resource use efficiency, Improved footprint of agriculture, Reducing external inputs, Diversification, Soil health, Water efficiency, Integrated.Summary: Intensification of smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa is necessary to address rural poverty and natural resource degradation. Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) is a means to enhance crop productivity while maximizing the agronomic efficiency (AE) of applied inputs, and can thus contribute to sustainable intensification. In this paper the “local adaptation” component of ISFM is discussed and how this can be conceptualized within an ISFM framework, backstopped by analysis of AE at plot and farm level. At plot level, a set of four constraints to maximum AE is discussed in relation to “local adaptation”: soil acidity, secondary nutrient and micronutrient (SMN) deficiencies, physical constraints, and drought stress. In each of these cases, examples are presented whereby amendments and/or practices addressing these have a significantly positive impact on fertilizer AE, including

27

mechanistic principles underlying these effects. While the impact of such amendments and/or practices is easily understood for some practices (e.g. the application of SMNs where these are limiting), for others, more complex processes influence AE (e.g. water harvesting under varying rainfall conditions).

REFERENCE NO. 3José M. Soriano-Disla, Les J. Janik, Raphael A. Viscarra Rossel, Lynne M. Macdonald & Michael J. McLaughlin (2014) The Performance of Visible, Near-, and Mid- Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy for Prediction of Soil Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties, Applied Spectroscopy Reviews, 49:2, 139-186,Link: 10.1080/05704928.2013.811081Keywords: Digital agriculture, Precision agriculture, Resource use efficiency, Improved footprint of agriculture, Reducing external inputs, Diversification, Soil health, Water efficiencySummary: This article addresses the applicability of visible (Vis), near-infrared (NIR), and mid-infrared (MIR) reflectance spectroscopy for the prediction of soil properties. This article found the following soil properties to be successfully predicted: soil water content, texture, soil carbon (C), cation exchange capacity, calcium and magnesium (exchangeable), total nitrogen (N), pH, concentration of metals/metalloids, microbial size, and activity. Generally, MIR produced better predictions than Vis-NIR, but Vis- NIR outperformed MIR for a number of properties (e.g., biological). An advantage of Vis-NIR is instrument portability although a new range of MIR portable devices is becoming available. In-field predictions for clay, water, total organic C, extractable phosphorus, total C and N appear similar to laboratory methods, but there are issues regarding, for example, sample heterogeneity, moisture content, and surface roughness. The nature of the variable being predicted, the quality and consistency of the reference laboratory methods, and the adequate representation of unknowns by the calibration set must be considered when predicting soil properties using reflectance spectroscopy.

REFERENCE NO. 4K. WIGLEY, J.L. OWENS, J.A.K. TRETHEWAY, D.C. EKANAYAKE, R.L. ROTEN andA. WERNER, 2017, Optical sensors for variable rate nitrogen application in dairy pastures, New Zealand Grassland Association,Link: https://hdl.handle.net/10182/9431Keywords: Digital agriculture, Precision agriculture, Resource use efficiency, Improved footprint of agriculture, Reducing external inputs, Diversification, Soil health, Water efficiencySummary: Reducing the amount of nitrogen (N) fertiliser applied to dairy pastures down to agronomically optimised levels would have positive economic and environmental results. The ability of commercially available optical sensors to estimate biomass yield and foliar-N uptake in pastures was investigated. Vegetative indices (Simple Ratio, SR; Water Index, WI; and Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, NDVI) from two active optical reflectance sensors (N-Sensor, Yara; and Greenseeker,

28

Trimble) were compared with manually measured biomass and N-uptake in above- ground foliage. There were three measurements over time, from pastures that had received different N fertiliser applications rates (0, 10, 20, 40 and 80 kg N/ha). It was found that the sensors were able to detect differences in biomass and foliar N-uptake following defoliation of grazed pastures. The tested optical sensors have the potential to inform a real-time variable rate fertiliser application system.

