The African Green Revolution at the Tipping Point

Oct. 15, 2013 — In some areas of Africa, farmers, scientists and policymakers are beginning to win the war on hunger, says Pedro Sanchez, PhD. Several factors have come together in recent years to tip the scales and increase food production.

---

Share This:

Sanchez will present "The African Green Revolution at the Tipping Point," on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM. The presentation is part of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America Annual Meetings, Nov. 3-6 in Tampa, Florida. The theme of this year's conference is "Water, Food, Energy, & Innovation for a Sustainable World." Members of the media receive complimentary registration to the joint meetings.
According to Sanchez, not only will African farmers in countries like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana and Malawi will be able to sell more food this year, but they will have enough to feed their own families. "All factors are moving along the value chain" says Sanchez, including policies and subsidies, credit guarantees and the creation of buyer groups. Agronomic improvements, bringing fertilizer and better seeds, are the entry point of the success. "In order for us to move Africa above this level of success, we will need to implement agricultural technologies," says Sanchez. He will address these methods in his lecture.

California’s Leafy Greens Producers Want Strong Food-Safety Laws

This editorial was originally published September 12 on the LGMA’s blog.

The job of implementing new food-safety legislation under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) isn’t getting any easier for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pressure is mounting from some small farmers, foreign producers and consumer activist groups, who each have their own take on how the law should – or should not be – finalized.

Meanwhile, the issue of funding the cost of this sweeping legislation has still not been settled. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the challenge of making FSMA a reality is growing more and more complex.

Over the past several years, staff members from FDA have visited California to see and learn more about the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (LGMA) and how this program is protecting public health for at least one segment of the U.S. produce industry.

The LGMA’s message to FDA is clear – we want strong food-safety laws. In fact, through the LGMA, a system of government oversight to ensure the safety of the majority of the nation’s leafy greens has been in place for more than six years. The program created by the California leafy greens industry in 2007 is based on science, includes mandatory government audits to verify that rigorous food-safety practices are being followed on leafy greens farms, and that there are real consequences for those who do not comply.

While others in the produce industry may be reluctant to embrace proposed food-safety rules, leafy greens farmers fully understand that they grow a product that is consumed in large quantities by people at home and in restaurants and it is frequently eaten raw. Leafy greens absolutely must be safe. The programs now in place in both California and Arizona not only meet the proposed requirements of FSMA, but they exceed the requirements of this new law.

The LGMA is proposing that FDA recognize our food-safety model and that, once FSMA is finalized, LGMA-certified leafy greens handlers be considered compliant with the new law.

These LGMA programs truly are a partnership between government and farming communities, with funding provided by industry and government serving to ensure compliance. By recognizing that the LGMA provides verification that handlers and growers are compliant with FSMA – and then some – FDA can be assured that more than 90 percent of the leafy greens produced in the U.S. are aligned with federal food-safety laws. With leafy greens taken care of, FDA can focus its attention on the other complexities of enacting this new law.

BY SCOTT HORSFALL | SEPTEMBER 16, 2013

 A recent paper published in the Journal of Animal Science suggests producers may want to adjust pig diets when including distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). Some producers believe that feeding pigs saturated fats will undo the fat-softening effects of DDGS. Firmer fat means longer-lasting pork.

Share This:

But researchers from the University of Illinois found that including saturated fats in DDGS diets makes no difference in fat quality.

The researchers formulated six corn-soybean meal diets to test the effects of saturated fat additives on carcass fat quality in pigs. Five of these diets contained DDGS.

According to the researchers, pork produced from pigs fed DDGS have reduced shelf life and increased susceptibility to oxidative damage. Oxidative damage affects texture, color, juiciness and the overall flavor of pork products.

"Distillers dried grains contain unsaturated fatty acids and those fatty acids are deposited into the fat of the animal," said Hans-Henrik Stein, study co-author and Department of Animal Science professor at the University of Illinois. "From a health standpoint, that's a good thing, but it can be a problem when producing pork products like bacon."

