Skip to main content

Home/ Save The Planet/ Group items tagged crops

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Joelle Nebbe-Mornod

The Super Chickpea, and the silent heroes in the war against hunger. | CCAFS - 0 views

www.ccafs.cgiar.org/...lent-heroes-war-against-hunger

chickpea

shared by Joelle Nebbe-Mornod on 19 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • Joelle Nebbe-Mornod on 19 Feb 11
     
    Sufficient food, but also a balanced food intake are key to battle malnutrition. Often the world's attention goes to staple foods like rice, maize or wheat. We often forget it takes other crops too, to make a balanced diet, in a global fight against hunger. Chickpeas is one of those crops, and an important one, as they make up for more than 20 percent of the world pulse production. Chickpeas contain 22-25% proteins, and 2-3 times more iron and zinc than wheat. Chickpea protein quality is better than other pulses. … So understandably, agricultural researchers, like Dr. Pooran M.Gaur, a principal scientist and chickpea breeder at ICRISAT, make continuous efforts to develop new chickpea varieties, adapted to fast changing environmental conditions. "Super Chickpeas", as it were. Bred by -what I would not hesitate to call - "super scientists", in the quiet isolation of agricultural research centers.
Skeptical Debunker

Italian oil slick reaches key farm center of Parma - Yahoo! News - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/...jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9sa

oil spill Itally Po River impacts

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Authorities say the spill began Tuesday, when someone opened the cisterns at an oil refinery turned depot near Monza, letting tens of thousands of liters (thousands of gallons)of oil pour unimpeded into the Lambro River, a tributary of the Po. Prosecutors have launched an investigation into the spill. Authorities say it's certain someone intentionally opened the cisterns. By Wednesday, despite efforts to contain the slick with absorbent pads and the closure of hydroelectric locks, the oil seeped from the Lambro into the Po, Italy's longest river, which flows west-to-east across the country. And Thursday, the country's disaster relief chief, Guido Bertolaso, said he expects most of the slick to be cleaned up over the next day. "I believe this is not an irreparable situation," Bertolaso said after meeting with regional officials amid criticism from environmental groups and opposition lawmakers that the government had been slow to respond. "I believe that in the next 24 hours most of this oily mass will be recovered and then, following the course of the river, before it reaches Ferrara and obviously before it reaches the delta, we will be able to recover all the rest," said Bertolaso, head of the civil protection agency. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature says thousands of birds — ducks, herons and others — are nesting and reproducing in the area, which it called one of the most important in Europe. In addition, several fish species — eel, shad and mullet — reproduce in the waters. "The entire ecological and economic system is at risk," WWF warned in a statement. Officials have said water in the area is safe to drink, but provinces have issued fishing and boating bans for affected parts of the Po. Coldiretti said food was safe since farm production is low anyway at this time of the year, and heavy rains have meant that the Po won't be needed for irrigation for some time. "There are no risks for food on the table or damage to cultivation," Coldiretti said in a statement, adding that the rain forecast in coming days means that the oil will be further diluted and the residue dispersed. But those same rains are worrying environmental groups, which have warned that high water levels in the Po mean the oil will spread to the Po's other tributaries and streams, causing broader environmental degradation. And the Confagricultura farm group said the repercussions of the spill will be felt in small tributary farm communities, particularly as water demands increase with the spring planting of rice.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10
     
    Sludge from an oil spill snaked down the Po River on Thursday to reach the province of Parma, raising fears that the home of Italy's famed prosciutto, parmesan cheese and other agricultural staples might be at risk of water contamination. Italian farm lobby Coldiretti insisted Italy's food chain was safe since the Po is not being used for irrigation these days. But another group of farm owners, Confagricultura, warned that the spring planting season - particularly for water-intensive rice crops - might be at risk unless clean water is ensured. The Po River valley, which extends 71,000 square kilometers (27,400 square miles) across several northern regions, produces a third of Italy's agricultural output and represents 40 percent of the country's GDP. Because of its economic importance, officials are warning that farm output might be affected, in addition to the already extensive damage the slick has caused to the area's wildlife.
Benno Hansen

How to adapt to climate change : Nature News - 0 views

www.nature.com/...news.2009.123.html

shared by Benno Hansen on 25 Feb 09 - Cached
  • They're also growing vegetables — rather than crops like wheat — on floating gardens. They use a bamboo frame and load it with water hyacinth, which rots and makes a bed for vegetables to grow. Then when the flood water rises, they can still harvest food.
Benno Hansen