29

CHAPTER II

SOIL HEALTH, MANURE & PEST MANAGEMENT

REFERENCE NO. 1Xia L., Lam S.K., Yan X., and Chen D. 2017. How does recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems affect crop productivity, reactive nitrogen losses, and soil carbon balance? Environmental Science and Technology 51:7450-7457.Link: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b06470Keywords: Soil health, manure, agroecosystems, crop productivitySummary: The application of manure to cropping systems increased microbial population and its activity (e.g. fluorescein diacetate activity, dehydrogenase activity etc.) due to addition of organic carbon and nutrient input in the soil.Abstract: Recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems to partially substitute synthetic fertilizer nitrogen (N) input is recommended to alleviate the environmental degradation associated with synthetic N fertilization, which may also affect food security and soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, how substituting livestock manure for synthetic N fertilizer affects crop productivity (crop yield; crop N uptake; N use efficiency), reactive N (Nr) losses (ammonia (NH3) emission, N leaching and runoff), GHG (methane, CH4; and nitrous oxide, N2O; carbon dioxide) emissions and soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration in agroecosystems is not well understood. We conducted a global meta-analysis of 141 studies and found that substituting livestock manure for synthetic N fertilizer (with equivalent N rate) significantly increased crop yield by 4.4% and significantly decreased Nr losses via NH3 emission by 26.8%, N leaching by 28.9% and N runoff by 26.2%. Moreover, annual SOC sequestration was significantly increased by 699.6 and 401.4 kg C ha–1 yr–1 in upland and paddy fields, respectively; CH4 emission from paddy field was significantly increased by 41.2%, but no significant change of that was observed from upland field; N2O emission was not significantly affected by manure substitution in upland or paddy fields. In terms of net soil carbon balance, substituting manure for fertilizer increased carbon sink in upland field, but increased carbon source in paddy field. These results suggest that recycling of livestock manure in agroecosystems improves crop productivity, reduces Nr pollution and increases SOC storage. To attenuate the enhanced carbon source in paddy field, appropriate livestock manure management practices should be adopted.

REFERENCE NO. 2Darby, H.M., Stone, A.G., Dick, R.P. 2006. Compost and manure mediated impacts on soil-borne pathogens and soil quality. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 70, 347-358.

30

Link: https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/70/2/347

Keywords: Soil health, manure

Summary: The application of dairy manure solids and composted dairy manure increased the microbial activity and microbial biomass carbon in two crop growing seasons (sweet corn and snap bean crop sequence)Abstract: Root rots of snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and sweet corn (Zea mays L.) cause economic losses to farmers. This study was conducted to determine whether dairy manure amendments suppressed root diseases and to describe relationships between disease severity and soil characteristics. Field plots were amended with high or low rates of fresh or composted dairy manure solids in 2001 and 2002. Soils were collected at 2 and 12 mo after the first amendment and 2 and 6 mo after the second amendment. Greenhouse bioassays were conducted to assess severity of damping- off (DO) of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and root rots of bean and corn. Soils were analyzed for soil free (fPOM) and occluded (oPOM) particulate organic matter content, rate of hydrolysis of fluorescein diacetate (FDA), arylsulfatase activity, microbial biomass C, and water-stable aggregation (WSA). Two months after amendment, all amendments (except the low rate of manure) reduced the severity of DO 30%, bean root rot 29%, and corn root rot 67%. Twelve months after amendment, amended soils were no longer suppressive. All amendments were suppressive after re-amendment the following year and no longer suppressive 6 mo later. In Year 1, significant suppression was observed across all diseases when fPOM content was ≥12.1 g cm−3, FDA activity was ≥2.88 μg FDA min−1 g−1 dry wt, and microbial biomass was ≥91.6 μg C g−1 dry wt, and these levels were proposed as suppressive thresholds. Only the FDA threshold held up over all sampling times.

REFERENCE NO. 3Edmeades, D.C. 2003.The long-term effects of manures and fertilizers on soil productivity and quality: a review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 66(2), 165-180

Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023999816690

Keywords: Soil health, manure, soil productivity, soil quality

Summary: Based on published peer-reviewed literature, there has been a consistent positive impact was demonstrated by manure as soil amendment on soil health by improving several soil physical properties.

Abstract: The results from 14 field trials comparing the long-term (20 to 120 years) effects of fertilisers and manures (farmyard manure, slurry, and green manure) on crop production and soil properties are reviewed. In total there were 24 paired comparisons of the effects of manure and fertiliser. Some of the trials also contained a control (no nutrient inputs) treatment. The input of nutrients as either fertilisers or manures had very large effects (150–1000%) on soil productivity as measured by crop yields.

31

Manured soils had higher contents of organic matter and numbers of micro fauna than fertilised soils, and were more enriched in P, K, Ca and Mg in topsoils and nitrate N, Ca and Mg in subsoils. Manured soils also had lower bulk density and higher porosity, hydraulic conductivity and aggregate stability, relative to fertilised soils. However, there was no significant difference (P < 0.05) between fertilisers and manures in their long-term effects on crop production. In the context of this set of international trials, the recent evidence from the Roth Amsted classical long-term trials appears to be exceptional, due to the larger inputs of manures and larger accumulation of soil OM in these trials. It is suggested therefore that manures may only have a benefit on soil productivity, over and above their nutrient content, when large inputs are applied over many years. The evidence from these trials also shows that, because the ratio of nutrients in manures is different from the ratio of nutrients removed by common crops, excessive accumulation of some nutrients, and particularly P and N, can arise from the long-term use of manures, relative to the use of fertilisers. Under these conditions greater runoff of P, and leaching of N may result, and for soils with low P retention and/or in situations where organic P is leached, greater P leaching losses may occur. The use of manures, relative to fertilisers, may also contribute to poor water quality by increasing its chemical oxygen demand. It is concluded therefore that it cannot generally be assumed that the long-term use of manures will enhance soil quality – defined in terms of productivity and potential to adversely affect water quality – in the long term, relative to applying the same amounts of nutrients as fertiliser.

