Therefore, removing sick or dead birds from the pens likely did not prevent secondary exposure from contaminated litter or soil, which is the primary mode of transmission for MSD virus . The farm in Stanislaus County was the only game bird producer near commercial poultry producers. This farm was also the largest with approximately 40,000 pheasants and 60,000 chukar raised annually. Likely due to the size of this farm, they employed a greater level of bio-security relative to the other farms that participated in the survey. The Stanislaus farm had bio-security signage at the entrance to the property, as well as foot baths at the entrances to every brooder house. They employed a variety of wildlife control measures, including traps and rodent bait stations, to minimize the interaction of wildlife with pheasants or other game birds raised on the property. Although farms did not have a vehicle wash station, they did not allow people to come on the property without prior authorization. Only two of five farms used a wash station of any kind that was separate from foot baths, and two farms required vehicles to remain outside of the farm perimeter when clients or vendors visited the property . Although game breeders interviewed during the study did not always adhere to bio-security guidelines recommended by NPIP, in general, they understood the importance of minimizing points of contact that could lead to pathogen transmission on the farm. They did not share equipment such as crates, trailers or other farming equipment with other breeders. They also stated that they used their own vehicles and personnel to transport birds to release sites or to clients purchasing birds across state lines. Game breeders sought to balance bio-security on the farm with the size of their flocks,dutch bucket hydroponic and implementation of bio-security guidelines was not necessarily equivalent to the game breeders’ understanding of bio-security.
Rather, farmers likely weighed the risk of not following certain bio-security principles with the cost of implementing that principle. However, adequate surveillance and preventive action is still likely the best means of minimizing the potential for disease to be released into wildlife environments or otherwise spill over into backyard flocks or commercial poultry.In the last 40 years, 30 percent of the world’s arable land has become unproductive and 10 million hectares are lost each year due to erosion.1 Additionally, accelerated erosion diminishes soil quality, thereby reducing the productivity of natural, agricultural and forest ecosystems. Given that it takes about 500 years to form an inch of topsoil, this alarming rate of erosion in modern times is cause for concern for the future of agriculture. This supplement explores the major causes of soil erosion and the social impacts it has on communities, underscoring the importance of agricultural practices that prevent or minimize erosion. Anthropogenic causes of accelerated soil erosion are numerous and vary globally. Industrial agriculture, along with overgrazing, has been the most significant contributor, with deforestation and urban development not far behind.2, 3, 4 Heavy tillage, fallow rotations, monocultures, and marginal-land production are all hallmarks of conventional agriculture as it is variably practiced around the world and significantly encourage accelerated soil erosion. Repeated tillage with heavy machinery destroys soil structure, pulverizing soil particles into dust that is easily swept up by wind or water runoff. Fallow rotations, common with cash crops around the world and subsidized in bio-fuel production in the U.S., leave land vulnerable to the full force of wind gusts and raindrops. Monocultures tend to be planted in rows, exposing the soil between to erosion, and are commonly associated with fallow rotations. More and more marginal land, land that is steep and particularly susceptible to water erosion, is being planted by farmers either attracted by higher crop prices or forced by loss of productivity on flatter, but already eroded lands. In an increasingly complex global food web, seemingly separate causes of erosion begin to influence each other, magnifying their effects. For example, deforestation of tropical forests in Brazil clears the way for industrial soybean production and animal grazing to feed sprawling urban populations in the U.S.
All the while, fertile topsoil is carried away by wind and water at alarming rates. Decreased soil fertility and quality, chemical-laden runoff and groundwater pollution, and increased flooding are just a few of these detrimental effects. There are, in addition, disproportionate social harms resulting from high rates of erosion that are less obvious, but no less directly linked. Hunger, debt, and disease are serious problems in mostly poor, rural communities around the world that are exacerbated by accelerated erosion. As global agricultural development and trade have accelerated in the last half-century, mainly via the “green revolution” and the formation of the World Trade Organization , increasing trade pressures have raised export crop production in less developed countries. As a result, farmers mainly in Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa are increasingly abandoning traditional farming techniques and locally significant crops in favor of adopting the industrial practices mentioned above that lead to high rates of erosion.5 While development institutions and governments proclaim concerns for the rural environment, agricultural policy supporting high commodity prices and limited credit access continually pushes farmers to intensify land use. Coupled with the fact that the total area of arable land in cultivation in these parts of the world is already very high , land degradation by soil erosion threatens food security by removing from cultivation land sorely needed for domestic food production. The majority of the world’s 868 million undernourished people live in Eastern and Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. One of the international responses to soil degradation in the developing world has been to promote soil conserving tillage practices known as minimumor no-till agriculture. No-till agriculture protects soil by leaving crop residue on the field to decompose instead of plowing it into the ground before planting the next crop. Weed management is addressed with heavy herbicide use to make up for the loss of weed control from tillage. The practice, extensively adopted in the U.S., has been popular in Brazil and Argentina, and much effort is being expended to expand no-till to Asia and Africa. There are, however, costs associated with no-till agriculture, both economic and social. First, no-till agriculture is expensive to adopt. Herbicides, seed drills, fertilizers, and other equipment require a high initial investment not possible for poor farmers without incurring significant debt. Second, heavier herbicide use increases human exposure to chemicals and contributes to water and air pollution. Third, weed pressures can change in unexpected ways as reliance on a handful of herbicides breeds resistance. Weed resistance to the popular herbicide, glyphosate, is an increasing concern in conventional agriculture and is leading to development of more harmful herbicides to compensate for glyphosate’s reduced effectiveness.
