133
Certain farms set the goal of preserving the
soil and using as little energy as possible while
increasing crop yield. In such cases ploughing is
avoided or minimised. Sensible crop rotations are
applied and soil is covered as much as possible to
prevent and minimise soil erosion. All these contribute to the minimum energy used for harvesting crop units.
The main issue of agriculture based on the
small biological cycle and ecological principles—while its environmental advantage is
beyond all questions—is that whether it will be
able to supply food for the growing number of
people or not.
Let us turn the question around. Will the more
developed world be able to supply the poorest
regions with food using intense and precision
agriculture? Are the poorer countries able to produce growing numbers of crop yield using more
fertilisers, herbicides and agricultural machines?
By today it is apparent that the answer is no to
both questions and because of poverty in both
cases. Starving countries cannot buy the expensive food produced by the rich countries (occasional aids are no solution) neither can they buy
expensive chemicals, fertilisers, sowing-seeds
and machines to establish modern farms.
According to Buck and Scherr (2011), biofarming and other agroecological farming forms stood
the test in many poor countries in Africa. The
number of bioproducers in Africa is 530,000
farming a total area of 900,000 ha. More than
417,000 farmers used the methods of agricultural
forestry in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania,
Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil preserving and
energy retaining agriculture was introduced to
350,000 small farms in Zambia. These methods
increased crop yields by 30–100% and food supply was significantly improved.
Stuart (2011) called attention to an important
aspect regarding the food supply of poor people.
Losses after harvest in agriculture were studied in
many countries from transport via storage and
trade to utilisation. Estimated losses in the global
food chain are presented in Fig. 4.47. Opposing
Stuart (2011) in the opinion of the authors of the
present book products utilised for feeding animals, i.e. producing meat and milk products
cannot be regarded a loss. Out of the 33.3% indicated in Fig. 4.47 the authors consider 3.3% as
loss. It is worth noting, however, that real losses
make up 30% of the total yield. Reducing losses
could significantly improve the conditions of
food supply in the world. This would be realised,
however, only if the distribution of the saved food
could be solved at international level which is
only theoretical for the time being.
Agroecological farming could be necessary
even in developed countries as well in order to
enhance the development of rural regions since
this type of farming could provide jobs for locals,
reduce poverty and provide more humane life
than aids. The maintenance of historical cultural
landscapes is an important task of world heritage
and traditional farming typical for the given landscape has an important role in it and it generally
has ecologically reasonable specifics. Bioproducts
are becoming increasingly popular in developed
countries as well and they sell at good prices contributing to a reasonable income for producers.
As environmentally conscious lifestyle is becoming increasingly widespread the demand for bioproducts is expected to grow encouraging
chemicals-free biofarming.
One of the most fundamental principles of
agriculture, accommodation to natural conditions,
is worth to be taken into account even in develFig. 4.47 Estimated loss, transformation and wastes of
the global food chain (modified after Stuart 2011). 1 Loss
after harvest, 2 Feeding of animals (9.8% of meat and
milk products are generated of this.), 3 Loss of processing, distribution and that of households, 4 Left for
consumption
4.2 Changes in the Pedosphere
Certain farms set the goal of preserving the
soil and using as little energy as possible while
increasing crop yield. In such cases ploughing is
avoided or minimised. Sensible crop rotations are
applied and soil is covered as much as possible to
prevent and minimise soil erosion. All these contribute to the minimum energy used for harvesting crop units.
The main issue of agriculture based on the
small biological cycle and ecological principles—while its environmental advantage is
beyond all questions—is that whether it will be
able to supply food for the growing number of
people or not.
Let us turn the question around. Will the more
developed world be able to supply the poorest
regions with food using intense and precision
agriculture? Are the poorer countries able to produce growing numbers of crop yield using more
fertilisers, herbicides and agricultural machines?
By today it is apparent that the answer is no to
both questions and because of poverty in both
cases. Starving countries cannot buy the expensive food produced by the rich countries (occasional aids are no solution) neither can they buy
expensive chemicals, fertilisers, sowing-seeds
and machines to establish modern farms.
According to Buck and Scherr (2011), biofarming and other agroecological farming forms stood
the test in many poor countries in Africa. The
number of bioproducers in Africa is 530,000
farming a total area of 900,000 ha. More than
417,000 farmers used the methods of agricultural
forestry in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania,
Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil preserving and
energy retaining agriculture was introduced to
350,000 small farms in Zambia. These methods
increased crop yields by 30–100% and food supply was significantly improved.
Stuart (2011) called attention to an important
aspect regarding the food supply of poor people.
Losses after harvest in agriculture were studied in
many countries from transport via storage and
trade to utilisation. Estimated losses in the global
food chain are presented in Fig. 4.47. Opposing
Stuart (2011) in the opinion of the authors of the
present book products utilised for feeding animals, i.e. producing meat and milk products
cannot be regarded a loss. Out of the 33.3% indicated in Fig. 4.47 the authors consider 3.3% as
loss. It is worth noting, however, that real losses
make up 30% of the total yield. Reducing losses
could significantly improve the conditions of
food supply in the world. This would be realised,
however, only if the distribution of the saved food
could be solved at international level which is
only theoretical for the time being.
Agroecological farming could be necessary
even in developed countries as well in order to
enhance the development of rural regions since
this type of farming could provide jobs for locals,
reduce poverty and provide more humane life
than aids. The maintenance of historical cultural
landscapes is an important task of world heritage
and traditional farming typical for the given landscape has an important role in it and it generally
has ecologically reasonable specifics. Bioproducts
are becoming increasingly popular in developed
countries as well and they sell at good prices contributing to a reasonable income for producers.
As environmentally conscious lifestyle is becoming increasingly widespread the demand for bioproducts is expected to grow encouraging
chemicals-free biofarming.
One of the most fundamental principles of
agriculture, accommodation to natural conditions,
is worth to be taken into account even in develFig. 4.47 Estimated loss, transformation and wastes of
the global food chain (modified after Stuart 2011). 1 Loss
after harvest, 2 Feeding of animals (9.8% of meat and
milk products are generated of this.), 3 Loss of processing, distribution and that of households, 4 Left for
consumption
4.2 Changes in the Pedosphere