REFERENCE NO. 4Watts, D.B., Torbert, H.A., Feng, Y., Prior S.A. 2010. Soil microbial community dynamics as influenced by composted dairy manure, soil properties, and landscape position. Soil Science. 175(10). 474-486.

Link: https://journals.lww.com/soilsci/Abstract/2010/10000/Soil_Microbial_Community_Dyn amics_as_Influenced_by.3.aspx

Keywords: Soil health, dairy manure, soil microbes

Summary: This analysis indicated that a shift in microbial community structure occurred between season, manure application, and landscape position. Findings from this study suggest that changes in soil variability from landscape positions and season can impact the growth and dynamics of the microbial community when manure is applied to agricultural fields.Abstract: Manure applications can benefit crop productivity by adding required nutrients and organic matter to soil. There is a paucity of information on how soil microbial community dynamics will be altered by the application of manure to different landscape positions. Thus, an in-situ field study was conducted during the summer and winter months to evaluate microbiological properties of three soil types that have evolved because of different landscape positions in an agricultural field. The three Coastal Plain soils investigated were Bama (sandy loam), Lynchburg (loam), and Goldsboro (loam) representing the landscape position of a summit, drainageway, and

32

side slope, respectively. Composted dairy manure was incorporated into in situ soil cores at a rate of 350 kg N ha−1 and compared with unamended controls. Soil microbial biomass N and dehydrogenase enzyme activity were determined to evaluate changes in the microbial biomass size and activity, whereas phospholipid fatty acid analysis was used as an indicator of the microbial community structure. Addition of composted dairy manure increased microbial activity and N immobilization, representing a shift in microbial response resulting from changes in substrate availability. This was most evident during summer months, with the composted dairy manure increasing dehydrogenase enzyme activity 21% and microbial activity 20% compared with without manure, suggesting that seasonal timing of application will influence microbial activity. Microbial properties were also impacted by landscape position. The drainageway landscape position soil, a loam, had the highest microbial biomass and microbial activity. Changes in microbial community structure using phospholipid fatty acid profiles were evaluated with canonical discriminate analysis. This analysis indicated that a shift in microbial community structure occurred between season, manure application, and landscape position. Findings from this study suggest that changes in soil variability from landscape positions and season can impact the growth and dynamics of the microbial community when manure is applied to agricultural fields.REFERENCE NO. 5Wortmann, C.S., Shapiro, C.A., 2007. The effect of manure application on soil aggregation. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem DOI:10.1007/s10705-007-9130-6

Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10705-007-9130-6

Keywords: Soil health, manure application, nutrient cycling, soil aggregation

Summary: Manure application often results in increased soil aggregate stability with reduced runoff and erosion and, therefore, reduced P transport potential.Abstract: Surface application of manure may increase the risk of phosphorus loss in runoff. Manure application, however, often results in increased soil aggregate stability with reduced runoff and erosion and, therefore, reduced P transport potential. Three field studies were conducted with silt loam or silty clay loam soil in Nebraska to determine how water-stable soil aggregation in the 0- to 25-mm soil depth is affected:(1) by application of raw or composted feedlot manure; (2) by repeated annual manure application; and (3) by the residual effect of composted manure applied five to seven years before sampling. Large macro-aggregates (>2 mm) were increased 200% or more by both manure and compost application within 15 days after application; the effect persisted for the seven months of study with a greater effect due to compost application. Aggregate stability was similar for incorporation and no incorporation of the applied compost or manure. Bray-P1 in large macro-aggregates was 200% more than for the whole soil sample with manure or compost applied, but Bray-P1 in large macro-aggregates was similar to the whole sample in the control. Annual application of swine slurry for several years resulted in a 20% increase in aggregates >250 mm. After four years of no compost following three years of compost application, aggregate size distribution was similar for the compost- compared to the no-compost-applied

33

treatments. Increased macro-aggregate formation and high Bray-P1 in these aggregates may protect against P loss in runoff due to reduced runoff and erosion and protection of P in water-stable large macro-aggregates.

