Search this site

Out of all the water in the world, only 3.5% is freshwater, and around 70% of it is currently trapped in the form of permanent ice. This basically means that only around 1% of the existing water (1.05%, to be exact) is available for all sorts of things we humans need it for; from drinking, to showering, to watering the fields that keep supermarkets stocked and the food chain running. If that percentage weren’t small enough for the myriad uses of water, climate change and pollution are reducing it even further, with the contamination of freshwater bodies and more frequent droughts making it doubly essential to find ways to conserve water as much as possible in agricultural settings. Otherwise, the consequences for farming could be dire. Former agricultural land in Oklahoma, where incorrect techniques of soil management and a strong drought joined forces to create an ecological disaster. With this in mind, the ATTRA National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, located in the US and managed jointly by the National Centre for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) and the United States Department of Agriculture, produced a report underlying the simple principles that land stewardship should follow to maximize water conservation and soil penetration and reduce unnecessary water usage. In the report (which is certainly worth a read by itself) five main principles stand out, in particular, as the basis of water-friendly agriculture. These can be summarized as: Protecting the soil surface: a basic principle that involves not leaving soil uncovered; mulching or covering crops should always fill the space left after a harvest. Bare soil will grow weeds, erode, be exposed to faster temperature changes, and, above all, gradually lose all the water it contains through simple evaporation. Minimize soil disturbance of all kinds: another often-heard recommendation, as tillage that is performed frequently, will grind soil to a powder, resulting in sandy soil that is unable to hold water and is prone to wind erosion. A dust bowl, anybody? Plant diversity: a much less frequent recommendation, but very important. Not only a variety of plants’ roots can reach different depths and thus different water levels, making the complete death of all life on your soil-less likely in the event of a drought, but different plants also produce different root exudates and host different bacterial communities. This leads to healthier soil, with better structure and greater capacity to hold water. Continual live roots in the soil: a corollary of the first principle, specifically requiring live plants to remain present in the soil so that microbial strains communities can continue to exist. Livestock integration: another rarely-heard one, but essential for organically managing land. Instead of importing bio-manure all the time, why not have the animals that produce it? In the ATTRA’s words: “…thoughtful integration of livestock onto cropping land can reduce weed pressure, herbicide use, and livestock waste associated with confinement, thereby improving water quality and addressing nutrient-management concerns.” All of this might sound complicated, but consider: is it more complicated than facing an unexpected drought? Is it more expensive than the losses in water that less efficient systems entail? As the ATTRA says: "Investments, such as adding organic amendments, practicing no- or reduced tillage, leaving crop residue, planting cover crops, and diverse crop rotations, will help the soil efficiently cycle both water and nutrients, sustain plant and animal productivity, and maintain or improve water quality. The return on soil health investments will pay off year after year after year." Here we say: yes, indeed.

As a part of the collective efforts of the agricultural industry for finding ways of dealing with microscopic agents of disease, there has been an important amount of research devoted to identifying equally microscopic agents for the prevention of disease. Among these, a collection of the most effective bacteria for the prevention and combat of plagues in crops have been termed the 'plant probiotics', for these aforementioned capabilities of building resistance to disease in the plants that host them. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, or PGPR, belong to this group of little creatures. Pseudomonas putida, one of the most commonly used plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. PGPR are bacteria that have co-evolved alongside the plants that host them across a timespan of millions of years, and as such, they have developed an astounding capability for mutual influence. Apart from their straightforwardly positive benefits as stimulants of plant growth, from which they derive their names, and apart from their passive increase of plant disease resistance by augmenting the strength of plants themselves and by out-competing other bacteria, these microorganisms actively perform work as biological control agents on two levels: 1) Producing compounds used by the bacteria to stifle the growth of competing, pathogenic microbes. This is done through the production of a variety of compounds, which a team of Canadian and Chinese researchers has narrowed down to antibiotics, antimicrobial peptides, bacteriocins metabolites, siderophores, toxins, and other microbial blends. These compounds have effects on dangerous microorganisms that go from inhibiting the synthesis of their cell walls (antibiotics) to depriving them of iron (siderophores). 2) Promoting the development of immune responses by the plant. PGPR are capable of triggering, in their host plants, systemic immune responses to disease that have long-lasting endurance and that do not even require the PGPR to interact with a pathogen in the first place! This (discussed here, with more bibliography provided in the source) means that plants do not need to actually get sick in order to develop immunity to broad groups of pathogens, with the PGPR functioning as a sort of plant vaccine. The common positive (both passive and active) effects of PGPR, as well as their diversity and its consequently large span of possible plant hosts and possible pathogens to target, make them a necessary option to consider (and to explore in more depth) for the implementation of any modern biological control scheme. AGENT PROFILE Common name(s): Plant growth-promoting bacteria, PGPR. Often-used species: A wide array, from an equally wide array of genera. Type of predator: Non-predatorial (mutualist relation with host plants). Potential damaging effects: Only registered in sugar beets. Interesting literature on its usage: A general review of the role of PGPR in agricultural sustainability (2016), use against diseases in tomato plants (2020), use against nematodes (2018).

