Biodynamics

Biological / natural pest and weed control

Composting

Cover cropping

Crop rotation

Diversity on the farm

Do-nothing farming

Effective Microorganism (EM)

Green manuring and green leaf manuring

Homa farming

Indigenous seeds

Intercropping

Integration of systems

Living fences

Microbial biofertilisers

Mulching

Multicropping

Multipurpose trees

Permaculture

Polyculture

Reduced tillage

Soil and water conservation

Specialised organic farming techniques

Vermicomposting

You may also like to read on this website :

Our training and consultancy services

Organic farming and you

Organic food

Organic farming in India

Traditional agriculture in India : high yields, no waste

Natural farming succeeds in Indian village

Myths and fallacies about organic farming

On the effects of chemical farming :

18 ways how "modern" farming affects our world

The REAL effect of pesticides

Pesticides in your food (and water)

Why organic farming?

The approach and outlook towards agriculture and marketing of food has seen a
quantum change worldwide over the last few decades. Whereas earlier the seasons and
the climate of an area determined what would be grown and when, today it is the
"market" that determines what it wants and what should be grown. The focus is now
more on quantity and "outer" quality (appearance) rather than intrinsic or nutritional
quality, also called "vitality". Pesticide and other chemical residues in food and an overall
reduced quality of food have led to a marked increase in various diseases, mainly
various forms of cancer and reduced bodily immunity.

This immense commercialisation of agriculture has also had a very negative effect on
the environment. The use of pesticides has led to enormous levels of chemical buildup
in our environment, in soil, water, air, in animals and even in our own bodies. Fertilisers
have a short-term effect on productivity but a longer-term negative effect on the
environment where they remain for years after leaching and running off, contaminating
ground water and water bodies. The use of hybrid seeds and the practice of
monoculture has led to a severe threat to local and indigenous varieties, whose
germplasm can be lost for ever. All this for "productivity".

In the name of growing more to feed the earth, we have taken the wrong road of
unsustainability. The effects already show - farmers committing suicide in growing
numbers with every passing year; the horrendous effects of pesticide sprays
(endosulphan) by a government-owned plantation in Kerala, India some years ago; the
pesticide-contaminated bottled water and aerated beverages are only some instances.
The bigger picture that rarely makes news however is that millions of people are still
underfed, and where they do get enough to eat, the food they eat has the capability to
eventually kill them. Yet, the picture painted for the future by agro-chemical and seed
companies and governments is rosy and bright.

Another negative effect of this trend has been on the fortunes of the farming
communities worldwide. Despite this so-called increased productivity, farmers in
practically every country around the world have seen a downturn in their fortunes. The
only beneficiaries of this new outlook towards food and agriculture seem to be the
agro-chemical companies, seed companies and - though not related to the
chemicalisation of agriculture, but equally part of the "big money syndrome" responsible
for the farmers' troubles - the large, multi-national companies that trade in food,
especially foodgrains.

This is where organic farming comes in. Organic farming has the capability to take care
of each of these problems. Besides the obvious immediate and positive effects organic
or natural farming has on the environment and quality of food, it also greatly helps a
farmer to become self-sufficient in his requirements for agro-inputs and reduce his
costs.

Organic food
Photographs (click on caption to see image) :
Chromatographs are a convincing way of proving there is more to food and agriculture than just
yields. Chromatograph patterns clearly show vitality and life forces and one can tell the difference
between organic and inorganic food just by reading a chromatograph

Organic food does not 'cost the earth' to grow. It should not also cost consumers 'the
earth' to eat. At the same time however, assuming that the ruling market prices for
conventionally-grown food (read chemically-grown food) are fair, it is only correct that
an organic farmer should receive at least a marginally higher price for his produce and
his efforts, especially when consumers are aware that organic food is better than
chemically-grown food in all respects, including taste, flavour and for their own health,
besides that of the earth.

Another aspect of the organic food 'issue' at least in India is a common problem faced
by organic farmers : the lack of a ready market and often unremunerative prices for
their produce. In many cases, the grower does not receive timely payments from
middlemen including organic food traders. Interested buyers of organic food on the
other hand, cannot find what they need, at least not at reasonable prices. Supplies are
often erratic or unreliable and in some cases buyers are not even sure if the food they
are buying is indeed organic.

Organic farming in India

The official position

As per a Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) study of mid-2003, India had 1,426
certified organic farms producing approximately 14,000 tons of organic food / produce
annually. In 2005, as per Govt. of India figures, approximately 190,000 acres (77,000
hectares) were under organic cultivation. The total production of organic food in India as
per the same reference was 120,000 tons annually, though this largely included certified
forest collections.

Another side to the story

There are a number of farms in India which have either never been chemically-
managed / cultivated or have converted back to organic farming because of their
farmers' beliefs or purely for reason of economics. These thousands of farmers
cultivating hundreds of thousands of acres of land are not classified as organic though
they are. Their produce either sells in the open market along with conventionally grown
produce at the same price or sells purely on goodwill and trust as organic through select
outlets and regular specialist bazaars. These farmers will never opt for certification
because of the costs involved as well as the extensive documentation that is required by
certifiers.

New potential areas

About 65% of India's cropped area is not irrigated and it can be safely assumed that
high-input demanding crops are not grown on these lands. Fertiliser use on drylands is
always less anyway as chemical fertilisers require sufficient water to respond. Pesticide
use in these lands would also be less as the economics of these hardy or "not-so
profitable" crops will not permit expensive inputs. These areas are at least "relatively
organic" or perhaps even "organic by default". While neither of these terms necessarily
denotes a healthy farm or a recommended agriculture system, it would at least imply a
non-chemical farm that can be converted very easily to an organic one providing
excellent yields and without the necessity and effort of a lengthy conversion period.

Hunger..........
or why "high-tech science", white coats, expensive laboratories, genetic
engineering and playing God is neither necessary nor will be sufficient to feed
the earth

"Feeding the earth" is a nice plank for agribusiness to sell its goods and services. In the
name of producing sufficient food to feed the world's growing population,
agribusinesses have only helped their own selves prosper. Agriculture is an interaction
between man and nature which agribusinesses or governments don't understand. The
key to increasing productivity cannot lie in laboratories or in a packet of hybrid seeds or
a can of pesticides. It lies in using sustainable farming technologies which harm neither
farm, farmer, the environment or those who consume the food. Any agriculture system
has to take a responsibility towards feeding the earth but it also has to fulfill this
responsibility using sustainable and safe technologies.

Large players in agribusiness in India have sold a story that we need to produce more
food and increase productivity of our fields. They also seem convinced that they hold
the key to feeding the country. Their solutions consist of factory farming,
biofortification (protato, golden rice), genetically-modified seeds, cloning, hybrid seeds,
pesticides, weedicides, mechanisation and monocultures.

The truth however is that while a vast percentage of India's population is hungry,
underfed and malnourished, India already grows sufficient food to feed its entire
population. Consider these figures (all figures and calculations of 2003) :

India today grows about 210 million tons of food grains (rice, wheat, millets and
pulses) annually. This translates into over 475 grams of food grains daily for
 each one of its nearly 1.2 billion citizens (that's nearly 175 kilos of foodgrains
per person in a year)

We produce approximately 45 million tons of fruits and 95 million tons of vegetables

annually, which should provide every Indian with over 300 grams of fruits and
vegetables every day

That adds up to over 2,400 calories daily from just staple foods, fruits and
vegetables. It may be assumed that we grow sufficient food to provide our
population with a daily per capita calorie intake of at least 2,500 calories.

Yet between 25-35% of our population is classified as hungry. The reason for this
incongruity is simple - our food distribution and handling systems are inefficient and
our food management policy is non-existent. Food doesn't reach everyone for one
reason or another. Here's some "food for thought" :

It is estimated that over a third of fruits and vegetables produced by Indian farmers
are destroyed somewhere down the supply chain because of lack of handling and
distribution systems. That's approximately 100 grams of quality food lost per
individual every day

Over 33 million tons of cereals (far more than the required buffer stock) are stored
in warehouses, godowns, silos (and in the open) across the country at any given
point of time. A substantial quantity is dumped and written off because of
spoilage

An appalling Rs.15,000 crores (US$ 3.25 billion) is spent annually on storing food
grains in these warehouses and godowns

We export food grains at price levels lower than the subsidised rates offered to
those considered below the poverty line. In other words, India subsidises the
food supply of other (richer) countries

The problem is not only one of logistics and supply chains though. Agriculture has, in
the past few decades, degenerated into a largely industrialised activity with the role of
nature being ignored totally. If India's - and the rest of the world's - growing population
has to be fed, it is imperative to adopt sustainable agriculture worldwide and keep
agriculture systems as close to nature as possible. It is not just unnecessary but also
counterproductive to adopt and promote the latest self-serving "technology" that
originates from some multinational overseas or blindly following "alien" knowledge and
models.