REFERENCE NO. 6Wortmann, C.S., Walters, D.T., 2007. Residual effects of compost and plowing on phosphorus and sediment in runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 36, 1521-1527

Link: https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/36/5/1521

Keywords: Soil health, runoff, sediment, phosphorusSummary: The application of additional compost after plowing increased surface soil P and dissolved reactive P (DRP) in runoff but did not increase particulate P in runoff. Unplowed compost-amended soil continued to reduce sediment loss but exhibited increased DRP loss even 5 yr after the last application. Plowing to invert excessively high-P surface soil was effective in reducing runoff and DRP loss.Abstract: Manure application can lead to excessive soil test P levels in surface soil, which can contribute to increased P concentration in runoff. However, manure application often results in reduced runoff and sediment loss. Research was conducted to determine the residual effects of previously applied compost, ploughing of soil with excessive soil test P, and application of additional compost after ploughing on volume of runoff and loss of sediment and P in runoff. The research was conducted in 2004 and 2005 under natural rainfall events with plots of 11-m length where low-P and high-P compost had been applied during April 1998 to January 2001. During this initial application period, Bray-P1 in the surface 5-cm of depth was increased from 14to 553 mg k for the high-P compost. Inversion ploughing in the spring of 2004greatly decreased P levels in the surface soil and over the following year reduced runoff by 35% and total P losses by 51% compared with the unploughed compost treatments. Sediment loss was increased with ploughing compared with the unploughed compost applied treatments but less than with the no-compost treatment. The application of additional compost after ploughing increased surface soil P and dissolved reactive P (DRP) in runoff but did not increase particulate P in runoff. Unploughed compost-amended soil continued to reduce sediment loss but exhibited increased DRP loss even 5 yr. after the last application. Ploughing to invert excessively high-P surface soil was effective in reducing runoff and DRP loss.

REFERENCE NO. 7Jokela, W. E., J. H. Grabber, D. L. Karlen, T. C. Balser, and D. E. Palmquist. 2009. Cover crop and liquid manure effects on soil quality indicators in a corn silage system. Agron. J. 101:727–737.

Link: https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/aj/abstracts/101/4/727

Keywords: Intercropping, cover cropping, manure application,

34

Summary: Silage production is one of the most demanding cropping systems imposed on our soil resources. In this study, our objective was to determine if using cover/companion crops and/or applying low-solids liquid dairy manure could improve physical, chemical, and biological soil properties and overall soil quality. Manure and starter fertilizer additions resulted in significant cover/companion crop treatment effects on extractable P and K.Abstract: Due to a lack of surface residue and organic matter inputs, continuous corn (Zea mays L.) silage production is one of the most demanding cropping systems imposed on our soil resources. In this study, our objective was to determine if using cover/companion crops and/or applying low-solids liquid dairy manure could improve physical, chemical, and biological soil properties and overall soil quality. Corn was grown for 4 yrs. on a Bertrand silt loam in rotation with a living mulch of kura clover (KC, Trifolium ambiguum L.) or June-interseeded red clover (Trifolium pratese L.), and continuously with June-interseeded Italian ryegrass (IR, Lolium multiflorum L.), September-seeded winter rye (Secale cereale L.), or no cover crop. Extractable P and K, pH, soil organic matter (SOM), active C, water-stable aggregates, bulk density, penetrometer resistance, and microbial biomass/diversity were measured, and the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) soil quality index (SQI) wasdetermined. Cover/companion crop treatments generally had more largemacroaggregates, greater aggregate mean-weight diameter, and larger quantities of total microbial biomass and most lipid/microbial groups than no-cover treatments.Manure and starter fertilizer additions resulted in significant cover/companion crop treatment effects on extractable P and K. Liquid dairy manure alone did not improve any soil quality indicators. Although soil quality benefits of cover crops and manure are typically attributed to additions of organic C, we found no significant treatment effects on SOM content. However, the active, or labile, C fraction, was significantly increased by cover crops and showed good relationships with aggregate stability and microbial biomass. Overall, use of cover/companion crops appears beneficial for corn silage systems, but it may take more than 4 yr for some soil quality indicators to fully respond.

REFERENCE NO. 8Grabber, J. H., W. E. Jokela, and J. G. Lauer. 2014. Soil nitrogen and forage yields of corn grown with clover or grass companion crops and manure. Agron. J. 106:952– 961.

https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/aj/abstracts/106/3/952

Keywords: Intercropping,Summary: Applying fall manure to ryegrass and spring manure to rye maximized silage yields of continuous corn, but manure application time had no other effect on forage yields or on soil N. Overall, no system excelled in all characteristics, thus selection of companion crop and manure management systems for silage corn will

35

depend on feed production and environmental goals.

