Zero Budget Natural Farming in India: Aiming Back to the Basics

Crisis of Indian agriculture is very pertinent at this moment as green revolution is gradually losing its hope. Excessive, pointless exploitation of broods of green revolution has left bad footprints on country’s food security and environmental safety. With the motto to ensure food security by reviving Indian agriculture in environmentally safe way as well as to release farmers from debt cycle and suicides, zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) has come in the picture, which discards uses of all the chemical farming inputs and relies on natural way of farming i.e. rejuvenating soil and crop health through its own practices (Jivamrita, Bijamrita, mulching, soil aeration, intercropping, crop diversification, bunds, bio-pesticides etc.). ZBNF movement right now is the most popular agrarian movement which begun in 2002 in Karnataka and later successfully spread in many states (specially, of South India) of the nation through numbers of trainings, demonstrations and various promotional activities. Successful outcomes from farmers’ fields of south Indian states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka etc. are encouraging and grabbing attention of farmers, public and private organisations towards ZBNF in recent times. Yet, various controversies regarding its transparency, inadequate information, efficacy, practices, idealisms, even the term ‘zero budget’ etc. have agglutinated around ZBNF over the years since it debuted. Critics in fact have cited several references of drastic yield reductions with ZBNF practices in many places. Adequate scientific evaluation or monitoring of ZBNF’s successes or failures through multi-locational trials is now therefore the needful before allowing or restraining its run in Indian agriculture.

"Defensivos" ou "agrotóxicos"? História do uso e da percepção dos agrotóxicos no estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil, 1950-2002 / "Defensives" or "pesticides"? A history of the use and perception of pesticides in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil, 1950-2002

Resumo O artigo apresenta uma história do uso e da percepção dos agrotóxicos no estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil, entre as décadas de 1950 e 2000. As fontes primárias utilizadas foram diversificadas, como boletins técnicos, relatórios governamentais, censos agropecuários, notícias de jornais, dados do centro estadual de informações toxicológicas e entrevista com um técnico de referência no setor. Verificou-se que o uso e a percepção dos agrotóxicos passaram por diferentes fases em Santa Catarina, o que também ocorreu em outros lugares, e que as atitudes mudaram tanto devido às experiências individuais de técnicos e agricultores, como também pela influência do contexto cultural mais amplo da circulação das ideias ambientalistas a partir dos anos 1980.

Abstract The article presents a history of the use and perception of pesticides in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil, between 1950 and 2002. A variety of primary sources were used, including technical newsletters, government reports, agricultural censuses, newspaper articles, data from the state center for toxicological information, and an interview with a key technician from the field. It was found that the use and perception of pesticides passed through different phases in Santa Catarina, much as in other places, with changes in attitude prompted both by the personal experiences of technicians and farmers and by the influence of the broader cultural context and circulation of environmentalist ideas starting in the 1980s.

Origin and evolution of tomato production Lycopersicon esculentum in México / Origem e evolução da produção de tomate Lycopersicon esculentum no México

ABSTRACT: Lycopersicon esculentum known as tomato, although has an Andean origin is a contribution of Mexico to the world is, being the first agricultural product to be exported. This research aimed to review the literature in relation to the origin and evolution of the production of tomato in Mexico within the historical development of the country. In ancient times, the tomato was cultivated in milpas (open field) and chinampas (artificial islands for riparian agriculture) using sustainable methods. Spanish colonizers showed the tomato to the rest of the world and diversified its uses. In independent Mexico, haciendas and railroads integrated the different farming regions. Production decreased during the Mexican revolution, and with land reform, the milpa returned. During the Green Revolution (1970), Sinaloa stood out, with the separation of two systems, subsistence, and modern with technology programs. Biotechnological development (1990) emerged parallel to organic production. So actually with this system, we could return to more sustainable pre-Hispanic ecological principles with less environmental impact.

RESUMO Lycopersicon esculentum conhecido como tomate, uma contribuição do México para o mundo a partir de sua domesticação, embora sua origem seja andina, é o primeiro produto de exportação agrícola. Esta pesquisa tem como objetivo realizar uma revisão da literatura em relação à origem e evolução da produção de tomate no México e, no desenvolvimento histórico do país. Nos tempos antigos, o tomate foi cultivado em milpas (campo aberto) e chinampas (ilhas artificiais para a agricultura ribeirinha), utilizando métodos sustentáveis. Colonizadores espanhóis introduziram o tomate no restante do mundo, diversificando seus usos. No México independente, fazendas e estradas de ferro integram as diferentes regiões agrícolas. A produção diminuiu durante a revolução mexicana, e com a reforma agrária ocorreu o retorno da milpa. Sinaloa destacou-se durante a Revolução Verde (1970), com a separação dos dois sistemas de subsistência e moderno e, com programas de tecnologia. O desenvolvimento biotecnológico (1990) surge em paralelo à produção biológica. Dada a complexidade do panorama dos alimentos, atualmente, com estes sistemas, podem-se retomar os princípios ecológicos pré-hispânicos mais sustentáveis, com menor impacto ambiental.