Food contaminated by chemicals or grown from genetically-modified seeds and planting

material is unhealthy. That's plain and simple and easily understood. Consuming such
food is akin to allowing a time bomb tick inside whoever eats it. Organic farming does
away with these unhealthy, short-term "production boosters" and brings into picture a
diverse, healthy and sustainable crop production system.
To summarise the above, our farms and farmers have to produce not just sufficient
quantities of food, but also food that is healthy and nutritious. In addition, food or
any other agricultural produce must not be allowed to be wasted. Hence, while there is
required to be a total conversion or reversion to organic farming, there also has to be a
sea-change in our outlook towards agriculture, agricultural infrastructure and food
handling. Some of these changes are :

·0 Agriculture has to be considered a way of livelihood, a lifestyle and a

communication or interaction with nature. It cannot be treated as an industrial or
purely commercial activity. This realisation has to sink into the government,
bureaucrats, agricultural scientists, extension workers and even farmers.
Effect : Streamlined planning, less interference, non-dependence on extraneous
factors like subsidies, grants, etc.

·1 Farmers have to be trained, educated and motivated to use resources available to

them efficiently. Resources include agricultural wastes, water and electricity.
Providing free power and allowing unhindered use of groundwater resources and
irrigation systems encourages wastage and over-exploitation. Subsidising
chemical fertilisers will never allow farmers to realise the true economic cost of
using them and reduce the motivation to make their own compost or recycle
their farm wastes.
Effect : Nationwide fiscal and ecological benefits, long-term stability of
individual farms.

·2 Organic inputs have to be produced on-farm or by local, village-level

cooperatives. This includes composts, seeds, natural pesticides, etc. Besides
ecological correctness, this keeps a farmer's costs low.
Effect : Lower cost of food production, more control and independence in the
hands of the farmer.

·3 Proper post-harvest facilities must be available to farmers for handling, storing

and processing their produce. An area of even ten acres or so can have its own
independent small-scale processing and handling unit.
Effect : Reduced wastage, better price realisation for farmers.

·4 Food should not travel large distances, especially staple commodities. Hence,
markets should be served by farms within a few hundred kilometres at the most
for regular food items. There are huge ecological costs involved in transporting
food using fossil fuels which today nobody in the chain, including the final
consumer is paying for. Moreover, to serve a distant area and help meet their
needs, monoculture systems develop, affecting biodiversity and local agriculture
systems.
Effect : Reduced environmental pollution from use of fossil fuels, lower costs for
consumers.
Myths and fallacies about organic farming
There are a number of fallacies that surround organic farming, both in favour of and
against. Some of the more common ones are :

Yields in organic farming are lower than chemical farming

Not so. When properly followed, yields in organic farming are, in the long run, far
greater than those obtained by chemical farming. In horticulture crops, the effects are
even better. A look at agriculture in Punjab will tell the full story. The origin of the
"Green Revolution", Punjab's agricultural yields have remained the same for the past
many years while the quantity of agro-chemicals required to maintain these static yields
have steadily increased.

In the case of a chemical farm converting to organic however, there is often a loss in
yield and it takes a few years before yields increase and stabilise at a level often higher
than that achieved under a chemical regime. It is therefore recommended to convert
gradually over a period of three to four years if income from the farm is a key issue.

Organic farming is not economical

Again, not so. While certain practices such as composting and mulching do entail
greater costs on account of labour, the overall cost of cultivation is usually lower than
chemical farming. An important point to note here is that the farmer has to be self-
sufficient in his requirement for composts and pest control measures (easily done),
otherwise economics do get skewed. Farms and farmers who would like to make their
own inputs may read "Making your own organic farming inputs".

You can't supply enough nutrients by using composts

This is a common argument put to use by all detractors of organic farming, especially
academicians. If one calculates the percentages of nitrogen, potassium and
phosphorous in fertilisers and composts, the difference is indeed vast. Going by these
"scientific" calculations, one may find that in lieu of say 200 kgs. of mixed fertilisers,
one needs over 30 tons of composts, fairly impossible to supply two or three times a
year. In organic farming however, the concept of feeding the plant does not exist. The
attempt here is to feed the soil, keep it healthy and living and keep a PROCESS in
motion. Much of the work is done by the numerous soil organisms and microorganisms
that thrive in "living" soils. The various practices of organic farming ensure that soil
fertility is maintained and this symbiotic relationship is kept alive and vibrant. The
analogy we can think of is meeting your day's entire nutritional requirements (calculated
for you by a dietician) by swallowing a few tablets and capsules. Your nutritional needs
are met, but will you remain healthy?

There is big money in organic farming

A myth propagated by over-enthusiastic supporters perhaps. So far in India, most

organic farmers have turned (or in some cases remained) organic because of their
beliefs. The "organic market" exists for a small number of farmers who have access to a
few specialised outlets. Otherwise, till people wake up, it is difficult to see every organic
farmer getting a premium for his (undoubtedly superior) product. An option for exports
has also opened in the last decade which organic farmers can explore only if they are
"certified" as organic. There are a few internationally-recognised agencies operating
from India who inspect and certify organic farms.

On our part, we have attempted through our organic food division, to bring organic
growers and interested organic buyers together. Farmers within our network are assured
of a fair price and regular purchase of their produce (subject to following organic
management practices as specified by us), and buyers have access to a wide variety of
organic food at reasonable prices. Farmers outside our network have to be organic
certified or ethically-certified. For more information, please click here.

The non-use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is organic farming (or the use
of organic manures is organic farming)

The last important myth is that simply avoiding the use of chemical fertilisers and
pesticides is organic farming. That is not so. While organic farming is all about
maintaining soil health ("feeding the soil" rather than "feeding the plant"), it entails
producing the highest yields possible, in a sustainable, eco-friendly manner using a
number of techniques. Indeed, for any agriculture system to succeed, it must take a
responsibility towards feeding the earth. Organic farming entails a lot of hard work and
even systems like Do-nothing (or Natural) farming - as propagated by Fukuoka and
used so effectively by Bhaskar Save at his Gujarat farm - entail tremendous
understanding of nature, natural agriculture, the local ecosystem and require a little
hard work even though the name may suggest otherwise! You may learn about many
techniques that can be used by an organic farmer in the section on organic farming
techniques.

External inputs, even if eco-friendly or bio-degradable are ecologically questionable and

commercially unsustainable for an organic farm. Work is hence required on-farm to
produce inputs such as composts and biopesticides. Farms and farmers who would like
to make their own inputs may read "Making your own organic farming inputs".

Use of indigenous seeds

Photographs (click on caption to see images) :
1) Pearl millet is a traditional staple food in Asia and Africa where it has been cultivated for
centuries. The number of traditional varieties is therefore not surprisingly remarkable. Photo
source : ICRISAT

2) Traditional seeds are hardy, undemanding and suited to the conditions of their native regions.
They are threatened today and ironically the largest genebanks are held by those interested in
their genetic code, not preservation

3) According to the late Dr. Richharia, the well-known rice scientist, there are over 200,000
varieties of rice in India alone. The so-called green revolution has resulted in a massive loss of
on-farm biodiversity. Photo courtesy : CIKS

One of the most negative results of the commercialisation of agriculture is the total
dependence by the farmer on external sources for all his farming inputs, including
seeds. Whereas earlier farmers used to save and share their seeds, today they depend
wholly upon seed companies for their requirements. Indigenous seeds are more suitable
to a particular region or situation than any hybrid variety.