Lastly, no-till agriculture alsopromotes monoculture cropping systems that, as described above, have a deleterious effect on soil quality. The techniques illustrated in this manual emphasize long-term soil stewardship using an integrated approach to soil health and management. For example,dutch buckets system cover crops hold soil aggregates together in the wet season, protecting soil from the erosive effects of rain. Properly timed tillage limits its destructive effects on soil particles and soil structure. Compost promotes a healthy soil ecosystem, improving soil’s structure and its ability to more successfully withstand wind and water erosion. In addition to environmental benefits, agroecological systems are often based on traditional farming practices that promote soil-conserving techniques and varietal choices adapted to the particular region, stemming the tide of land consolidation and commodity crop production. Food security is enhanced and debt risk reduced by way of diverse cropping systems and labor-intensive, rather than input intensive, production methods. And there are public health benefits from eliminating exposure to harmful pesticides and herbicides. In sum, the serious challenge presented by accelerated soil erosion coupled with the uncertainty about whether no-till agriculture’s benefits outweigh its harms underscores the importance of employing an agroecological approach to farming that prevents soil erosion on farms.The Parisian market gardens for which the practice was originally named were small plots of land that were deeply and attentively cultivated by French gardeners, or “maraîchers.” The “marais” system, as it is known in French, was formed in part as a response to the increasing urbanization of Paris, the attendant increase in the cost of urban land, and the ready availability of horse manure as a fertility source. English master gardener Alan Chadwick popularized both the term and the gardening method in the U.S. when he introduced them at UC Santa Cruz’s Student Garden Project in 1967, and they have served as the theoretical foundation supporting the cultivation methods used at the UCSC Farm & Garden ever since. But as Chadwick was quick to point out, other societies were using similar practices far earlier than the Parisian market gardeners. He acknowledged the influence of early Chinese, Greek, and Roman agriculture specifically, on the development of the French-intensive method.
The concept of small farms dedicated to intensive cultivation of the land, improved soil fertility, water conservation, and closed-loop systems was a feature common to many early civilizations and, in fact, characterizes the majority of agriculture today in developing countries where these techniques have been passed down to successive generations. Of the world’s 525 million farms, approximately 85% are fewer than 4 acres in size, tended to mostly by poor farmers in China, India, and Africa,1 where methods often reflect the same philosophies of stewardship and cultivation that inform the French intensive method we use today. In fact, small-scale agriculture represents the global history of agriculture up until the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. And in much of the developing world, locally adapted traditions continue to shape the way agriculture is practiced. This supplement examines some of the methods used by farmers around the world, past and present, reflecting the principles on which the French-intensive method is based.As part of one of the oldest agriculture-based societies in the world, Chinese farmers have succeeded in maintaining fertile soils for thousands of years. Prior to the availability and use of synthetic fertilizers, one method Chinese farmers commonly used to maintain their soil’s fertility was to apply human waste to their fields, thereby returning large quantities of potassium, phosphorous, and nitrogen lost through harvest back to the soil. Applying this source of fertilizer, also called “night soil,” achieved many of the goals we aspire to in a French-intensive system. Recycling waste minimized external inputs and helped “close the system” by relying on a renewable, readily available source of fertilizer. High in organic matter, night soil also provided the necessary nutrients for growing successive crops on the same land without depleting the soil. Waste, both human and animal, served as the major source of fertility amendments that helped to build soil ecology and microbial activity.In Japan, compost production has been tied to small-scale farming for centuries. Farmers harvested herbaceous growth from nearby hillsides as a source of compost material. Compost houses were built and filled with this herbage, manure, and soil daily until piles reached five feet high. Water was constantly added to ensure saturation. Once the designated height was reached farmers let the piles sit five weeks in summer and seven weeks in winter before turning them to the other side of the house. The compost was then applied to dry land cereal crops in spring. A study conducted in the early 20th century found that nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium were replenished by this composting system nearly at the level lost through harvest.2This study evaluated the efficiency of CDC-LT used with or without CO2 baits and placed inside or outside of residential dwellings in northwestern Thailand. This is the first in-depth survey and analysis, seeking to provide some guidelines for CDC-LT-based mosquito trapping studies and surveillance programs in this region of Thailand. Overall, CO2 baits significantly increased trapping efficiency of Anopheles spp. mosquitoes , especially when the traps were placed outside of residential dwellings. Stratification by season revealed that the effect was restricted to observations in the hot-season . Generally, the most abundant Anopheles species, An. minimus s.l. was captured preferentially in indoor traps, which is likely related to its anthropophilic nature.