According to Stein, high levels of unsaturated fats make pork belly fat too soft to slice for bacon. To counteract this problem, producers have included saturated fats such as corn germ, beef tallow, palm kernel oil and glycerol in diets containing DDGS in order to make the fat firmer.

For this study, corn germ, beef tallow, palm kernel oil and glycerol were each added to a diet containing DDGS. The researchers compared the performance of pigs fed each of these diets to the performance of pigs fed a diet containing DDGS with no saturated fats added and a control diet containing corn-soybean meal but no DDGS.

Firmness of fat was tested by measuring the distance of "belly flop." This was done by draping the belly of the carcasses over a metal rod with the skin facing down. Ten centimeters below the rod, distance was measured between the two sides. The larger the distance was, the firmer the fat.

The researchers found that pigs fed the control diet containing no DDGS had greater belly flop distances than the pigs fed the other diets. There was no difference among the pigs fed the five diets containing DDGS.

This led researchers to conclude that adding saturated fats to diets containing DDGS has no effect on the fat quality of pigs.

Stein suggested that producers feeding high levels of DDGS reduce the amount fed in the last 3 to 4 weeks before harvest to avoid the softening of fat.

What the Republican Budget Means for Food Stamps

Food stamp users, prepare for some belt-tightening. Harkening back to Clinton-era welfare economics of 1996, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has proposed a $6.2 trillion cut to annual federal deficits for the next decade. The proposal, which passed the House earlier this month and resumes legislation today as Senators return from Easter-Passover break, would have a major impact on nutritional assistance programs.

The Ryan budget plan looks to cut the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by 20 percent between 2012 to 2021 by capping the open-ended system with a block-grant -- either by capping eligibility or benefits, or both. This means benefits would not fluctuate with economic need. States would instead be allotted a max.

If eligibility heads for the chopping block in 2012, more than 8 million people would be cut, reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- that's the equivalent of the population of the 30 smallest states. If benefits go, SNAP users would be reduced to 88 percent of the USDA's estimated needs-per-family in the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). A family of four would lose $147 per month; families of three would lose $116.

No doubt, there's been opposition -- but none yet with a solid alternative, though Senate Democratic aids expect action from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

According to The Hill, Reid and a group of Dems spent their vacation soliciting American business investment in China, while Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) is expected to introduce a budget blueprint with recommendations from bipartisan negotiating group, Gang of Six. Stay tuned, Old Western-style, we imagine

.

by Jessie Cacciola

Are Farm Animals Headed to Rehab?

Whether it was baked chicken or a grilled steak, it's likely that the meat you had for dinner last night contained an array of pharmaceuticals. Alarmed by potential drug resistance in both animals and in humans, on Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called for more judicious use of antimicrobial drugs in the production of animals raised for food.

Antimicrobial drugs were introduced to industrial farming more than 50 years ago as a way to prevent disease in animals. But the FDA is concerned that many of the drugs have lost their effectiveness due to the development of drug-resistant microbial strains. The government agency wants meat producers to stop using the drugs to boost production and promote growth.

"Limiting the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals only for assuring animal health. Unfortunately, many operations use antimicrobials to increase production, or to produce larger animals, which contributes to the misuse of the drugs and raises the possibility of antibiotic resistance," FDA officials said in a statement.

"The development of resistance to this important class of drugs, and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious public health threat," the FDA said in the statement.

Not surprisingly, the meat industry is unhappy with the recommendations. The National Pork Producers Council said the FDA guidelines were too much, claiming they would keep the industry from using medications to keep their animals healthy.

"There is no scientific study linking antibiotic food use in food animal production with antibiotic resistance," the council said in a statement of their own.

Scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists beg to differ. Margaret Mellon, a member of the organization, says the council's claim is "patently untrue."

"There is a mountain of studies linking the use of antibiotics in animals to the evolution of resistant pathogens that cause human disease," she told the Los Angeles Times.

Whatever the case, the brouhaha is all a little premature. The FDA document isn't a regulation or even a proposed regulation. The FDA will open a 60-day comment period on this issue, then decide on what regulations (if any) to impose. In the meantime, if you're concerned about what's in your meat, organic is always an option. It might be pricier, but it comes without the pill bottles