There are a number of reasons why it makes sense to use indigenous or traditional
seeds (called heirloom seeds in the West). Compared to hybrid seeds, they are hardy,
pest-resistant, withstand unfavourable conditions in the area of their origin, require less
water and nutritional inputs, fit in better in the organic method of farming and may even
have special characteristics such as nutrition, fragrance or colour,

Hybrid seeds on the other hand are developed for very specific situations and have
precise water and nutritional requirements, generally on the higher side. They are also
more prone to pest attacks and diseases. Besides being costlier, hybrids cannot be
saved or shared with any benefit to the farmers. In fact, even where improved varieties
are not hybrids, it is usually illegal for farmers to save or share such seeds. In some
western countries, it is now illegal for farmers to share or sell even their local seed
varieties on the grounds that the seeds are not certified!

However, all this does not mean that just about any indigenous seed should be freely
used by farmers. As with hybrids, all varieties are not suitable for commercial
cultivation. Many farmers save seeds selectively after seeing the vigour and growth of
individual plants. This is an old tradition and is and needs to be continued.

Hybrid seeds
Hybrid seeds are the result of cross-pollination (or genetic engineering, discussed
separately on this website), carried out for specific purposes, usually higher production,
resistance to specific plant diseases or for a specific attribute such as shape or colour.
Hybrid crops are also more input-demanding, whether for water or nutrients; have
specific requirements which need to be met in order for the plant to 'perform'; are not
as healthy or hardy; are often highly pest- and disease-prone; and importantly cannot
produce seeds that are true to the parent plant, or may even produce sterile seeds. In
other words, farmers have to buy their seeds each season. In all these respects,
indigenous or traditional seeds score over hybrids.

While most hybrid plants do ensure a higher production to begin with, this is also
accompanied by higher costs of cultivation, starting with the high cost of seed and
including higher doses of inputs like fertilisers, pesticides and water. The effect of
regular hybrid crop cultivation is felt by the soil and results in ever-increasing doses of
chemical inputs as the soil health keeps falling. The use of hybrid seeds is therefore a
major part of the "chemical-agriculture problem".
Seed saving, sharing and conservation
Seed sharing (between farmers) and seed saving (storing for sowing in a later season)
are possible with all traditional seed varieties, as opposed to hybrid seeds.

Traditional seeds (also called heirloom seeds) are open-pollinating varieties and not
hybrids. These seeds produce plants which in turn reproduce to provide seeds which are
true to their parents. Unlike hybrids, these seeds can be 'saved' for another crop, and by
sensible plant selection, a farmer can keep improving his stock of seeds with every
passing season.

Traditionally, besides saving their own seeds, farmers also had a system of barter or
exchange where they shared their seed stock with each other. With the introduction and
use of hybrid seeds, these practices have also seen a gradual dying-out and require to
be revived to ensure conservation of the many seed varieties indigenous to India which
otherwise may be lost forever.

Biopiracy
Photographs (click on caption to see image) :
Traditional seeds are hardy, undemanding and suited to the conditions of their native regions.
They are threatened today and ironically the largest genebanks are held by those interested in
their genetic code, not preservation

Biopiracy is the theft or usurpation of genetic materials especially plants and other
biological materials by the patent process. To generalise, corporations of the western
world have since the past two decades or so, been reaping immense profits by patenting
the knowledge and genetic resources of Third World communities, which also form
biodiversity hotspots. Very often, the knowledge, processes and resources that are
patented are widely known within a community. Once patented, the patent owner can
effectively prevent competitors from producing the product, occasionally even
interfering with the lifestyles of the community which is the original source of the
patented information anyway. In such cases, farmer and community livelihoods are
threatened.

Among the India-specific cases of biopiracy and unfair patenting in the past few years
has been the Texmati case where a Texas, USA-based company patented a strain of
Basmati rice crossed with a semi-dwarf variety. RiceTec claimed the variety (named
Texmati) was a type of the famed fragrant rice. Basmati is the communal property of rice
growers in the northern sub-Himalayas in India. Hence, the patent ownership was not
only illegal and unethical but also agriculturally incorrect. The process of producing
'atta' or wheat flour from whole wheat was also patented by an American company.
There are innumerable patents on neem extracts for purposes which have been known
to Indians for centuries. Patents on turmeric and numerous other Indian plants and
processes have also been attempted and awarded.
The threat from biopiracy lies in four facts : that knowledge and / or genetic resources
belonging to a region, community or country is stolen or claimed as one's own; that the
use of this knowledge or genetic resource in the area of its origin or traditional usage
may be hampered or sought to be prevented; that the patent holder will unfairly profit
from the patent; and that the patent claimed and awarded illegally and unethically is
bound to disturb an established system somewhere in the world, be it related to food,
medicine, livelihood or lifestyle.

Indian farmers rediscover advantages of

traditional rice varieties
by Vir Singh and Satya Prakash

Indian farmers in a district in Uttar Pradesh, who had given up traditional rice
varieties for high yielding varieties (HYVs) during the Green Revolution, found
themselves in difficulty as the HYVs ran into problems. These farmers were saved
by the foresight of one farmer who had continued growing traditional varieties
which are cheaper to cultivate and superior to the HYVs in disease and pest
resistance, climate tolerance, yield, flavour and market price.

This article was written perhaps in the mid-1980s. It has been taken from
"Return to the Good Earth", published by the Third World Network.

Look for the links to related pages on this website at the end.

Uttar Pradesh, India : Over two decades ago during the Green Revolution, the seeds of
the high yielding varieties of crops (HYVs) had appeared as a great new hope for the
farmers of the terai region in Nainital district of Uttar Pradesh. But in more recent years,
this hope has been killed to a large extent, especially in the case of rice cultivation, by
an emerging agro-ecological crisis.

While several farmers had started growing the Pant-4 HYV (and some other HYVs)
recommended to them, the very high demands of irrigation as well as chemical
fertilisers for this rice HYV were proving a problem for them. This problem was
particularly acute in this drought year. As a result of heavy exploitation of water, nearly
half of the artesian wells (the most important sources of irrigation in the terai) had dried
up. In the remaining wells too the pressure had reduced considerably.

Even in rivers the water level declined steeply. The water level in the Haripura dam on
Bhakhra river and the Bore dam on Bore river has receded so much that the farmers
could not seek any solace from these structures.

A large number of eucalyptus trees planted here in recent years have also contributed to
lowering the water-table. Most of these trees have been planted on fields bunds.
Villagers say that a row of this tree sucks up to a distance of five metres in the field.
Earlier the main feature of this area had been its abundance of ground-water. But the
destruction of natural forests in the hills above as well as in the plains of the terai
reduced this to a large extent. At the same time, exploitation of the ground-water
started on a truly massive scale by not only bringing much more land under cultivation
but also growing highly water-intensive HYVs, especially the new exotic strains of
paddy, on this land. The water-table went down drastically, at some places as low as 50
feet, making it necessary to dig tubewells to satiate the needs of the HYVs and the new
cropping pattern.

Initially, when water abundance had made this a particularly good land for growing rice
HYVs, the traditional paddy varieties had been given up by most farmers. However, one
far-sighted farmer, Inder Singh continued to grow and preserve several diverse
traditional varieties having different properties with respect to disease and pest
susceptibility, climate tolerance, yield, flavour, aroma, etc. Among these he noticed one
particular variety which had good qualities of flavour as well as high yield.

As the water level receded and the HYVs ran into some other problems as well, some
farmers started yearning for traditional seeds and happily they could get these from
Inder Singh. His best variety was named Indarasan - as a tribute to his farsightedness in
preserving and improving it. Owing to high productivity and low costs of cultivation (in
terms of fertilisers and water), this variety was popular among farmers. The small
farmers least capable of coping with the high cost of HYVs especially found Indarasan a
very useful variety. In just about six to seven years nearly half of the land was covered
by Indarasan, and even some big farmers adopted this variety.

During the recent drought season, Indarasan coped much better than Pant-4, the most
widely grown variety here among the various paddy HYVs. In fact the yield of Indarasan
paddy this year has gone up, reaching a peak of 32 quintals per acre from the earlier
average of 25 quintals per acre. On the other hand Pant-4 has stagnated at 20 quintals
per acre, and where irrigation could not be arranged, this HYV has been destroyed
almost entirely.

What is more, the Indarasan variety is fetching a better price on the market - its rate of
Rs.208 per quintal in Gandarpur mandi (market) compares very favourably with the
Rs.175 per quintal for Pant-4.

