Organic Production is Growing in El Salvador

In a few small towns in the eastern part of El Salvador, in the Conchagua department, are growing their crops with homemade organic fertilizers. In a project begun by the Salvadoran Foundation for Social Promotion and Economic Development (Funsalprodese), small family farmers are using organic fertilizers made from cow manure, including bocashi and California Red Worm compost (vermiculture). Funsalprodese has a development program that focuses on sustainable agricultural production, focusing its efforts on subsistence farmers primarily. The farmers that they reach have learned that the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are harmful to their health as well as the health of the land. By making their own fertilizers, not only are they putting to use materials that would otherwise become waste, they are also helping rebuild soil fertility.

So far, only 33 families are a part of the program, but Funsalprodese hopes to reach all farmers in the Conchagua department in their efforts to improve the livelihoods of the poorest citizens of the country. The foundation works to educate farmers about new techniques that will save time and money, as well as improve their health through less contact with chemicals or through greater nutritional value of their typical meals by diversifying their crops. Funsalprodese does hope to expand to commercial farmers eventually. Meanwhile, the majority of the country still waits for the winter rains to begin. In some zones, the rain has been more frequent, but overall the rainfall has been so low that the hydroelectric company have issued a warning, saying that if 20 more days pass without rain, they will not be able to generate electricity (on a positive note, the geothermal plants have responded by saying they will boost production to cover the deficit). However, the plants and people need the rain, so it's time to be doing our best rain dances!

Corn Harvest: Lost & Postponed

In El Salvador, corn seeds are sown in early May - in the winter, or so it's called here. This winter began in the normal way: suddenly the rain began. April warmed up, making us uncomfortably sticky during the day and sigh with relief when we enter a bank or supermarket or other similarly over-air conditioned location. When the rains began, although it put a damper on our outside activities, we welcomed the rain because it meant the humidity would be lifted. Subsistence and commercial farmers also breathed easier when they saw the start of winter, the start of the growing season. It had been a long dry season and the parched countryside burst into green. Farmers took their seeds to their plots of land, that had been previously prepared by burning last year's crop waste. And they sowed their seeds. But after a week of daily rains - suddenly, there was none. And for the past two weeks, the skies have only held empty clouds; not a drop of water has hit the soil in many zones of the country and the corn seeds that had begun to germinate have died.

Corn seedling - succumbing to the lack of rain. (Photo credit: University of Wisconsin, IPCM - www.ipcm.wisc.edu)

The majority of farmers in El Salvador (most of whom are subsistence farmers) rely solely on the rain to provide their water. They often live in areas where there are no rivers or wells - or if there are rivers, at this point in the year, they are still dried up. Water that is not captured for free from nature is very expensive, especially to people who make only a few dollars (or less) per day. So when a dry air mass sweeps into the country's atmosphere and holds the rain at bay - they are at its mercy. Some farmers did not sow their seeds with the others in early May. Perhaps they were just a bit behind schedule, or maybe they didn't trust the rains would last. So their lands still sit idle, waiting to be sown. Luckily, they still have their seeds, but at this point, the corn harvest now seems like it will be in October instead of late August, as it normally is. Farmers who did sow in early May and then lost their plants may or may not be able to obtain more seeds for a second try. This will have long-term consequences on the price of corn later this year. If the harvest is later and smaller than normal, prices will rise, as we have seen in the past several years with beans.

This is also not a promising outlook for the current administration. El Salvador's president, Mauricio Funes, had assured that this year's harvest will be 25% greater than last year's - and took steps to ensure more farmers had access to seeds and other materials necessary for cultivation. So while he is learning that he too is at the mercy of mother nature, he is also making promises about greater seed distribution for the second sowing. Although corn is perhaps the crop that has suffered the most, that is only because it is the most widely planted at this time of year. Other crops lost include: beans, radishes, blackberries, and a wide variety of other annual fruits and vegetables that are consumed in their own houses, and sold or traded to their neighbors.