Abstract: Few studies have compared the agronomic performance of cover crop and living mulch systems for no-till silage corn (Zea mays L.). In a 4-yr Wisconsin study, we evaluated soil N levels and forage yields from manured rotations of corn grown with kura clover (Trifolium ambiguum M. Bieb.) living mulch or interseeded red clover (T. pratense L.) followed by a year of clover production and from manured continuous corn grown with interseeded Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), fall-seeded winter rye (Secale cereale L.), or no companion. Companion crops influenced spring and fall nitrate concentrations near the soil surface but had little effect on total residual fall nitrate to a 1.2-m depth. Residual nitrate was not related to N balance (inputs minus outputs), but excessive N inputs into corn–clover systems accumulated as organic soilN. Averaged across both phases of the rotation, corn–clover systems provided 0 to 23% less dry matter yield, but 26 to 60% more crude protein yield than continuous corn systems, with corn–red clover often producing the highest silage corn and clover yields. Kura clover provided superior ground cover and nitrate uptake, but it often excessively competed with corn and had low forage yields. Applying fall manure to ryegrass and spring manure to rye maximized silage yields of continuous corn, but manure application time had no other effect on forage yields or on soil N. Overall, no system excelled in all characteristics, thus selection of companion crop and manuremanagement systems environmental goals.

for silage corn will depend on feed production and

36

CHAPTER III

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

REFERENCE NO. 1

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2016.Link: http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/17/report/Summary: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine extensively studied both positive and negative claims/evidence put forth on the impact of genetically engineered crops, as well as the role new technologies in crop improvement. The study concluded that farmers have generally benefitted from the adoption of GM technology, but that the results are not heterogenous and depend on various factors, such as pest abundance, farm infrastructure and agronomic practices. Key findings: GE crops generally increased yield, and insect-resistance traits (BT) decreased the use of insecticides (compared to non-BT varieties); GE crops resulted in higher or equivalent insect and weed biodiversity; no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops are less safe than foods from non-GE crops; and GE crops is a tool to addressing the wide variety of complex challenges farmers face.REFERENCE NO. 2J. M. Holland, “The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence,” Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 1–25, Jun. 2004.

Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880904000593Keywords: Soil, Pesticides, Integrated farming, Pollution, Water, EuropeSummary: Study Abstract: “Conservation tillage (CT) is practised on 45 million ha world-wide, predominantly in North and South America but its uptake is also increasing in South Africa, Australia and other semi-arid areas of the world. It is primarily used as a means to protect soils from erosion and compaction, to conserve moisture and reduce production costs. In Europe, the area cultivated using minimum tillage is increasing primarily in an effort to reduce production costs, but also as a way of preventing soil erosion and retain soil moisture. A large proportion (16%) of Europe’s cultivated land is also prone to soil degradation but farmers and governments are being slow to recognise and address the problem, despite the widespread environmental problems that can occur when soils become degraded. Conservation tillage can improve soil structure and stability thereby facilitating better drainage and water holding capacity that reduces the extremes of water logging and drought. These improvements to soil structure also reduce the risk of runoff and pollution of surface waters with sediment, pesticides and nutrients. Reducing the intensity of soil

37

cultivation lowers energy consumption and the emission of carbon dioxide, while carbon sequestration is raised though the increase in soil organic matter (SOM). Under conservation tillage, a richer soil biota develops that can improve nutrient recycling and this may also help combat crop pests and diseases. The greater availability of crop residues and weed seeds improves food supplies for insects, birds and small mammals. All these aspects are reviewed but detailed information on the environmental benefits of conservation tillage is sparse and disparate from European studies. No detailed studies have been conducted at the catchment scale in Europe, therefore some findings must be treated with caution until they can be verified at a larger scale and for a greater range of climatic, cropping and soil conditions.”

REFERENCE NO. 3Awada, Gray & Nagy, The benefits and costs of zero tillage RD&E on the Canadian Prairies, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (2016) 417- 438

Keywords: zero tillage, conservation tillage

Abstract: “The development and adoption of zero tillage has profoundly transformed cropping systems in Western Canada. In this paper, we describe key drivers and aspects of this innovation process and quantify the overall economic impacts of adoption and the benefit cost of research development and extension, which accelerated the adoption. Estimating on‐site and off‐site benefits we find very high benefit–cost ratios, suggesting a need to maintain institutions that can foster the development of similar innovations.”

REFERENCE NO. 4Mahaffey, Taheripour & Tyner, Evaluating the Economic and Environmental Impacts of a Global GMO Ban, Journal of Environmental Protection, 7, 1522- 1546

Link: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=71584

Keywords: GMO Crops, Productivity, Computable General Equilibrium, Economic Impacts, Land Use Change, Land Use Emissions

Abstract: “The objective of this research is to assess the global economic and greenhouse gas emission impacts of GMO crops. This is done by modelling two counterfactual scenarios and evaluating them apart and in combination. The first scenario models the impact of a global GMO ban. The second scenario models the impact of increased GMO penetration. The focus is on the price and welfare impacts, and land use change greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with GMO technologies. Much of the prior work on the economic impacts of GMO technology has relied on a combination of partial equilibrium analysis and econometric techniques.