There is a big rush among farmers to get the Indarasan seed for next year's crop.

Farmers who have been cultivating Indarasan for some time are satisfied that it has not
been susceptible to diseases and they compare this to the high susceptibility of the so-
called HYVs.

The Indarasan variety also has good flavour and scent, and its threshing is much easier.
In comparison the threshing of Pant-4 requires much more effort. In addition the
proportion of unbroken grains is higher in Indarasan.

In terms of flavour Indarasan is vying with popular types of rice like Basmati and Hansraj
for a place of honour. It also yields more dry fodder for cattle compared to the dwarf
HYVs, and even in quality Indarasan's fodder has been found relatively better (generally
paddy fodder is considered a poor quality fodder, to be used only in case of extreme
need).

Unfortunately some scientists who identify their own work only with the popularisation
of exotic HYVs are feeling uneasy about this re-discovery of farmers, instead of learning
from the field-situation and re-orienting their research effort accordingly.

This better performance of a traditional variety grown at a lower cost, particularly in a

drought year, is especially significant since it took place in the Nainital terai region,
considered a birth-place of the Green Revolution in India.

Genetically modified seeds and other organisms (GMOs)

Questions about the safety and ethics of

genetic engineering have never been answered.
GE supporters may just be opening a Pandora's
box. Illustration source : WPR,1985

Genetic modification (GM), also known as genetic engineering (GE), is an artificial

method of gene manipulation, transferring a gene of a living organism, whether plant or
animal, into another. The DNA structure or sequence is usually tampered with, and
foreign substances are added to the isolated genes.

While gene transfer does occur in nature, the basic difference is that it is obviously
natural, in compliance with the tenets of nature, and thus has no side-effects or
dangers associated with it. The species concerned would invariably be closely-related
and a combination of hereditary characteristics based on natural laws of dominance
would only be possible. It should also be noted that gene transfer of the type that is
effected by biotechnologists in their laboratories is NEVER possible nor desirable in
nature.

GE plants or other organisms can, through interbreeding, contaminate local or even

regional gene pools and biodiversity, thus affecting entire ecosystems. This is not just a
possibility but has already occurred when GM crops have interbred with other plants and
contaminated the produce as well as gene pool. Moreover, because GM has been using
various toxins, antibiotic-resistant genes, allergens and genes sourced from dangerous
strains of bacteria and viruses, their presence within a food chain can have devastating
results on food quality and human / animal health.

The threats of GE are many. Firstly, GE is relatively imprecise, with the technology itself
not guaranteeing accurate 'positioning' of the gene. The life cycle of the organism
created by GE, called a genetically-modified organism (GMO), is also neither predictable
nor controllable. Its effect on and interaction with other organisms in its environment
can never be known immediately and the effects may not even be apparent until some
generations later. Lastly, the polluting genes which contaminate biodiversity and gene
pools CANNOT be exterminated or removed by any means whatsoever. In other words,
whenever adverse effects of GM or GMOs become apparent, the 'rogue' cannot be
weeded out. Food products can also be contaminated directly genetically, or mixed with
GM food. In either case, consumers would never even know.

In India, Bt cotton is a well-known example of GE and has been discussed on a separate

page on this website. Other examples of GM posing a threat to India include :

GM Mustard : A cocktail of genes taken from the tobacco plant and various bacteria.
The plant is engineered to be resistant to a highly-poisonous herbicide that kills all
other plants. In other words, the company that sells GM mustard seeds also profits by
selling the herbicide over which it has a monopoly. The plant also carries a toxic male
sterile gene aimed at stopping pollen production.

GM Soya : A Monsanto creation that has genes of various bacteria, the petunia plant
and of the cauliflower mosaic virus. The plant has also been engineered to be resistant
to a specific herbicide, in this case the highly toxic Roundup. Hence, as with GM
mustard, GM soya too comes as a package with its own herbicide that can be supplied
only by one company.

GM Maize : Branded Starlink and created by Aventis, GM Maize was found to contain
allergens that caused nausea and shock in humans by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA). Declared unfit for human consumption, Starlink was withdrawn from
the US markets and various products of which it was an ingredient were recalled.
Starlink however made a surreptitious return as an innocuous unlabelled corn-soya mix
which was distributed under the World Food Programme (WFP) in some Third World
countries. On exposure of the same, many of the recipient nations refused the product.
In India, the same product was sought to be distributed as food aid by Catholic Relief
Services and CARE-India during the aftermath of the Orissa cyclone in 1999. The 'aid'
was rejected and the import of the product banned after samples of the material were
tested by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE), New
Delhi (an affiliate of Vandana Shiva's Navdanya) and found to be genetically-modified.

Bt cotton
Bt cotton is perhaps the best-known example of genetic engineering (GE) or genetic
modification (GM) in India. It is cotton that has been genetically-engineered in a
laboratory taking genes from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These
genes and other foreign substances inserted control the release of high doses of toxins
through out the plant during various stages in its lifecycle, which are supposedly
harmful to bollworms, the most important cotton pest in India.

Bt cotton was a Monsanto-creation and the company teamed up with an Indian seed
company, Mahyco, in 1998 to undertake field trials. Four years later, the Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment, Govt. of
India, approved the planting of three Bt cotton varieties in some states, despite strong
reasons not to do so, including :

·5 The trialing itself was being challenged in India's Supreme Court

·6 There were supposedly certain violations of biosafety guidelines during the trials
which GEAC was made aware of

·7 The ground reality wherever Bt cotton was being grown commercially elsewhere
in the world (China, USA and Australia) was not encouraging. Bollworms, the
chief reason for the development of Bt cotton, had developed resistance to the
toxins generated within the plant. On the other hand, beneficial species such as
bees were being exterminated by the toxins.

In the years that have followed, Bt cotton has failed in India too, as per a study
conducted by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE),
New Delhi (an affiliate of Vandana Shiva's Navdanya), on various counts including :

·8 Bollworms are not affected by Bt cotton, nor are other pests. Farmers still have to
use pesticides

·9 Yields are nowhere close to promised figures, often lower than conventional
cotton varieties

·10 Net income from a Bt cotton crop is not higher than conventionally-grown cotton
Biosafety norms as prescribed by the GEAC are invariably violated by farmers.
Monsanto-Mahyco as well as GEAC have washed their hands off this responsibility by
passing it on to the farmer, invariably small-scale and less literate.

The REAL effect of pesticides

Here is a list of some common pesticides that affect humans, animals and the
environment in adverse ways. They can be found in practically every food source today.
To know about the usual contaminants in the food you eat, click here.

Trade name Long-term effects

Camphechlor Cancer suspect, toxic to fish, very persistent

Chlordane/Heptachlor Leukemia suspect, toxic to wildlife, very persistent

Chlordimeform Cancer suspect, bladder damage, toxic to wildlife

DBCP Cancer risk, male sterility, persists in water

Cancer causing, damage to liver, nerve, brain, extremely

DDT
persistent, toxic to wildlife

Cancer suspect, birth defects, very persistent, toxic to

Aldrin/Dieldrin/Endrin
wildlife

Potent cancer cause, birth defects, lung, liver damage,

EDB
very persistent

Proven cancer cause, miscarriage, leukemia suspect, very

BHC/Lindane
persistent, toxic to fish

Paraquat No antidote, lung scarring

Endosulfan Nervous system damage

PCP Nervous system damage, liver damage, skin disease

Potent cancer cause, birth defects, toxic to fish, very

2,4,5-T
persistent

Pesticides you could find in your food (and water)

The twin controversies in 2003 regarding pesticide content in bottled drinking water
and aerated beverages in India hardly came as a surprise to many working with the
environment and in farming. The pesticide problem is compounded in India because
many pesticides banned abroad are manufactured / dumped and sold freely here.
Pesticides are not bio-degradable, are highly toxic and find their way into ground water
and water bodies, contaminating them and rendering them unfit for drinking purposes.
Remember that even if you blame (though rightly-so) a beverage manufacturer for
allowing pesticide residues in their products and treating human life so cheaply, the fact
remains that pesticides entered the water supply in the first place only because of the
agriculture system which used them.

These are some of the pesticides you can find in the food you eat. The list is not,
unfortunately, exhaustive. To know how some of these pesticides affect humans and the
environment, click here.