In my opinion, this seems to be less an issue of obtaining seeds and more an issue of improving infrastructure that would help keep the country's farmers from being pushed to their knees by nature. Micro-hydro irrigation and other water-catchment systems would be an example of practical technology that could have longer term ramifications for the country's farmers than constantly handing out seed packets.

Coffee Exports ~ Good News in El Salvador, not so in Colombia

"Green" coffee beans - bagged and ready to be sold to roasters.

The 2010/2011 harvest season has been a good one in El Salvador; not only have yields increased, they have nearly doubled when compared to the yields at the same time last year, and coffee prices have also gone up. The price per quintal (approximately 100 kilograms) this year is $213.28, whereas last year it was $148.11 - a jump of $65. Yields increased from 1.08 million quintals in the 2009/2010 harvest season to 2.07 this year. Germany buys the majority of Salvadoran coffee (at approximately 35%) followed in close second by the United States (with 32%) and then Japan at nearly 10%, Canada at 6%, and twenty-six other countries making up the remaining exports. The rise in prices and yields is certainly a boon for coffee exporters, but unfortunately those picking the coffee don't see the extra value. Of course more beans to pick does mean more money, but they do not earn more per basket of picked beans when coffee prices are high. The average Salvadoran coffee picker will see about eight dollars per quintal picked. And I can promise you that picking 100 kilograms in one day is impossible - it takes about two days, which brings the average monthly salary of a coffee picker to around $150. As long as there's work. So the more coffee to be picked, the better for these pickers. And the happier the coffee plantation owners are when the prices are high. But is it win-win?

Coffee processing/cleaning plant at Finca Santa Isabel, on the slopes of Volcan Chaparrastique (San Miguel)

Colombia is a different story this year. Due to the heavy rains that plagued the country in the later months of 2010, continued rains throughout April and unusually cold temperatures, the coffee harvest was 19% less than what it was last year at this same time. However, 2010 saw a big increase in production and exports, so the drop this year still puts them ahead of where they were in 2009. Additionally, exports only dropped by about 2%, which means producers were favoring exports to local sales - most likely due to the high prices of the global coffee market. If producers are going to be low on volume, they will make up for in with the higher prices. And indeed, Colombian coffee exporters have not seen a much lower income this year than last, thanks to the higher world coffee prices.

What I wonder is: how many of you know where your coffee comes from? And does it make a difference to you?

Round 'em Up!

I am a champion of local foods. And I am a huge promoter of organic foods, but not if it's industrial organic because that seems antithetical to the intrinsic organic principles. I definitely do not support growing and eating genetically modified plants for the myriad reasons I outlined in a previous post. And while I am not flat-out against all pesticide use no matter what, I am a strong supporter of the precautionary principle and using alternative, natural methods to control pest problems that enhance and protect biodiversity. I think, by and large, that chemicals that have been created by humans are overwhelming our environment and our bodies, and we don't yet know what the consequences will be. Contradicting the precautionary principle, the producers of these chemicals put the burden of proof on the public instead of proving to us that their chemical is harmless. These chemicals are generally manufactured by multinational corporations that not only have heavy lobbying influence in Washington, but are party to the revolving door phenomenon, whereby people who are supposed to be the regulators leave the government for a high-paying job at the chemical company, and then eventually return to another governmental post (often in the EPA or USDA). How can people who have a vested interest or something to be gained make decisions for the good of the public? I don't think they can.