A Day to Prevent Exploitation of the Environment in War - 0 views

www.ens-newswire.com/...2008-11-06-02.asp

un congo ecowar environment war

shared by Benno Hansen on 10 Nov 08 - Cached
  • "The natural environment enjoys protection under Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions," Ban said. "But this protection is often violated during war and armed conflict. Water wells are polluted, crops torched, forests cut down, soils poisoned, and animals killed, all in order to gain military advantage."
  • Since the outbreak of fighting in August 1998, the conflicts have been rooted in struggles for control of natural resources such as water, timber, diamonds and other minerals as well as various political agendas.
  • "The United Nations attaches great importance to ensuring that action on the environment is part of our approach to peace," Ban stressed today. "Protecting the environment can help countries create employment opportunities, promote development and avoid a relapse into armed conflict.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Ban said that the UN is studying the environmental impacts of conflicts around the world, from the Balkans to Afghanistan, from Lebanon to the Sudan.
  • Lasting peace in war-torn Darfur will depend in part on resolving the underlying competition for water and fertile land, Ban said, adding that there can be no durable peace in Afghanistan if the natural resources that sustain livelihoods and ecosystems are destroyed.
  • "We have seen how environmental damage and the collapse of institutions are threatening human health, livelihoods and security," he said. "These risks can also jeopardize fragile peace and development in post-conflict societies." "Let us renew our commitment to preventing the exploitation of the environment in times of conflict," said the secretary-general, "and to protecting the environment as a pillar of our work for peace."
Benno Hansen

Why Small Organic Farming Is Indeed Radical (and Beautiful) | Food | AlterNet - 0 views

www.alternet.org/...indeed_radical_(and_beautiful)

Sustainability food environmentalism agriculture

shared by Benno Hansen on 08 Feb 10 - Cached
  • focus is on the quality of the crops grown and their suitability for human nutrition
  • I often think of how much further all that effort could have gone had I grown up on a "real" farm but then I realize that if I had, it would have required an equal effort to change from the "quantity first" focus that has so characterized American agriculture to the new "quality first" focus established by the organic pioneers.
    • Arabica Robusta
      Arabica Robusta on 08 Mar 10
       
      Food Rebellions! is a very useful book in this context, arguing that organic small farms actually produce more yield per acre (perhaps per unit of energy too) than large farms.
  • There is no reason that large farms, whatever path they may have been on, cannot learn to meet those standards if they understand that it is not the scale of the farm but the attitude of the farmer that the public is interested in.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The small organic farm greatly discomforts the corporate/industrial mind because the small organic farm is one of the most relentlessly subversive forces on the planet.  Over centuries both the communist and the capitalist systems have tried to destroy small farms because small farmers are a threat to the consolidation of absolute power.  Thomas Jefferson said he didn't think we could have democracy unless at least 20% of the population was self-supporting on small farms so they were independent enough to be able to tell an oppressive government to stuff it.  It is very difficult to control people who can create products without purchasing inputs from the system, who can market their products directly thus avoiding the involvement of mercenary middlemen, who can butcher animals and preserve foods without reliance on industrial conglomerates, and who can't be bullied because they can feed their own faces.
  • Massive industrial conglomerates that look upon people as anonymous passive serfs, obedient cogs in a mechanistic world, now control far too many aspects of human existence.
Skeptical Debunker