38

However, Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) modelling is a way of analyzing economy-wide impacts that takes into account the linkages in the global economy. Though it has been used in the context of GMO crops, the focus has been on the effects of various trade policies and regulatory regimes. Here the goal is to contribute to the literature on the benefits of GMO technology by estimating the impacts on price, supply and welfare. Food price impacts range from an increase of 0.27% to 2.2%, depending on the region. Total welfare losses associated with loss of GMO technology total up to $9.75 billion. The loss of GMO traits as an intensification technology has not only economic impacts, but also environmental ones. The full environmental analysis of GMO is not undertaken here. Rather we model the land use change owing to the loss of GMO traits and calculate the associated increase in GHG emissions. We predict a substantial increase in GHG emissions if GMO technology is banned.”

REFERENCE NO. 5G. Brookes and P. Barfoot, “Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions,” GM Crops & Food, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 117–147, Oct. 2017.

Link: https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490

Keywords: GMO, pesticide, active ingredient, environmental impact quotient, carbon sequestration, biotech crops, no tillage

Abstract: “This paper updates previous assessments of important environmental impacts association with using crop biotechnology in global agriculture. It focuses on the environmental impacts associated with changes in pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use of GM crops since their first widespread commercial use in the mid-1990s. The adoption of GM insect resistant and herbicide tolerant technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 618.7 million kg (--8.1%) and, as a result, decreased the environmental impact, associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops (As measures by the indicator, the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)) by 18.6%. The technology has facilitated important cuts in fuel use ad tillage changes, resulting in a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from the GM cropping area. In 2015, this was equivalent to removing11.9 million cars from the roads.

REFERENCE NO. 6G. Brookes and P. Barfoot, “Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2013,” GM Crops & Food, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 13–46, Jan. 2015. Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21645698.2015.1022310 Keywords: cost, genetically modified crops, income, production, yield.

39

Abstract: “This paper provides an economic assessment of the value of using genetically modified (GM) crop technology in agriculture at the farm level. It follows and updates earlier annual studies which examined economic impacts on yields, key costs of production, direct farm income and effects, and impacts on the production base of the 4 main crops of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. The commercialisation of GM crops has continued to occur at a rapid rate since the mid 1990s, with important changes in both the overall level of adoption and impact occurring in 2013. This annual updated analysis shows that there continues to be very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $20.5 billion in 2013 and $133.4 billion for the 18 years period (in nominal terms). These economic gains have been divided roughly 50% each to farmers in developed and developing countries. About 70% of the gains have derived from yield and production gains with the remaining 30% coming from cost savings. The technology has also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the 4 main crops, having added 138 million tonnes and 273 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid 1990s.”

40

CHAPTER IV

LIVESTOCK

REFERENCE NO. 1Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century

Link: https:// www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/prospects-from-agroecology-and- industrial-ecology-for-animal-production-in-the-21st- century/DCBB7FA62C75F5A920E098B9289F57E9

Summary: Agroecology and industrial ecology can be viewed as complementary means for reducing the environmental footprint of animal farming systems: agroecology mainly by stimulating natural processes to reduce inputs, and industrial ecology by closing system loops, thereby reducing demand for raw materials, lowering pollution and saving on waste treatment. Surprisingly, animal farming systems have so far been ignored in most agroecological thinking. We identified the key ecological processes to be optimized, we propose five principles for the design of sustainable animal production systems: (i) adopting management practices aiming to improve animal health, (ii) decreasing the inputs needed for production, (iii) decreasing pollution by optimizing the metabolic functioning of farming systems, (iv) enhancing diversity within animal production systems to strengthen their resilience and (v) preserving biological diversity in agroecosystems by adapting management practices. We then discuss how these different principles combine to generate environmental, social and economic performance in six animal production systems (ruminants, pigs, rabbits and aquaculture) covering a long gradient of intensification. The two principles concerning economy of inputs and reduction of pollution emerged in nearly all the case studies, a finding that can be explained by the economic and regulatory constraints affecting animal production

REFERENCE NO. 2Agroecology for producing goods and services in sustainable animal farming systemsLink: https:// www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/editorial-agroecology- for-producing-goods-and-services-in-sustainable-animal-farming- systems/AA8C96960142968B1213DD5E23614848

Summary: Animal production systems have indisputable negative impacts on the environment, but as underlined by Gliessman (2006) the problem lies not so much with the animals themselves or their use as food, but with the ways animals are incorporated in agroecosystems and food systems. Animal agriculture needs to be reconfigured to minimize its negative impacts, produce food and other ecosystem services and increase their adaptive capacity to face an increasingly uncertain future