And that's how we have Roundup herbicide. Roundup is the brand name broad-spectrum herbicide manufactured by Monsanto; the main active ingredient is glyphosate. Monsanto developed and patented the glyphosate molecule in the early 70's; Roundup has been on the shelf since 1973, but in 2000 the patent expired and now there are other manufacturers of glyphosate-based herbicides. This herbicide made it onto the shelf without being tested by the EPA; although the main active ingredient (glyphosate) has been classified in Toxicity Class III by the EPA (meaning it's harmful if swallowed or inhaled). Roundup kills weeds, and other plants, by inhibiting an enzyme (EPSP synthase) from being produced; without this enzyme, plants cannot produce the correct proteins for growth, and so they quickly die. The EPA has requested test results investigating any potential harmful effects of glyphosate on humans, animals, or the environment in general. Twice, the EPA caught scientists who were deliberately falsifying the test results in testing labs hired by Monsanto. Those responsible were convicted of felony charges and sentences to jail for 5 years and the lab was required to pay a hefty fine.

Map credit: University of Washington Extension

Monsanto has also been convicted of false advertising. In the late 90's, Roundup labels claimed the herbicide was as safe as table salt, and practically non-toxic to fish and other aquatic wildlife. In France, Monsanto even wrote "biodegradable!" on the label. None of these things are true; it is definitely not as safe as the salt you sprinkle over your food, it does not biodegrade, and it is very toxic to aquatic organisms. Despite all this, it is the most popular herbicide in the US, especially since Monsanto began developing Roundup-resistant varieties of agricultural crops, such as corn, soybeans, canola, sorghum, cotton, wheat, alfalfa, and beets. These plants have been genetically modified to be able to produce an enzyme similar to EPSP synthase that will trigger the proteins to keep producing, unaffected by glyphosate. This means a farmer can spray his whole field with Roundup, killing all the weeds while leaving his crops unharmed. However, some plants have developed a natural resistance to glyphosate. These are called superweeds because they cannot be killed by Roundup, or similar herbicides, and are causing farmers significant troubles around the world. Farmers are reporting over 50 different species of weeds have become resistant to Roundup; in every case, the weeds were grown in areas of intense Roundup spraying.

This is a field sprayed with glyphosate - the plants (weeds) that are still green are resistant to the herbicide. In this case, it's marestail weed. (Photo credit: Nature.com)

And now, after nearly 40 years on the market, the EPA is considering a ban or strict limiting of the herbicide due to new information of the probable human health effects from this herbicide. New studies have found glyphosate responsible for causing infertility and spontaneous abortions in pigs, cattle, and other livestock. Another study showed that glyphosate caused malformations in frog and chick embryos. In another study sponsored by the National Institute of Health, they have found that farmers and others who frequently use glyphosate have an increased risk of developing a cancer that affects the bone marrow compared to those who never used glyphosate. This same study found detectable levels of glyphosate in the urine of farmers and their children. This new information that brings to light some previously unknown adverse affects, along with the increased instances of glyphosate-resistant plants, will likely change the future of glyphosate's approval. Many farmers and scientists believe glyphosate's days are numbered. What I worry, though, is what the alternative will be. Glyphosate is not going to just go away with nothing to replace it; it's the mostly widely used herbicide in the world - something has to take its place. And will that "something" be well tested? Or will it take forty more years to discover that the chemical we've been dousing on our environment is actually a carcinogen, mutagen, and endocrine disruptor? My hope is that the precautionary principle will be called into play. There's nothing wrong with a little hope, right?

El Salvador's Slaughterhouses

*CAUTION: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS & PICTURES*

Six years ago, the municipal slaughterhouse in La Union, in the southeastern region of El Salvador, was ordered to be closed by the Ministry of Health because it did not meet the health standards outlined by the ministry. Yet still it continues to operate. If you are picturing an image from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, of horrific assembly line style production practices, wipe that image from your mind. Instead picture this: one by one cows are pushed and prodded, forced in any way (including contorting their tails) to get them into a large cement building, where they are tied to a cement post. The rope is tied around their heads, and they are tied as close to the post as possible so they cannot move their heads. Next, they are stabbed in the back of the head (into the brain) so they become immobilized, and then they are untied and generally they collapse to the ground in fits of spasms and convulsions. The rope is usually re-tied to the bottom of the post to help control the dying spasms of the cow. While thrashing, their throats are slit. The brain-stabbing is to paralyze them, the throat-slitting is to actually kill them. Often, a worker will stand on the cow to help the blood rush out of the gash in the neck. The blood cover the floor and flows into a drain in the center of the large cement slaughterhouse. More often than not, this drain flows untreated into the environment (into the nearest stream or river). The floor may or may not be made of cement; it's possible it's just dirt.