Rough Water - 0 views

www.earthisland.org/...roughwater

Klamath River dams agreement negotiation controversy protest violence

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 03 Mar 10 - Cached
  • For most of the last 1,500 years, the river supported a sustainable salmon economy. Salmon were at the heart of all the Klamath’s tribal cultures, and Indians were careful not to over-harvest them. Each summer, the lower Klamath’s Yurok and Hoopa tribes blocked the upstream paths of spawning salmon with barriers; then, after ten days of fishing, they removed the barriers, allowing upstream tribes to take their share. As the salmon completed their lifecycle, dying in the waters where they’d been spawned, they enriched the watershed with nutrients ingested during years in the ocean. Among the beneficiaries were at least 22 species of mammals and birds that eat salmon. Even the salmon carcasses that bears left behind on the riverbanks fertilized trees that provided shade along the river’s banks, cooling its waters so that the next generation of vulnerable juvenile salmon could survive. “We tried to go to court, to go through the political process, but it didn’t work. …The big issues were still out there, and we still had to resolve them.” Salmon’s biological family may have started in the age of dinosaurs a hundred million years ago. They’ve survived through heat waves and droughts, in rivers of varying flow, temperature, and nutrient load – but they were as ill-prepared for Europeans’ arrival as the Indians themselves. Gold miners who showed up in the mid-nineteenth century washed entire hillsides into the river with high-pressure hoses and scoured the river’s bed with dredges. Loggers dragged trees down streambeds, causing massive erosion, and dumped sawdust into the river, smothering incubating salmon eggs. Cattle grazed at the river’s edge, causing soil erosion and destroying shade-giving vegetation. Farmers diverted water to feed their crops. The dams were the crowning blows. Between 1908 and 1962, six dams were built on the Klamath. The tallest, the 173-foot-high Iron Gate, is the farthest downstream, and definitively blocked salmon from the river’s upper quarter – after it was built, the river’s salmon population plummeted. In addition, the dams devastated water quality by promoting thick growths of toxic algae in the reservoirs. For Klamath basin farmers, however, the dams were deemed indispensable, as they generated hydropower that made pumping of their irrigation water possible.To the farmers, the potential loss of the dams’ hydropower was considered no less crippling than an end to Klamath-supplied irrigation.
  • For most of the last century, the farmers were oblivious to the damage that dams and water diversions caused downstream, while the tribes and commercial fishermen quietly seethed. The annual salmon run, once so abundant that people caught fish with their hands, was roughly pegged at more than a million fish at its peak; in recent years it has dropped to perhaps 200,000 in good years, and as low as 12,000 – below the minimum believed necessary to sustain the runs – in bad years. Spring Chinook, which once comprised the river’s dominant salmon run, entirely disappeared. Two fish species – the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker – that once supported a commercial fishery, were listed as endangered in 1988. Coho salmon were listed as threatened nine years later. All this has had a devastating impact on the tribes. Traditionally able to sustain themselves throughout the year on seasonal migrations of the river’s salmon, trout, and candlefish, tribal members suffered greatly as the runs declined or went extinct. For four decades beginning in 1933, the tribes were barred from fishing the river even as commercial fishermen went unrestricted. Members of the Karuk tribe once consumed an estimated average of 450 pounds of salmon a year; a 2004 survey found that the average had dropped to five pounds a year. The survey linked salmon’s absence to epidemics of diabetes and heart disease that now plague the Karuk. The 2001 cutoff left farmers without irrigated water for the first time in the Klamath Project’s history. Over the next four months, many farmers performed repeated acts of civil disobedience, most notably when a bucket brigade passed pails of banned water from its lake storage to an irrigation canal while thousands of onlookers cheered. The protests attracted Christian-fundamentalist, anti-government, and property rights advocates from throughout the West; former Idaho Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage likened the farmers’ struggle to the American Revolution.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • A year later, it was the tribes’ and fishermen’s turn to experience calamity. According to a Washington Post report, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered Interior Department officials to deliver Klamath water to Project farmers in 2002, even though federal law seemed to favor the fish. Interior Secretary Gale Norton herself opened the head gates launching the 2002 release of water to the Project, while approving farmers chanted, “Let the water flow!” Six months later, the carcasses of tens of thousands of Chinook and Coho salmon washed up on the riverbanks near the Klamath’s mouth, in what is considered the largest adult salmon die-off in the history of the American West. The immediate cause was a parasitic disease called ich, or “white spot disease,” commonly triggered when fish are overcrowded. Given the presence of an unusually large fall Chinook run in 2002 and a paucity of Klamath flow, the 2002 water diversion probably caused the die-off. Yurok representatives said that months earlier they begged government officials to release more water into the lower river to support the salmon, but were ignored. photo courtesy Earthjustice In 2002, low water levels on the Klamath led to the largest adult salmon die-off in the history of the American West. The die-off deprived many tribes-people of salmon and abruptly ended