41

(markets, climate change, demands for food security, shifts in dietary preferences in the developing world). The integration of animals in an agroecosystem can often make the difference in realizing long-term ecological sustainability and socio-economic viability goals. To extend ecological thinking into animal production systems, Dumont et al. (2013) recently proposed five principles based on the identification of key ecological processes that need to be optimized: (i) adopt management practices aiming to improve animal health, (ii) decrease the inputs needed for production, (iii) decrease pollution by optimizing the metabolic functioning of farming systems, (iv) enhance diversity within animal production systems to strengthen their resilience and(v) preserve biological diversity in agroecosystems by adapting management practices.

REFERENCE NO. 3Farming system design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe

Link: https:// www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/farming-system-design- for-innovative-croplivestock-integration-in- europe/EEC041E424CA3DE946C812CD81461C5ASummary: The development of integrated crop–livestock systems (ICLS) is a major challenge for the ecological modernisation of agriculture but appears difficult to implement at a large scale. A participatory method for ICLS design has been developed and implemented in 15 case studies across Europe, representing a range of production systems, challenges, constraints and resources for innovation. Local stakeholders, primarily farmers, but also cooperatives, environmental-association representatives and natural-resource managers, were involved in the identification of challenges and existing initiatives of crop-livestock integration; in the design of new options at field, farm and territory levels; and then in qualitative multicriteria assessment of these options. A conceptual framework based on a conceptual model (crops, grasslands, animals) was developed to act as a boundary object in the design step and invite innovative thinking in ‘metabolic’ and ‘ecosystemic’ approaches. A diversity of crops and grasslands interacting with animals appeared central for designing sustainable farming systems at the territory level, providing and benefitting from ecosystem services.

REFERENCE NO. 4Intensification of cattle ranching production systems: socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in BrazilLink: https:// www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/intensification-of-cattle-ranching- production-systems-socioeconomic-and-environmental-synergies-and-risks-in- brazil/B64397C3A6B8E5B6875CB4224ACC29B4

Summary: Intensification of Brazilian cattle ranching systems has attracted both national and international attention due to its direct relation with Amazon deforestation on the one hand and increasing demand of the global population for meat on the other. Since Brazilian cattle ranching is predominantly pasture-based, we particularly focus on pasture management. We summarize the most recurrent opportunities and risks associated with pasture intensification

42

that are brought up within scientific and political dialogues, and discuss them within the Brazilian context. We argue that sustainable intensification of pasturelands in Brazil is a viable way to increase agricultural output while simultaneously sparing land for nature. Since environmental degradation is often associated with low-yield extensive systems in Brazil, it is possible to obtain higher yields, while reversing degradation, by adopting practices like rotational grazing, incorporation of legumes and integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems

REFERENCE NO. 5Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century

Link: https:// www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/forty-research-issues- for-the-redesign-of-animal-production-systems-in-the-21st- century/5540C4F9BB9C228A34D6ADAF049D4B35Summary: Agroecology offers a scientific and operational framework for redesigning animal production systems (APS) so that they better cope with the coming challenges. Grounded in the stimulation and valorisation of natural processes to reduce inputs and pollutions in agroecosystems, it opens a challenging research agenda for the animal science community. In this paper, we identify key research issues that define this agenda. We first stress the need to assess animal robustness by measurable traits, to analyse trade-offs between production and adaptation traits at within-breed and between-breed level, and to better understand how group selection, epigenetics and animal learning shape performance. Second, we propose research on the nutritive value of alternative feed resources, including the environmental impacts of producing these resources and their associated non-provisioning services. Third, we look at how the design of APS based on agroecological principles valorises interactions between system components and promotes biological diversity at multiple scales to increase system resilience.

REFERENCE NO. 6Learning from the future—A vision for dairy farms and cows in 2067 Link: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030218301814 Summary: Innovations in dairy facilities will improve the health of cows and permit expression of natural behaviours. Herds will be viewed as superorganisms, and studies of herds as observational units will lead to improvements in productivity, health, and well-being of dairy cattle, and improve the agroecology and sustainability of dairy farms. Dairy farmers in 2067 will meet the world's needs for essential nutrients by adopting technologies and practices that provide improved cow health and longevity, profitable dairy farms, and sustainable agriculture.