Food product Contaminant pesticides

 Diphenylamine, Captan, Endosulfan, Phosmet,
Apples
Azinphos-methyl

Bananas Diazinon, Thiabendazone, Carbaryl

Methamidophos, Chlorpyrifos, Dimethoate,

Bell Peppers
Acephate, Endosulfan

DCPA, Methamidophos, Demeton, Dimethoate,

Broccoli
Parathion

Methamidophos, Dimethoate, Fenvalerate,

Cabbage
Permethrin, BHC

Methamidophos, Endosulfan, Chlorothalonil,

Cantaloupes
Dimethoate, Methyl Parathion

Carrots DDT, Trifluralin, Parathion, Diazinon, Dieldrin

Methamidophos, Endosulfan, Dimethoate,

Cauliflower
Chlorothalonil, Diazion

Dicloran, Chlorothalonil, Endosulfan, Acephate,

Celery
Methamidophos

Cherries Parathion, Malathion, Captan, Dicloran, Diazinon

Sulfallate, Carbaryl, Chlorpyrifos, Dieldrin,

Corn
Lindane

Methamidophos, Endosulfan, Dieldrin,

Cucumbers
Chlorpyrifos, Dimethoate

Thiabendazole, Ethion, Methidathion,

Grapefruit
Chlorobenzilate, Carbaryl

Captan, Dimethoate, Dicloran, Carbaryl,

Grapes
Iprodione

Dimethoate, Methamidophos, Endosulfan,

Green Beans
Acephate, Chlorothalonil

Mevinphos, Endosulfan, Permethrin, Dimethoate,

Lettuce
Methomyl

Onions DCPA, DDT, Ethion, Diazinon, Malathion

 Methidathion, Chlorpyrifos, Ethion, Parathin,
Oranges
Carbary

Peaches Dicloran, Captan, Parathion, Carbaryl, Endosulfan

Azinphos-methyl, Cyhexatin, Phosmet,

Pears
Endosulfan, Ethion

DDT, Chlorpropham, Dieldrin, Aldicarb,

Potatoes
Chlordane

Endosuslfan, DDT, Methomyl, Methamidophos,

Spinach
Dimethoate

Captan, Vinclozolin, Endosulfan,

Strawberries
Methamidophos, Methyl Parathion

Sweet Potatoes Dicloran, DDT, Phosmet, Dieldrin, BHC

Methamidophos, Chlorpyrifos, Chlorothalonilo,

Tomatoes
Permethrin, Dimethoate

Methamidophos, Chlorothalonil, Dimethoate,

Watermelon
Carbaryl, Captan

Source : "Return to the Good Earth", Third World Network

Genetics control will make transnationals more powerful

in the nineties
Advance in biotechnology will give multinational companies more control over
the Third World

By Maria Isabel Sans

The author is an Uruguayan journalist whose fields of specialisation are

agriculture and biology. This article is taken from Third World Network Features,
written sometime in the 1980s. The author here writes about the role of large
corporations in agriculture and agricultural systems, their quest for control and
market shares that affects small farmers around the world, with specific
reference to genetic engineering. Her statement that "genetics control will make"
large corporations more powerful has been proven by events over the past
decade. The threat posed by such organisations however can still be countered.

Look for the links to related pages on this website at the end.

Montevideo, Uruguay : Ownership of recent progress in biotechnology is giving big

business a more solid grab than the Green Revolution two decades ago. The new science
will find countless ways to penetrate Third World markets, replace import commodities,
threaten governments with starvation or simply wage biological war against them.

Canadian economics professor Patrick Mooney - 1985 Alternative Peace Nobel Prize
winner and author of ‘Seeds of the Earth’ (1977) and ‘The Law of the Seed’ (1983) -
issued this alert during the XII Panamerican Seminar on Seeds recently held here.

Biotechnology and particularly genetics engineering can achieve combinations of

vegetable and animal characters which trespass previously sealed compartments
between these two kingdoms. A gene responsible for phosphorescence in glow worms
was successfully transferred to tobacco at the University of California. The result was a
plantation that glows at night. Oats with mouse genes incorporated by Canadian
scientists improved their capacity to absorb water. Pigs with human genes proved better
ham producers.

These experiments show that genetics has breached the barriers between plants,
animals and micro-organisms.

Where the Green Revolution, which began in the sixties, affected only three crops - rice,
wheat and maize, genetics revolution may involve any combination of plants, animals or
micro-organisms. Whereas 830 scientists worked in the Green Revolution, research in
genetics is presently a 5,000-man project. The Green Revolution demanded US$330
million yearly; until 1980, US$12 billion had been invested in transplanting genes.

In the Green Revolution, high-yield varieties with homogeneous characteristics boosted

production through the use of heavy doses of fertilisers, herbicides and abundant
irrigation. Both the seed producers and the chemical companies made a fortune.

Green Revolution beneficiaries are helplessly affected every time disease hits their crops,
unless they can buy pesticides. The same happens when a drought affects imported
varieties unfit for local weather rigours. When farmers try to go back to the seeds they
had always sown - low-yield varieties but resistant to epidemics and bad weather, these
can no longer be found, having been ploughed under for the new crops. The original
seeds are kept only in the gene banks of industrialised countries.

According to Mooney, in the early seventies, Shell, Mobil and British Petroleum
consulted the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on the feasibility of investing
in new technological areas. For an answer MIT provided genes of animals and
vegetables. It was estimated that the seed market would swell beyond US$50 billion.
Moreover, applied to agriculture, the new technology was likely to open new market
lines capable of producing an additional US$100 billion in two decades.

For instance, it is estimated that tissue culture techniques will raise sugar cane yields
from 70-90 tons per hectare to 150-200 tons, and tomato yields per hectare from 20-
40 tons to 60-100.

Furthermore, transnationals do not intend to create varieties that grow without

fertilisers, irrigation and pesticides. Instead of searching for plague-resistant varieties,
they develop pesticide-resistant plants.

Transnationals are now running 79 programmes aimed at making different crops fit for
enduring pesticides.

If Ciba-Geigy succeeds in creating an Atrazine-resistant variety, Atrazine sales will grow

by more than US$125 million. If Monsanto gives birth to a crop that endures Glyphosate,
its market will swell by US$125 million. When Hoechst develops plants for Basta, this
agrochemical will sell an additional US$200 million yearly. The market for pesticide-
resistant varieties is reckoned at US$3.1 billion per year by the mid-nineties, and at
US$6 billion by century's end.

Adapting a plant to a chemical is a lot cheaper than doing the opposite. Developing a
new variety costs US$2 million while formulating a new herbicide requires US$40
million. It is no coincidence that out of ten companies that control the world seed
market, eight also engage in production of agrochemicals. Moreover, all ten leading
companies selling agrochemicals are, without exception, active in seed sales. Since the
late sixties, petrochemicals and pharmaceutical producers have been the largest
purchasers of seed-related firms.

Embryo production is the latest strategic goal. Embryos are sold accompanied by small
protective capsules containing fertilisers, fungicides and herbicides ready to mix with
soil. This procedure is currently used for celery, tomato, carrots and green pepper, and
research is under way to include wheat, barley and sorghum. Farmers will have no
choice, they will be forced to buy the whole kit.

In October 1986, Sudanese farmers were ready to introduce gum arabic to the market.
As they prepared for harvest, a New York company announced the discovery of a new
industrial process for the production of natural gum, of supposedly higher quality than
farmed rubber. The third largest Sudanese export item lost its market overnight.

In November 1986, vanilla farmers from Madagascar were in search of prospective

buyers. However, all 70,000 islanders growing this crop lost their main source of
income when natural vanilla beans went into production in the laboratories of a Texas
firm.

Right now it is scientifically and economically feasible for the industrialised world to find
substitutes for commodities currently imported from Third World countries, worth
US$14 billion.

US energy officials have admitted that research is being conducted to depict human
genome (complete set of hereditary factors) in detail. The US$3 billion project aims at
identifying each of the tender spots in the human constitution. This will enable
scientists to develop diseases affecting one particular ethnic group, one sex or more
specifically, just one age group within a sex or an ethnic type. The declared purpose of
the exercise is enlarging the war arsenal.
But the most serious threat in biological war is crop destruction. If disease suddenly kills
thousands in Nicaragua, public opinion may be aroused, but if coffee or cotton falls
victim to an unknown plague, the Sandinista government may be in serious trouble and
no one can be accused of foul play.