Everywhere around the world, but more so in the developing countries, vast deserts spring up from the ground and begin to cover formerly forested areas of their nations. These deserts, however, are different from the Sahara or the Gobi Desert: from a large distance, they look green and lush. On closer look, however, they are vast extensions of a single cultivated species, almost completely devoid of any significant interrelationships between other species within them. Monocultural oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Palm oil plantations are some of the most striking examples of biodiverse 'green deserts' (© CEphoto, Uwe Aranas). These green deserts (a term originally coined in Brazil to refer to the ever-enlarging eucalyptus plantations in the 1960s) seem rich in life, but their apparent stability and fertility are fictitious: any interruption in the flow of enormous human effort and care that go into their maintenance could turn them into barren landscapes in less than one growing season. That, or any new disease that could spread like wildfire, as happened in the 1950s with destruction the global banana production, in the 19th century with the French vineyard collapse, or as is happening now with the pathogens that threaten the world production of potatoes, soybean, and wheat today, in 2021. Organic agriculture can help to fight this trend. All of the existing data to the moment shows that spaces where organic agriculture is practiced have 30% more species (even in organic monoculture!) than non-organic agricultural land. This trend is also especially significant in what regards some of the most useful creatures for agriculture: earthworms, beneficial bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, and butterflies alongside other pollinators have all much higher concentrations and a higher diversity of species in organic farms. As organic agriculture builds soil fertilizers, this fertile new soil is increasingly populated by a diversity of microorganisms that create a resilient balance, thus making organic agriculture a much more solid contributor to food security than inorganic agriculture. Biodiversity brings major economic benefits, too. It is widely acknowledged that the economic benefits of not-so-well-known aspects of how an ecosystem works can’t be accounted for, so we do not know by how much agricultural profit margins rise with a 30% increase in biodiversity. We do have a clue, however, thanks to the UN-affiliated TEEB: a nearly US$ 800 billion market across pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, personal products, and agriculture depends entirely on biodiversity.

According to the most recent data on the subject, no less than a quarter of all the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, and from the food chain that brings its produces to the consumers. Considering that such a large impact comes from just one sector of the economy, making whatever changes seem sustainable (and not only in the sense of being environmentally sustainable but economically sustainable too), is essential to act against climate change across the world. Unlike in other highly-emitting sectors such as energy production, however, the ways to decarbonize agriculture are less clear and rely less on the invention of new technologies. Instead, they are more about the adoption of new techniques and the implementation of many strategies dedicated to reduce food waste and change consumption habits, for example. A comparison (courtesy of the Rodale Institute) between soil cultivated using traditional (left) and organic techniques (right). The darker color of organic soil implies a higher carbon content, as a result of better carbon conservation and sequestration practices. Organic agriculture is key for achieving these goals, bringing a whole new set of practices that decrease the environmental impact of agriculture. Such were the findings of a 2018 study by researchers from the universities of Harvard and Sharjah, in the UAE. In their study, the researchers used data from the United States in the period 1997-2010 to assess the difference in emissions between conventional and organic agriculture. Their conclusions were steadfast in their support of organic agriculture’s reduced emissions: "Organic farming practices are by design sustainable in the role they play in maintaining optimal soil health, increasing carbon sequestration, and reducing GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions". They also address clearly the frequently repeated concerns that organic agriculture might in fact be unsustainable, by being based on speculation, questionable, inadequate or non-existing evidence. In contrast, the researcher's state clearly: "After accounting for other sources of emissions and potentially influential observations, we find that one percent increase in organic farming acreage could decrease GHG emissions by 0.049%". According to these calculations, a net increase of 100% in the organic cultivated area could lead to a 4.9% fall in greenhouse gas emissions. That might not sound like much, but to put this in context, however, the United States currently has only 0.6% of its land under organic cultivation. An increase of this to the level of some European states such as Austria, where that figure stands at 25%, could mean an incredible amount of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, potentially turning agriculture into a carbon-capturing industry. The future will decide if this happens, but one thing is clear: there’s potential in organic agriculture to change the world, one hectare (or acre) at a time.