The changing nutrition scenario.

The past seven decades have seen remarkable shifts in the nutritional scenario in India. Even up to the 1950s severe forms of malnutrition such as kwashiorkar and pellagra were endemic. As nutritionists were finding home-grown and common-sense solutions for these widespread problems, the population was burgeoning and food was scarce. The threat of widespread household food insecurity and chronic undernutrition was very real. Then came the Green Revolution. Shortages of food grains disappeared within less than a decade and India became self-sufficient in food grain production. But more insidious problems arising from this revolution were looming, and cropping patterns giving low priority to coarse grains and pulses, and monocropping led to depletion of soil nutrients and ‘Green Revolution fatigue’. With improved household food security and better access to health care, clinical manifestations of severe malnutrition virtually disappeared. But the decline in chronic undernutrition and “hidden hunger” from micronutrient deficiencies was slow. On the cusp of the new century, an added factor appeared on the nutritional scene in India. With steady urban migration, upward mobility out of poverty, and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle because of improvements in technology and transport, obesity rates began to increase, resulting in a dual burden. Measured in terms of its performance in meeting its Millennium Development Goals, India has fallen short. Despite its continuing high levels of poverty and illiteracy, India has a huge demographic potential in the form of a young population. This advantage must be leveraged by investing in nutrition education, household access to nutritious diets, sanitary environment and a health-promoting lifestyle. This requires co-operation from all the stakeholders, including governments, non government organizations, scientists and the people at large.

Public germplasm collections and revolutions in biotechnology.

State funding of anything to do with the ‘public good’ has been accepted as something natural in many cultures. However, in free enterprise countries that are at the forefront of modern science, publicly funded activities are widely regarded as legitimate only if they are essential and not addressed by the market place. For-profit companies understandably focus on activities where the relationship between cost and benefit are obvious and hence invest in activities with a well-defined cost–benefit relationship. Collections of living biological materials are an example of an activity where benefits are difficult to associate with cost and therefore have to continually struggle for financial support. Because of its intrinsically speculative nature, basic scientific research is often regarded as having a poorly defined cost–benefit relationship. For-profit entities conduct applied research whose results are likely to augment their coffers, or will sponsor such research via competitive grants. Basic research is more often funded via competitive grants by government agencies, sometimes by private philanthropic foundations, or directly conducted by the very largest private corporations. In most cases of published research, direct public funding provides facilities and training (mostly at universities), while research funds for specific projects are obtained by investigators via competitive grants. Most scientists accept, and adapt to, this situation much as we accept and adapt to the weather. Boundaries between ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ are not rigid or immutable and even the lexicon is fluid. Recently applied research has been re-cast as ‘translational’, bridging the span between basic research and development of products or processes. In agriculture and botany, the line between basic and applied was probably stronger a couple decades ago: ‘Funding for basic (versus applied) research in plant science is very limited and much of what is available comes through the National Science Foundation (NSF)’ (Dilcher 1991). Currently, however, ‘The line between furthering basic understanding of natural processes and the development of potential applications is hazy and overlapping, and the time from discovery to commercialization can be exceedingly short’ (Watson et al. 2003). What persists in this changing environment is the necessity for most scientists to obtain research funds via various competitive grants programs. A major exception to this state of affairs is the maintenance and preservation of large biological collections, which have relevance to both basic and applied research, especially to biotechnology. Government and non-profit entities (the latter usually receiving government assistance) have been critical for creating and maintaining these collections of living organisms, including performing the research necessary to characterize and preserve the germplasm itself. These ‘germbanks’ are, like bank accounts, savings for both anticipated and unexpected contingencies. In plant research, they provide potential sources of resistance to emerging pests and diseases, genes for drought hardiness or useful metabolic products, as well as other desirable traits. However, these traits are often not readily apparent, and often occur in a genetic background of less desirable properties. Microbial collections are similarly valuable in providing validated material for testing new plant varieties, new anti-microbial drugs, for developing drug targets, and often provide genetic material for development of new enzymes used in every aspect of modern life. Because the value of such biological material is often in its hidden potential, truly comprehensive collections are often maintained at public expense or receive governmental subsidies. While preservation of natural environments is an important factor in preserving biological diversity, it is complementary to and not redundant with ex situ biological repositories. The fiscal health (or lack thereof) of germplasm collections has been the subject of frequent review (e.g. Strauss 1998; McCluskey 2003; Babcock et al. 2007; Gowans 2009). In the US, ‘microbial collections are at risk … because the United States lacks a coordinated national system to protect, preserve and enhance these valuable resources’ (APS 2009). In spite of their sometimes insecure budgets, these large biological collections are supremely important. Biological materials from public germplasm collections have been decisive for three of the most significant innovations in modern biotechnology. These innovations are: (i) the commercial production of antibiotics and other drugs, pioneered by penicillin production; (ii) the Green Revolution, commencing with semi-dwarf wheat varieties and (iii) modern molecular genetics, made feasible by the polymerase chain reaction.