the river’s sport-fishing season, but its impact didn’t fully register until four years later, when the offspring of the prematurely deceased 2002 salmon would have made their spawning run. By then the Klamath stock was so depleted that the federal government placed 700 miles of Pacific Ocean coastline, from San Francisco to central Oregon, off limits to commercial salmon fishing for most of the 2006 fishing season. As a result, commercial ocean fishermen lost about $100 million in income, forcing many into bankruptcy. Even more devastating, a precipitous decline in Sacramento River salmon led to the cancellation of the entire Pacific salmon fishing season in both 2008 and 2009. The Klamath basin was in a permanent crisis. It turned out that desperation and frustration were perfect preconditions for negotiations. “Every one of us would have rolled the others if we could have,” Fletcher, the Yurok leader, says. “We all tried to go to court, to go through the political process, but it didn’t work – we might win one battle today and lose one tomorrow, so nothing was resolved. We spent millions of dollars on attorneys, plane tickets to Washington, political donations, but it didn’t make any of us sleep any better, because the big issues were still out there, and we still had to resolve them.”
  • In January 2008, the negotiators announced the first of two breakthrough Klamath pacts: the 255-page Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. In it, most of the parties – farmers, three of the four tribes, a commercial fishermen’s group, seven federal and state agencies, and nine environmental groups – agreed to a basic plan. It includes measures to take down the four dams, divert some water from Project farmers to the river in return for guaranteeing the farmers’ right to a smaller amount, restore fisheries habitat, reintroduce salmon to the upper basin, develop renewable energy to make up for the loss of the dams, and support the Klamath Tribes of Oregon’s effort to regain some land lost when Congress “terminated” its reservation in 1962. This was a seminal moment, a genuine reconciliation among tribal and agricultural leaders who discovered that the hatred they’d nursed was unfounded. “Trust is the key,” says Kandra, the Project farmer who went from litigant to negotiator. “We took little baby steps, giving each other opportunities to build trust, and then we got to a place where we could have some really candid discussions, without screaming and yelling – it was like, ‘Here’s how I see the world.’ Pretty valuable stuff. The folks that developed those kinds of relationships got along pretty good.” Still, one crucial ingredient was missing: Unless PacifiCorp agreed to dismantle the dams, river restoration was impossible, and the pact was a well-intentioned, empty exercise. But PacifiCorp now had compelling reasons to consider dam removal. Not only was relicensing going to be expensive, but Klamath tribespeople were becoming an embarrassing irritant, in two consecutive years interrupting Berkshire Hathaway’s annual-meeting/Buffett-lovefests in Omaha with nonviolent protests that won media attention. Also, the Bush administration, customarily no friend of dam removal, signaled its support for a basin-wide agreement. Negotiations between PacifiCorp and mid-level government officials began in January 2008, but made little progress until a meeting in Shepherdstown, West Virginia four months later, when for the first time Senior Interior Department Counselor Michael Bogert presided. As Bogert recently explained, President Bush himself took an interest in the Klamath “because it was early on in his watch that the Klamath became almost a symbol” of river basin dysfunction. To Bush, the decision to support dam removal was a business decision, not an environmental one: The “game-changer,” Bogert said, was the realization that because of the high cost of relicensing, dam removal made good fiscal sense for PacifiCorp. That fact distinguished the Klamath from other dam removal controversies such as the battle over four dams on Idaho’s Snake River, whose removal the Bush administration continued to oppose.
  • In November 2008, when then-Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a detailed agreement in principle with PacifiCorp to take down the dams, he acknowledged that he customarily opposed dam removal, but that the Klamath had taught him “to evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis.” In September 2009, Kempthorne’s successor, Ken Salazar, announced that PacifiCorp and government officials had reached a final agreement. PacifiCorp and the many signers of the earlier Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement then ironed out inconsistencies between the two pacts in a final negotiation that ended with a final deal in January 2010.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 03 Mar 10
     
    Maybe the Klamath River basin would have turned itself around without Jeff Mitchell. Back in 2001, at the pinnacle of the conflict over the river's fate, when the Klamath earned its reputation as the most contentious river basin in the country, Mitchell planted a seed. Thanks to a drought and a resulting Interior Department decision to protect the river's endangered fish stocks, delivery of Klamath water to California and Oregon farmers was cut off mid-season, and they were livid. They blamed the Endangered Species Act, the federal government that enforced it, and the basin's salmon-centric Indians who considered irrigation a death sentence for their cultures. The basin divided up, farmers and ranchers on one side, Indians and commercial fishermen on the other. They sued one another, denounced one another in the press, and hired lobbyists to pass legislation undermining one another. Drunken goose-hunters discharged shotguns over the heads of Indians and shot up storefronts in the largely tribal town of Chiloquin, Oregon. An alcohol-fueled argument over water there prompted a white boy to kick in the head of a young Indian, killing him.
1 - 9 of 9
Showing 20▼ items per page