The US has budgeted US$34 million for ‘defence’ against biological war. It is noteworthy
that defensive means in this area involve exactly the same weapons used to wage
aggression.

As stated by Occidental Petroleum's chairman, food resources will mean during the
nineties what energy meant during the seventies and eighties. Chicago business
consultants hold that farm products have a potential market ten times larger than
pharmaceutics.

Out of 50 major companies in the food market in 1979, only 30 still survive; the rest
were bought by the leading firms.

The largest world used companies are ranked as follows by Enrique Estramil, Phytology
researcher at the Faculty of Agronomics in Uruguay: Royal Dutch Shell, Pioneer Hi-Bred,
Sandoz, Cardo, Dekalb Pfizer and Ciba-Geigy. Ciba-Geigy also ranks second among the
world's largest pesticide dealers, Shell comes in third, and Sandoz holds the 19th
position.

Since the end of the sixties Shell has purchased 68 seed companies, Pioneer 39, Sandoz
37, Cardo 39, Dekalb 34 and Ciba-Geigy 26. The world's genetic resources, on which
current and future global food security rests, are increasingly monopolised by this type
of firms.

Nicaragua and Ethiopia are two good examples of Third World countries which have
regulated transactional activities, preventing their control over this strategic resource.

Nicaragua allocates to genetic conservation over 50% of its agricultural budget, thus
spending more than Brazil in gathering genetic samples. When the US decided on a food
blockade on their country, Nicaraguans realised that food self-sufficiency was a goal to
attain.

Traditionally a bean seeds importer, Nicaragua was able to export different varieties of
this crop after two years' work. Nicaraguan scientists are now working on tissue cultures
to develop new export crops while simultaneously gathering varieties of medicinal and
fruit species which up to now had only grown wild in rainforests.

Nature taught Ethiopia a tough lesson on the benefits of the Green Revolution. One
million people starved to death in 1985 as a result of drought. Drought occurs
frequently in Ethiopia but starvation to this extent is a newcomer. Hybrid maize did not
survive in 1985 because it needs plentiful water. The new wheat strains failed
completely.

Those who had sown their own sorghum and millet seeds - low-yield varieties but
resistant to Ethiopian weather - were the only farmers who got some grain. Death
reached as far as the Green Revolution had penetrated.

Samples of the native crops harvested during the drought were eagerly gathered and
stored. Now, the world's poorest country has the largest genes bank in the Third World.
Twelve regeneration centres have been set up to supply farmers with their own native
varieties.

Cloning
In the case of plants, cloning has found applications in horticulture, with many
vegetative / asexual reproduction methods being regularly used for propagation to
create genetically-identical plants. Cloning is also known to occur in nature, even if very
rarely. The cloning controversy and its ethical as well as safety concerns, however
revolves only around animal and human cloning.

Cloning in the contemporary and biological sense, is the creation of a living organism
that is genetically completely identical with another. The process is carried out by
removing the nucleus from an egg cell and placing the nucleus extracted from a cell of
the organism to be cloned in its place. The egg cell is implanted in a surrogate mother,
and acts as a host and develops into an organism genetically similar to the donor of the
introduced nucleus. Cloning also goes a step further with genetic manipulation -
removal of so-called 'undesirable' genes and insertion of 'desirable' ones. This is just an
over-simplified outline but provides a basic idea of what cloning entails.

Critics of cloning have placed strong ethical arguments against the technique and its
laboratory processes. Tinkering with genetic structure, 'playing God' and producing
'designer babies' (genetic manipulation) has serious ethical implications which are
further compounded by the complexity of gene behaviour and genetic structure. Genes
interact in intricate and complex ways not yet understood by scientists and considering
the vastness of the genome, perhaps scientists never will.

Gene replacement and cloning are therefore fraught with serious uncertainties and risks,
and removal or insertion of a gene may have serious unexpected side effects. Also,
genetic structure once altered will remain for eternity, being passed on from generation
to generation, with the possibility of pollution and weakening of the species' gene pool.
Another facet of this is that an individual's 'genetic legacy' is lost for ever. Genetic
diversity can also be reduced, thus increasing susceptibility to disease. In fact, the last is
one of the strongest arguments against cloning of endangered species. Instead of
helping the species, cloning can actually help wipe it out altogether.

Cloning thus presents serious risks for the organism that develops from the process, as
well as the species cloned (or genetically-modified). Till today, a very low success rate in
cloning has been accompanied by early deaths and accelerated ageing. How many
imperfect, living creatures will be created before science can claim to have perfected its
technique is any body's guess.
Traditional agriculture in India : High yields and no waste
by Bharat Dogra

This article on traditional agricultural techniques and indigenous high-yielding

seeds appeared in 'The Ecologist' way back in 1983. Since then, the argument
and justification to revert to traditional and non-chemical methods of farming
have only grown stronger and more imperative.

Look for the links to related pages on this website at the end.

Today in India, as in many other developing countries with a rich agricultural tradition of
their own, the words ‘improved agriculture’ and ‘progressive agriculture’ have become
synonymous with the spread of HYVs (High Yielding Varieties of Crops) grown with ever-
increasing doses of (often imported) chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Wherever the
new crop varieties have spread, time-honoured crop rotations, inter-cropping patterns
and other important features of traditional agriculture have been harshly uprooted (this
choice, however, has not been made willingly by most farmers, rather it has been forced
on them by a package of government policies, subsidies and selective price incentives).

At the back of this trend, and the official policies which support it, is the belief that
traditional agriculture is ‘backward’ and incapable of meeting the desired objectives of
agricultural planning, i.e. making adequate food available for the Indian messes and
improving the living conditions of the peasants who constitute the overwhelming
proportion of the Indian population.

But is this belief, widespread as it is among several international ‘experts’ and India's
own development planners and policy makers, supported by hard facts?

In 1889, Dr John Augustus Voelcker, the Consulting Chemist to the Royal Agricultural
Society of England, was sent by the British government to study Indian agriculture.
Voelcker toured the country extensively for over one year. His report was published in
1893, and since then has often been cited as an authoritative work on Indian agriculture
of this period. For instance, the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture (1928)
said of the Voelcker Report, "Although thirty five years have elapsed since this work was
written, the ability which Dr Voelcker displayed in his comprehensive survey of the
agricultural conditions of India, in his analysis of problems they present and in the
recommendations for their solution, still renders it a book of the utmost value to all
students of agriculture in India."

How did Dr Voelcker view Indian agriculture as it existed nearly a hundred years back?
Did he consider it backward and incapable of giving a good yield? The essence of what
Dr Voelcker said can be summarised in the following extract from his report : "I explain
that I do not share the opinions which have been expressed as to Indian Agriculture
being, as a whole, primitive and backward, but I believe that in may parts there is little
or nothing than can be improved, whilst where agriculture is manifestly inferior, it is
more generally the result of the absence of facilities which exist in the better districts
than form inherent bad systems of cultivation . . . I make bold to say that it is a much
easier task to propose improvements in English agriculture than to make really valuable
suggestions for that of India . . . the conviction has forced itself upon me that, taking
everything together and more especially considering the conditions under which Indian
crops are grown, they are wonderfully good. At his best the Indian raiyat or cultivator is
quite as good as, and in some respects, the superior of, the average British farmer,
while at his worst it can only be said that this state is brought about largely by an
absence of facilities for improvement which is probably unequalled in any other
country . . . I have remarked in earlier chapters about the general excellence of the
cultivation; the crops grown here are numerous and varied, much more indeed than in
England. That the cultivation should often be magnificent is not to be wondered at when
it is remembered that many of the crops have been known to the raiyats for several
centuries, rice is a prominent instance in point."

More especially he stated, "To take the ordinary acts of husbandry, nowhere would one
find better instances of keeping land scrupulously clean from weeds, of ingenuity in
device of water-raising appliances, of knowledge of soils and their capabilities as well as
of the exact time to sow and to reap, as one would in Indian agriculture, and this not at
its best along, but at its ordinary level. It is wonderful, too, how much is known of
rotation, the system of mixed crops and of fallowing. Certain it is that I, at least, have
never seen a more perfect picture of careful cultivation, combined with hard labour,
perseverance and fertility of resource, than I have seen at many of the halting places in
my tour. Such are the gardens of Mahi, the fields of Nadiad and many others."