REFERENCE NO. 7Extended Lactation in Danish dairy production

43

Link:http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/101903718/PhD_Thesis_Jesper_Overg_rd_Lehma nn_April_2016.pdf

Summary: The positive economic effect was a result of a reduction in feed and labour costs as well as reduced veterinary, reproduction and mortality expenses. In conclusion, extended lactation has potential as a tool to improve herd efficiency and farm profitability, but the effect depends on the specific strategy, achieved milk yield persistency and the ability of the farmer to realise saved costs

REFERENCE NO. 8Green biomass - protein production through bio-refining

Link: http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/index.asp?action=show&id=1235Summary: The current protein supply to livestock production is a critical issue regarding sustainability. This report summarizes our present knowledge on the bio- technical as well as economic issues in relation to value creation of green biomass in Denmark through high value protein production. The report describes the availability and quality of relevant green biomass, the environmental impact related to the crop production, the mass balances in the bio-refining processes, the feeding value of the protein recovered as well as the remaining fibre-fraction, prospects of the recovered proteins for human food, and operational costs

REFERENCE NO. 9The economic effects of suckling and milk feeding to calves in dual purpose dairy and beef farming.Link: https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/303802940_The_economic_effects_of_suc kling_and_milk_feeding_to_calves_in_dual_purpose_dairy_and_beef_farming Summary: The study examines the economics of different calf rearing systems and considers effects of suckling and milk feeding on production, health and welfare of dairy cows and growth, milk and feed use, health and welfare of calves. Suckling up to at least 7 weeks and longer than on most farms in the survey, had a positive influence on the farm economics. This was due to the positive influence on calf growth and health as well as lowered costs. Consequently, dual purpose dairy-beef farmers should be careful to sacrifice calf suckling and restrict calf milk feeding.

REFERENCE NO. 10Livestock production challenges

Link: http://sasas.co.za/sites/sasas.co.za/files/ScholtzA44Issue5Suppl%201.pdfKeywords: Animal improvement; Animal products; Beef production; Breed resources;

44

Breeding objectives; Carbon footprint; Climate change; Climate variability; Composite dams; Cow efficiency; Crossbreeding systems; Food and nutrition; Green and blue water; Greenhouse gases; Human nutrition; Methane; Milk production; Production environment, strategy and systems; Temperature-humidity index; Terminal crossbreeding; Waste; Water usageSummary: Developing countries from the southern hemisphere (Southern Africa and Latin America) are confronted by the same livestock production challenges. Due to the similar geographical position there are many areas of similar concern regarding livestock production and consequently food security. Due to climate change higher levels of heat stress is a reality, even more so in sub-tropical Africa where the observed rate of warming is about double that of the global rate of temperature increase. This will change the southern hemisphere environments and vegetation, and in some areas the grazing capacity is expected to decline. As the hot and humid climatic conditions become more extreme, the negative impact on livestock production and food security will become more severe. These climates will have both direct and indirect influences on livestock. Factors such as temperature, solar radiation, humidity and wind all have direct effects on animals. Factors such as digestibility of feed, intake, quality and quantity of grazing, pests and diseases, which are directly influenced by climate change, all have indirect effects on animals.An effective way to reduce the carbon footprint from beef production and to supportclimate smart production is to reduce the cattle numbers and increase the production per animal. Increased productivity generates less GHG emission per unit of product. There are sufficient beef cattle genetic resources in Southern Africa to facilitate effective production systems and breeding for improved production efficiency.The type of production strategy to be followed will depend primarily on the environment and level of management. In harsh and undeveloped communal areas or pastoralist systems, pure breeding with indigenous (or adapted) breeds is the only production strategy that can be followed. The level of nutrition in most of these areas is not sufficient for the higher demands of exotic breeds or their crossbreds, but there are situations where the higher demands of exotic breeds or their crossbreds could be met and allow them to produce at an acceptable level.Food production has undergone a revolution in the last 40 years and is now globalised in a free market economy. Developed countries have developed large-scale, intensive and extensive, industrial systems of livestock production which produce affordable livestock foods. However, even today, 70% of world food is produced by several billion commercial, small-scale / subsistence / communal farming families, livestock keepers and pastoralists in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Hodges, 2013).We need a paradigm shift from food security to food and nutrition security if we want to move towards addressing human health.

REFERENCE NO. 11Are private and social goals aligned in pasture-based dairy production?Link: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617329669 Keywords: Sustainability; Environmental impact; Total factor productivity; Pasture-

45

based dairySummary: To become more sustainable, dairy farms should aim to maximise productivity at a minimum cost to the environment. Standard environmental impact measures were combined with non-parametric total factor productivity analysis to investigate if this is possible in a pasture-based production system. Stocking density and energy-corrected milk production per hectare correlated with overall farm efficiency. More effective use of concentrates and farm-produced hay make these operations more productive and at the same time lower their carbon footprint and make them more nutrient-use efficient. Therefore, the pursuit of greater sustainability is well aligned with the objective of profit maximization in this relatively clean form of dairy production.

46