After being killed and bled out, the cow carcasses are left to "rest" over night, during which time flies and other insects have free access to the raw meat. The hides are cut free and the meat is then butchered into large sections, which is how it is sold into the local markets. Local health officials lack the means to properly enforce their closure, which is why slaughterhouses such as the one in La Union continue to operate, despite the deplorable conditions. However, even if the slaughterhouse were meeting the proper standards, that would not actually change much. The blood would have to be treated before leaving, and workers would be required to wear shirts, boots, gloves, and masks while slaughtering, but nothing would change for these poor cows. So this is the reality of meat slaughtering and butchering in El Salvador. In the large supermarkets, such as Super Selectos and Dispensa de Don Juan, most of that meat comes from Nicaragua, where the slaughterhouses are more modern. But the majority of the Salvadoran population do not buy their meat there, they buy the meat at local markets, which purchase their meat from those types of slaughterhouses. Exact numbers are difficult to find, since many slaughterhouses are operating without authority to do so, and data collection is often lacking here as it is. Suffice it to say, I moved here not being a regular meat-eater (my last meat was a delicious burger from Seneca Breeze Organic Dairy in upstate NY two years ago), and with this knowledge, it makes my decision to avoid meat even easier. However, I will keep searching for humanely raised and slaughtered local meat in this country and provide an update when I encounter such a thing.

*Most information was taken from El Diario del Hoy, 31 de marzo 2011, the remainder was from personal accounts from my students, who visited a local slaughterhouse.

*Photos taken from the video of the aforementioned students, who must remain anonymous.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Farming Cooperatives

The United Nations has declared that next year, 2012, will be the International Year of Cooperatives; since 1992, the first Saturday in July has been the International Day of Cooperatives. Worldwide, cooperatives directly employ over 100 million people, according to the UN. A cooperative is a business owned by a group of individuals, and the members are owners who share equally in control of their business and most likely meet at regular intervals to discuss the operations. Typically a cooperative will elect a director or small group of directors to oversee day-to-day affairs and hire people as needed. The idea of a cooperative is that those with similar needs join together for mutual gain, which often is helpful in gaining greater market access, purchasing necessary equipment or supplies, or obtaining services at a lower overall cost. A typical agricultural cooperative will unite agricultural producers to gain a wider market share, to collaborate on various processing and transportation needs, and to obtain supplies at a reduced cost.

Farmers work with greenhouse tomatoes.

Voluntary private cooperatives have recently been a boon to Mexican farmers; there are approximately 15,000 farming cooperatives in Mexico whose memberships numbers surpass 5 million. For the cooperatives in Mexico, the greatest benefit has been bulk marketing. The cooperatives have warehouses and other storage facilities that allow their farmers to immediately deliver their products to the cooperative, and then the cooperative can deliver the larger quantities to the buyers. NGOs have cited cooperatives as the primary reason behind positive community development in regions where new cooperatives have joined together. An increase in community development has meant more jobs are created, education is prioritized, health is improved, and local economy is strengthened. Another benefit from the cooperatives in Mexico is that the farmers can share expensive equipment that improves their efficiency, but alone they would not have been able to afford. Around 85% of the world's 460 million farms are less than 2 hectares, and the majority of these farmers earn less than 2 dollars a day. Access to infrastructure, knowledge of improved farming techniques, processing capacity, and even basic health care are all often out of reach of these farmers. Couple that with rising food prices and distorted market prices as a result of agricultural dumping, and it's clear that these farmers are at a distinct disadvantage.