Voelcker did not believe that the existing ploughs and other implements used by the
farmers were useless and ready to be replaced, "It has been said that if the native
cultivator had ‘improved’ ploughs he could dispense with he many ploughings which he
gives to the land, and that he would thus save himself the cost of going over the field
again and again, crossing and recrossing. These ploughings are always three or four in
number for ordinary crops, and eight, twelve and even as many as twenty, for sugar
cane and other special crops. But the answer is that the end is achieved in time, a finer
and better tilth is obtained and the moisture is not lost." Further, "If for ploughs of new
designs there be but little room, still less is there for more expensive implements, such
as seed-drills, mowers, reapers, threshing machines etc. The native seed drill will strike
everyone who sees it at work as being wonderfully efficient, and leaving little to be
desired . . . Anyone, who has watched the clever devices of the native cultivators in the
implements which they use, for harrowing, levelling, drilling, raising water, etc., will see
that if anything is to replace the existing implements it must be simple, cheap and
effective. He will indeed be a clever man who introduces something really practical."

An important agent of traditional Indian agriculture was the well-developed irrigation

system. "Irrigation by wells is at once the most widely distributed system, and also the
one productive of the finest examples of careful cultivation . . . Further, as regards
wells, one cannot help being struck by the skill with which a supply of water is first
found by the native cultivators, then by the construction of the wells, the kinds of wells
and their suitability to the surroundings and means of the people; also by the various
devices for raising water, each of which has a distinct reason for its adoption. All these
are most interesting points with which I am not called upon to deal, for I see little to
improve in them which the cultivator does not know perfectly well."

Another aspect, less widely realised, was that of the scientific rotation system. Voelcker
pointed out, "It is quite a mistake to suppose that rotation is not understood or
appreciated in India. Frequently more than one crop at a time may be seen occupying
the same ground but one is very apt to forget that this is really an instance of rotation
being followed. It is not an infrequent practice, when drilling a cereal crop, such as
jowar (Sorghum vulgare) or some other millet, to put in at intervals a few drills of some
leguminous crop, such as arhar (Cajanus cajan).

"There are many systems in ordinary use which are far more complicated than the
above. For instance, not only may there be rows of crops, side by side, as noticed above,
but the alternating rows may themselves be made up of mixtures of different crops,
some of them quick growing and reaped early, others of slower growth and requiring
both sun and air, and thus being reaped after the former have been cleared off. Again,
some are deep-rooted plants, others are surface feeders, some require the shelter of
other plants and some will thrive alone. The whole system appears to be one designed
to cover the bareness and consequent loss to the soil, which would result from the soil
beating down upon it, and from the loss of moisture which it would incur."

Voelcker, moreover, was not the only agricultural scientist to point out these assets of
traditional agriculture in India. There were several others, scientists and expert scholars,
who did so. Here we quote from only two others—J. Mollison and A.O. Hume.

J. Mollison, who later became the first Inspector-General of Agriculture in India,

published in 1901 a volume ‘Text Book of Indian Agriculture’. Like Voelcker, Mollison
stressed the suitability of the implements used traditionally in Indian conditions. "I
believe that the implements in ordinary use are entirely suitable for the conditions of
Indian agriculture. This statement may be objected to by other authorities, but if such is
the case, I am afraid, I cannot change a deliberately expressed opinion. To those who
are skeptical I can show in parts of the Bombay Presidency cultivation by means of
indigenous tillage implements only, which in respect of neatness, thoroughness and
profitableness cannot be excelled by the best gardeners or the best farmers in any part
of the world. That statement I deliberately make, and am quite prepared to
substantiate."

Mollison gives the following account of the practice of artificial warping in Bombay
Presidency, "Artificial warping differs from the natural formation of alluvium only, in that
the water of a turbid stream may be diverted from its course, and held in a particular
area sufficiently long to deposit a large amount of sediment, and if the process is often
repeated, a soil of considerable depth may be formed on rock or any other sterile area.
Many of the small rice-fields on the Western Ghats have been formed by throwing
bandheras across the turbid hill-streams and either diverting the water or allowing a
small lake to form above the weir. In this way the current is so obstructed that
suspended earthy matter is deposited and in time the silt layer becomes so deep that a
rice-crop can be raised thereon. The lower terraced rice fields of the Ghats are annually
warped and improved by the silt carried down by the drainage water of the uplands."

Speaking of the soil-mixing practices, Mollison writes, "Mixing is not unknown in India.
Clay is often carted from rice-fields in sufficient quantity to add a layer one to two
inches thick on sand land. The addition changes the consistence of the sand, so that it
becomes better suited for sugar cane and other garden crops raised under irrigation.
The cultivator appreciates the value of tank silt and in those districts where these water
reservoirs are common they are cleaned out with the utmost care and regularly each
year. The silt which has collected in these tanks being the washings of village sites and
cultivated fields, has some manurial value, and applied as it is at the rate of 40 cart
loads or more per acre, adds considerably to the body of the soil."

A.O. Hume, in Agricultural Reform in India, (1878) wrote about weed-control by Indian
farmers at that time, "As for weeds, their wheat fields would, in this respect, shame
ninety-nine hundredths of those in Europe. You may stand in some high old barrow-like
village site in Upper India, and look down on all sides on one wide sea of waving wheat
broken only by dark green islands of mango groves—many square miles of wheat and
not a weed or blade of grass above six inches in height to be found amongst it. What is
to be spied out creeping here and there on the ground is only the growth of the last few
weeks, since the corn grew too high and thick to permit the women and children to
continue weeding."

Natural farming
Natural farming, also known as Do-nothing farming or No-till farming was popularised
by Masanobu Fukuoka, starting in the 1940s in Japan.

The most essential aspect of natural farming is to let nature play a dominant role to the
maximum extent possible. Hence, no-till, farm biodiversity, integration and symbiotic
farm components and protection of soil cover all have a place in this method of farming.
The seed ball technique for sowing has also been given importance by Fukuoka.

The immense importance placed on no-tillage has led to natural farming also being
referred to as No-till farming. The term 'Do Nothing Farming' originated because the
farmer is considered only to be a facilitator - the real work is done by Nature herself.
Hence, while there is lots to think about and do in natural farming, actual physical work
and labour has actually been seen to reduce by upto 80% compared to other
agricultural systems.
In Japan, Fukuoka achieved yields similar to those of chemical agriculture. His methods
have also been adopted to suit European conditions and put into practice there. In India,
Fukuoka is fondly-regarded and his work has found a number of practitioners who have
termed their method of farming 'rishi kheti' literally meaning agriculture of the sages.

Natural farming succeeds in Indian village

By Partap C Aggarwal

Partap C Aggarwal is well-known in organic farming circles in India despite

keeping a low profile. His role in bringing Masanobu Fukuoka's "One Straw
Revolution" to India is well-known. Partap worked at the Friends Rural Centre in
Rasulia, Madhya Pradesh where he engineered a switch to organic farming. In this
article taken from 'The Illustrated Weekly of India', he talks about the reasons he
switched over and the results of his work.

Look for the links to related pages on this website at the end.

For nearly eight years, from 1979 to 1987, my family and I lived and worked in a
community of about 15 households near a small village called Rasulia, in Madhya
Pradesh.

The community we lived in, known as ‘The Friends Rural Centre’, was founded a century
ago as a training centre for destitute children. Over the decades the nature of its work
has changed with new workers and a changing socio-economic environment.

Currently, the centre has three major concerns : the rapid deterioration of our soil and
natural environment; the continuing impoverishment of our rural population; and the
apathy of our small, privileged upper classes. We believed all three to be interlinked,
and rooted in the urban-industrial lifestyle which has engulfed our country with
hurricane-like force in recent years.

Our community felt that this thoughtless drift must be halted, and our strengths
devoted towards realising a healthy, revitalising alternative. In response to these
concerns the community at Rasulia decided to change its own life-style, in order to
experience at first hand what such an alternative might entail.