It’s no secret that conventionally-cultivated soils tend to become, by themselves, poor. They’re often managed under exploitative techniques that involve intensive tillage, scarce or absent ground cover, and intensive application of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, all of which take a toll on microbial diversity, evenness, and richness. The impact that these techniques have on long-term soil fertility is no joke: they’re the reason why the FAO alerted, in 2015, that by 2050 we could have only one-quarter of the cultivable land that we had in 1960. It’s clear that we have to transition from this model to one that is sustainable, both in an environmental and an economic sense (come to think of it, what’s the sustainability of a business that destroys its own productive basis, in the end?). One of the aspects where the impoverishment of conventionally-managed soils appears more prominently is in their lack of microbial diversity: in contrast, organically-managed soils tend not only to exhibit higher levels of general biodiversity but also a staggering 34% to 84% larger microbial biomass in comparison with inorganic soils. This is according to a meta-study that analyzed the results of 56 peer-reviewed papers on the subject, and that also highlights that most of the key benefits of a healthy microbiota (which plays “…an important role for various soil-based ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, erosion control, and pest and disease regulation”, as the study notes) are obtained through time. It’s the prolonged management of soil under organic and conservation practices that makes it build a rich community of beneficial microbes. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria, living in nodules in the roots of a plant. These bacteria are some of the prime biofertilizers that must be brought into formerly-conventionally-managed soils. But if there’s something that we don’t have right now is another century to patch up the errors of the last. If the world is going to transition to sustainable agriculture, something that is going to be key is finding ways of building the microbial blends community of recently converted soils; finding ways of not only placing the microbial inoculators there but also of helping them get established and thrive. Especially since scientists are talking more about the microbiome and less about specific microbes, these days. The area remains, however, comparatively understudied. A search in Google Scholar for publications that mention ‘soil inoculants’ during this year reveals around 112 results: not enough if compared with a search for ‘cryptocurrencies’, that reveals over 8,000 results, or a search for ‘late night TV’, which gives half-a-hundred more publications on the subject for the same timeframe. Enough has been published on it for new organic farmers to read already, but for such an important subject, is less investigated than the patterns of late-night television is not enough. It’s time we took a moment to appreciate the importance of soil fertilizers for building an organic future — and asked ourselves if we’ve been paying them attention enough.

Last March, the European Commission (the organism in charge of designing the implementation of the EU’s policies) presented a 22-page Action Plan for the attainment of one of the most formidable goals that the Union has set to itself: transforming a quarter of its agricultural land to organic farming methods. It seeks to do so along three main lines: boosting consumption (while maintaining consumer trust on the organic label), increasing production, and taking steps to ensure the sustainability of the sector’s growth, so that the 25% mark is reached once and for good. Even though the EU is not going against the grain on this, with the current trend of growth already predicting a 15% of the total agricultural land being organic by 2030, the aim of the European Commission is to boost this existing market trend with official support. The online version of the Action Plan offers a number of key measures, including: On the demand side, the beginning of massive campaigns in favor of organic consumption and the creation of a European database of organic-certified producers, which aims to ensure consumer trust in the EU organic logo. On the supply side, an increase in the EU resources devoted to supporting organic farming in technical and financial ways, a reduction of the red tape around obtaining organic certifications for producers, boosting local structures for production and consumption within an area (instead or organic products having to travel widely throughout the EU to be sold) and, particularly, helping farmers who are beginning to get into organic agriculture or are interested in transitioning become a part of the value chain. On the sustainability issue, the Plan outlines a general ecologically sustainable approach as the basis of the sustainability of organic farming itself, in which organic farming is made economically sustainable due to it being ecologically sustainable, as the costs of ecological unsustainability begin to catch up with regular methods of farming. Increasing efficiency and yields in organic production, as well as animal welfare, are other parts of the sustainability section of the Action Plan. Trust in the European Certified Organic label might be the spearhead of the industry's growth – as well as one of its main liabilities. A lot of this work will be devoted towards equalizing the status of organic farming across EU members, some of which have an organic land use as low as 0.5% of the total, and some of which have well over 25% of their total land devoted to organic agriculture. The question remaining would be, will it work? Is the EU doing enough to truly be on its way to reaching its organic goals by 2030? According to one of the main advisors for the European Commission, Diego Canga Fano, it might be, if it manages to equalize organic production throughout the EU and ensure that the European organic logo remains a trusted symbol for consumers.

When it comes to design, the Wix blog has everything you need to create beautiful posts that will grab your reader's attention. Check out our essential design features. Choose from 8 stunning layouts Your Wix Blog comes with 8 beautiful layouts. From your blog's settings, choose the layout that’s right for you. For example, a tiled layout is popular for helping visitors discover more posts that interest them. Or, choose a classic single column layout that lets readers scroll down and see your post topics one by one. Every layout comes with the latest social features built in. Readers can easily share posts on social networks like Facebook and Twitter and view how many people have liked a post, made comments and more. Add media to your posts When creating your posts you can: Upload images or GIFs Embed videos and music Create galleries to showcase a media collection Customize the look of your media by making it widescreen or small and easily align media inside your posts. Hashtag your posts Love to #hashtag? Good news! You can add tags (#vacation #dream #summer) throughout your posts to reach more people. Why hashtag? People can use your hashtags to search through content on your blog and find the content that matters to them. So go ahead and #hashtag away!

We’ve made it quick and convenient for you to manage your blog from anywhere. In this blog post we’ll share the ways you can post to your Wix Blog. Blogging from Your Wix Blog Dashboard On the dashboard, you have everything you need to manage your blog in one place. You can create new posts, set categories and more. To head to your Dashboard, open the Wix Editor and click on Blog > Posts. Blogging from Your Published Site Did you know that you can blog right from your published website? After you publish your site, go to your website’s URL and login with your Wix account. There you can write and edit posts, manage comments, pin posts and more! Just click on the 3 dot icon ( ⠇) to see all the things you can do. #bloggingtips #WixBlog