Los Planes processing facility: where the produce is triple washed with purified water, dried, and packaged. This facility employs 18 women and two men.

Joining together in a cooperative will improve the livelihoods of these same farmers, but starting a cooperative is challenging due to the start-up costs. There are few resources and start-up capital available in Latin America for farming cooperatives. Governmental, non-governmental and private investors have all had a part in investing in the 15,000 cooperatives in Mexico, and once a cooperative gets off the ground, the results can be tremendous. According to the Inter-Press Service News Agency (IPS), cooperatives in Mexico have assets totaling 8.3 billion dollars - which demonstrates the economic importance of their existence. Several agricultural cooperatives exist in El Salvador as well, such as Los Planes Organic Cooperative, and Biolact - a yogurt producer, and several coffee cooperatives. Investing in agricultural production is an investment in food security and regional stability. In developing (and even developed!) countries, allowing small farmers avenues to thrive and compete against giant agribusiness corporations will improve the status of the most impoverished and therefore improve the overall health and wealth of the nation.

El Salvador Invests in Reducing Dependence on Imports

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a foreign aid agency
that aims to combat poverty around the world. A year and a half ago,
they granted El Salvador $461 million - well, they granted the
organization Fondo del Milenio de El Salvador (Fomilenio) the money,
and that organization has committed to using the majority of that
money on developing productive and profitable agriculture in the
northern parts of the country, la zona norte. The goal of Fomilenio
aligns with MCC; they seek to reduce poverty while growing the
economy, and their work is aimed entirely in the northern zone of the
country. Fomilenio describes the grant's purpose as a way to
strengthen the farmer's access to markets, improve their productivity,
and increase overall sustainability and quality of product.

Five products were identified as the most economically important in
the region: Hass avocados, pineapples, tomatoes, plantains, and cacao.
Hass avocados are a variety developed in the U.S. using a strain from
Guatemala, and now dominate the worldwide market. El Salvador consumes
about 12 thousand tons each year, but only produces a little over 2
thousand tons. Pineapples are the second most cultivated crop in the
world after bananas; El Salvador imports 12 thousand tons and produces
8 thousand tons. Tomatoes are another economically important crop;
approximately 70 thousand tons are imported to satisfy the local needs
- only 28 thousand tons are produced in the country, demonstrating a
major gap between demand and supply. Two crops that Fomilenio is
hoping to boost for the export market are cacao and plantains. Cacao
(Theobroma cacao), also called cocoa tree, is an evergreen tree native
to El Salvador. Its seeds are used to make cocoa powder and chocolate,
and typically fetches a high return on investment. Plantains are the
other crop Fomilenio would like to see grown in increasing numbers. El
Salvador is the third largest importer of plantains in the world, and
according to experts from Fomilenio, it is a profitable crop that can
be a viable alternative to sugarcane production. Under irrigation, the
production levels could be very high; Fomilenio believes 130 thousand
hectares of land could be devoted to this crop.

Most of the funds from MCC are going towards improving the road,
carretera Longitudinal del Norte, which runs the breadth of the zona
norte. Improvement in this infrastructure will allow easier and faster
market access. This $380 million project, apart from easing
transportation for agricultural products, benefits the 423,000
residents along that road (about half of the total population of the
zone). Fomilenio is also investing in extending electric lines over
400 kilometers in the area, installing 400 solar photovoltaic systems
in places where it is too difficult to bring the electric lines,
providing 25 communities with potable water, and offering two thousand
training courses for farmers wanting to begin or increase production
of agricultural products. Fomilenio firsts wants to see farmers
selling their products in the large stores, such as SuperSelectos and
Wal-Mart, but then their eyes are on the export prize. My hope is that
they at least develop these agricultural businesses in a sustainable
way, being considerate of the environment while working to achieve
financial success. Time will tell...