Our concern for soil health and the small farmer led us to make drastic changes in our
own farming practices. Slowly, bit by bit, we found ourselves close to what is called
‘natural farming’, pioneered in Japan by Masanobu Fukuoka. At Rasulia we called it 'rishi
kheti' (agriculture of the sages). Natural farming is ideally a quest for realising the
underlying unity of soil, plants and animals, including ourselves.

Our urban rich have an unhealthy fascination for foreign ideas and goods, but our
villagers are usually sceptical of them. It was necessary to assure our rural brothers that
‘natural farming’ was not another Japanese import. And that similar ideas have been
widely practiced in our own culture over thousands of years.

The rishis looked upon the soil as a ‘mother’. Ploughing was forbidden, for many of
them believed that the plough would damage the soil and turn it into sand.

The rishis considered fruit, tubers and milk the most appropriate diet for humans. Rice,
barley and millet were grown in small quantities, and used as offerings tot he sacrificial
fire. Leftovers were considered consecrated food - prasad - and eaten as such.

When there was a choice, uncultivated and wild grain and vegetables were preferred to
the cultivated ones. Cows were raised with great care and love, and extensive grazing
lands were provided to them by strictly and deliberately limiting cultivated areas.

As a first step of rishi kheti at Rasulia, we stopped using chemical fertilisers and
poisons. Some plants protested mildly, but then accepted the change. Mexican hybrid
wheat tried, but was not able to do without chemicals. This, we found, was true of all
highly engineered seeds. When we tried to look for hardy local varieties of wheat we
found that most of them had already become extinct. Luckily, we found some suitable
wheat seeds in Gujarat which felt quite at home in Rasulia.

Rice, on the other hand, was much more adaptive. Even the hybrid rice called Ratna
adapted quickly to the Rasulia regimen of organic manure and minimum tillage. The
reason, we found, was that central India is the original home of rice, and this crop feels
perfectly at home here.

We were able to find many other suitable varieties of rice. This too was not surprising;
for had Dr Richharia, the noted agricultural scientist, not collected and catalogued
20,000 different varieties of rice in this region alone?

Our next step was to sell the tractor. Everyone in the community was apprehensive, but
we never really missed the tractor. All digging and ploughing was of course not stopped
in one go, but we reduced it drastically and used only bullocks.

Soon we learned that some hardy plants such as clover, soyabeans and rice would grow
easily on uncultivated land. Not only that, we further observed that plants such as clover
could be used to eliminate other less useful ones known as ‘weeds’. In fact, we began to
use clover to clear our fields instead of digging them up.

After gaining some confidence in natural farming we devoted three-and-a-half acres of

our least productive land to absolutely no-till treatment. To our utter amazement, it
began to recover its health from the very first year. Two years later, we extended our
no-till area to six acres.

We did suffer minor difficulties such as birds picking the seeds, poor germination, tough
weeds, all sorts of diseases and pests and unfavourable weather. But these problems are
normal in any kind of agriculture. In most cases, we were able to make suitable amends
in our practices, and our experiments proved to be very successful in both technical and
economic terms.
Some of our salient achievements are : yields of up to 20 quintals of paddy per acre;
highly respectable yields of all other food crops except wheat; higher total production
than under the previous, chemical-assisted system; a six to eightfold increase in net
profits, and most important of all, vast improvements in the health and fertility of our
soil.

The fields we devoted to no-till experiments had become almost barren due to soil
‘exhaustion’. Four years latter they were healthy and productive. In fact, all our land
improved; and this could easily be judged from the lush, green health of the crops; the
type of natural vegetation co-existing with it; the return of earth-worms; and the
spongy texture of the topsoil due to accumulation of humus. Even kans, considered the
most persistent of weeds in our area, bid as farewell.

The reason turned out to be quite simple. Wherever we succeeded in checking erosion,
the weeds felt redundant and left us. It became clear to us that the main function of
weeds is to check erosion. By letting some weeds stay as ground cover, by leaving roots
of the harvested plants in place and by returning available stalks and straw to the soil
we were both feeding it and providing work and sustenance to the insects and micro-
organisms that build natural fertility into soil.

Another farmer in our vicinity started natural farming in 1985 and achieved even more
spectacular results in a shorter time. His land was badly eroded and infested with kans.
He sold his bullocks and stopped tilling completely. His grain production fell, but his
land began to improve, which he thought was a bargain.

His first crop under the new regimen was not much; but by 1986 he was able to feed his
family from the produce of his fields. This was a big improvement, because earlier he
had been losing money every year.

In addition to its ecological merits, rishi kheti appears highly appropriate for the social
situation prevailing in India today. We still have millions of small farmers owning less
than 10 acres of land in the country. Due to relentless pressure from government and
industry they have begun to use engineered seeds and large quantities of chemical
fertilisers and poisons.

Often, these dangerous chemicals are used without adequate knowledge and care.
Excessive use of chemical fertilisers and monocropping have made nearly 80% of the soil
in Punjab deficient in micronutrients - which, in plain language, means sick.

Furthermore, small farmers have already begun to realise that a disproportionate rise in
the prices of these inputs is making them economically unviable. In fact, many of them
would go out of business tomorrow were government subsidies to be withdrawn. This
situation will become worse as the soil continues to lose its natural vitality.

We realise that farmers are caught in a vicious circle of artificial agriculture, high debts
and consumerism. Powerful commercial interests, including our own government, are
prompting these trends. They have enormous resources at their command. Many
farmers are confused by these new trends, others are helpless. A convincing alternative
is bound to appeal to them.

Our farmers cannot read books, but two things they can judge are good soil and healthy
crops. They can also make basic economic calculations. Most of them have generations
of association with the land. Once the farmer accepts rishi kheti nature takes over as
teacher.

The adoption of rishi kheti will inevitably bring far-reaching consequences for
centralised industry and government. By refusing to buy chemicals, farmers will not only
improve their own lives by their own efforts, but they will also help in changing society
at large.

Luckily, our people have not completely lost the valuable skills necessary to produce the
basic necessities of life. Nor have they lost their traditional village communities. As a
matter of fact, it is still possible to tap the centuries of experience of such small, self-
reliant communities, where people not only produced basic necessities for themselves
but also enjoyed a large measure of political autonomy.

Diversity and productivity on the farm

Commonly a relative yield advantage (‘overyield’) is obtained from a polyculture system
versus a monoculture system.

An overview is given here of the annual production of a small scale Philippine

polyculture farmer using every possible resource available to him, including vertical as
well as horizontal space.

Annual yields in kgs. Equivalent yields

Crop
(416 sq.mt. plot) (kgs. per hectare)

Upper storey

Banana 186 4,471

Papaya 195 4,687

Third storey

Cassava 184 4,423

Maize 125 3,005

Sugar cane 210 5,048

Okra 24 577

Second storey
 Taro 200 4,808

Arrowroot 50 1,202

Chile Pepper 8 192

Ground layer

Swamp Cabbage 200 4,808

Sweet Potato 600 14,423

Squash 75 1,803

Total 2,057 49,447

This production was accomplished without the use of any insecticides, hybrid seeds,
irrigation or mechanical farm implements and only a small amount of chicken manure
was used. Compared with the average production of small-scale rainfed rice/mungbean
cultivation (1.3 tons/ha for traditional varieties; 1.4 tons/ha for hybrid cultivars) this is
very high. Although these figures are not totally comparable they give a clear indication
that polyculture greatly out produces its monocultural counterparts, even those with
‘Green Revolution’ inputs. Most cereal-legume based polycultures and agroforestry
systems found throughout the tropics are examples of ‘overyielding’ polycultures.

Source : 'Return to the Good Earth', Third World Network

Traditional knowledge
Traditional or indigenous knowledge is a written or oral set of practices common to a
local community or an entire region. Such knowledge systems have played a major role
in the development of communities worldwide, especially in India, especially in the areas
of agriculture, health and medicine, and veterinary care.

The knowledge or wisdom developed belongs to no one in particular and can be

collectively claimed by the community or peoples of the region as their own. In most
cases, such knowledge applies to natural resources available in the region and sharing
or usage of such knowledge has no financial or commercial considerations. Also,
importantly, such knowledge has an important role to play in the community’s well
being, identity and in many cases even survival or existence.

India has a rich base of traditional knowledge systems that have come under severe
threat over the past few decades for various reasons, including loss of biodiversity,
biopiracy and social changes.