Category: Agriculture

As someone working in agricultural research, my exposure to cacao was limited. Cacao was mostly intercropped beautifully with towering coconut trees and even now. The notion I carried was simple. The workers (agriculture) were likely local women, toiling hard but within a visible community framework. It got shattered this week.

While exploring cacao for a completely different project, I did not expect the child labour in cocoa. So shocked that I tweeted about it immediately because how did I, someone working in the agri space, miss this?

The Invisible Workforce

While the common perception of field work often defaults to adult labor, data underscores that the foundation of the global chocolate industry involves significant exploitation.

According to various studies, the epicenter of this crisis remains Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, which collectively supply nearly 60% of the world’s cocoa. 1.56 million children are engaged in cocoa-related child labour. Of particular concern is that around 1.48 million children (aged 5–17) perform hazardous tasks, including operating sharp tools, applying agricultural chemicals, and transporting heavy loads. This figure represents 43% of children living in cocoa agricultural households.

Though the data is most robust for West Africa, the U.S. Department of Labor notes the use of child labor in cocoa production in countries including Cameroon, Nigeria, Brazil, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, highlighting the systemic, poverty-driven nature of the issue. The prevalence of child labor increased over a decade (2008-09 to 2018-19), growing by 14 percentage points alongside a massive 62% rise in cocoa production, underscoring the direct link between global market demand and on-the-ground exploitation.

The Creator Economy Enters Cocoa

Right when I was going down this rabbit hole, I also found myself watching a pod conversation about Feastables & Prime. I’ve always seen Mr. Beast as the YouTube guy planting trees and giving aways… not someone running a consumer goods.

The recent public announcements say they are working toward ending child labour in their cocoa supply chain, shifting to traceable and certified sourcing. And honestly? That caught my attention.

A commitment to 100% Fairtrade Certified Cocoa, providing baseline assurance regarding labor standards. The critical differentiator is the commitment to pay farmers the Living Income Reference Price (LIRP) or market price, whichever is higher. Since farmer poverty is the primary driver of child labor, this commitment directly targets the systemic problem. Implementation of Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation Systems (CLMRS) to identify and remove children from hazardous work, demonstrating a continuous oversight process.

Beyond Hype

The immediate question that arises when a high-profile, creator-led brand adopts a major social mission is: Is this genuine change or highly effective PR?

The adoption of robust, third-party verifiable standards (Fairtrade, LIRP, CLMRS) by a rapidly scaling brand sets a new, higher standard for the industry. This is good. By integrating social accountability into the business model from inception, Feastables transforms ethical sourcing from an optional add-on into a core competitive advantage that resonates with conscious consumers.

The success of this model will determine if the creator economy can be a force for positive change in global supply chains. The true test for Feastables, and for the consumers supporting it, is not the initial intention, but the sustained and verified implementation of its commitments. It serves as a necessary challenge to establish, demonstrating that high-volume, competitive pricing need not preclude a fair and ethical supply chain.

Of course, even well-intentioned certification systems have been criticized for gaps in enforcement and for sometimes prioritizing paperwork over real outcomes. The question is whether they genuinely improves on these limitations.

At the end, If this new wave of brands can reach millions (& upcoming $5 billion unicorn status) with just few video, maybe it can also reach the farms where the real work happens. Growth is good but I hope conscience grows with it.

Maybe, now we all know the chocolate contains the labour of kids

Cheers

Check out the previous post: Why only Spotify? What about life? & other Agriculture posts

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

I was trying to find an alternative to rice in my diet. At first, I thought lunch was the main issue. But when I traced it back, rice was everywhere. Breakfast, dinner, snacks, even in quick bites we don’t notice. That’s when it hit me. Rice isn’t just a grain on the plate but it has intricated into our entire lifestyle.

But this wasn’t always the case. Pre–Green Revolution, India was more millet country. In 1960, per capita millet consumption was around 30.9 kg/year, making up nearly 40% of cultivated grains. By 2022, that dropped to 3.8 kg/year and just 20% share of cultivation. Rice and wheat took over, reshaping not just what we eat but how our farms, markets, and health systems function.

Erosion of Agrobiodiversity

The Green Revolution was a band-aid and necessary to escape famine and achieve national self-sufficiency. But in the process, we lost sight of balance. Hybrid rice and wheat varieties were pushed aggressively, leading to the loss of over 100,000 indigenous rice varieties and countless traditional millet seeds. Each of those varieties carried resilience against pests, droughts, and climate swings.

The new seeds were designed for fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizer use in India is projected to cross 160 kg per hectare by 2030, with some states already touching 250 kg/ha. Pesticide production hit 258,000 metric tons in 2023, applied over more than 108 million hectares. Farmers are trapped in a cycle more chemicals, declining soil health, shrinking microbial life, and polluted water.

The Shift on our plates & and in our bodies

Millets are rich in fiber, magnesium, and antioxidants, with a glycemic index of 52–68. White rice sits at 73, triggering sharp blood sugar spikes. The shift from complex, high-fiber millets to polished rice is directly linked to India’s rising diabetes burden. Multiple studies confirm that higher white rice consumption raises Type-2 diabetes risk, particularly in South Asian populations. In short, the grain that saved us from famine is now pushing us towards lifestyle disease.

Rice, methane, and the climate Story

It doesn’t stop at health. Rice paddies are major methane emitters. CH₄ emissions from Indian rice fields rose from about 3.7 teragrams (3.4–4.1 Tg) in 1966 to 4.8 teragrams (4.4–5.3 Tg) in 2017, largely driven by the expansion of rice area and conventional water regimes. Every plate of rice carries a hidden climate cost.

Millets, by contrast, are dryland crops. They thrive with little water, demand minimal inputs, and release negligible methane. They’re not just good for us, they’re good for the planet too.

The capitalist squeeze

The Green Revolution was also India’s industrial revolution in agriculture. Surplus production, mechanization, monoculture, and integration into global markets. Farmers who once saved seeds became buyers of hybrids they couldn’t replant. Multinationals selling fertilizers and pesticides turned farming into a business model.

Was the green revolution the mistake?

No. It was the need of the hour like a band-aid to stop famine and ensure national food sufficiency.

The mistake was never going back to rebuild what we lost. Millets could have been renewed, seed diversity could have been conserved, but policy and markets stayed stuck on rice and wheat.

Question of time and who cooks?

Even if we talk about bringing millets back, a practical question comes up. Who will cook them? Millets often need soaking, longer cooking, and extra attention. If we’re not careful, this shift risks pushing the responsibility back onto women, who already carry the weight of kitchen work. That’s not the future we want.

The real opportunity lies in innovation. With rice, we created an entire ecosystem, instant mixes, snacks, packaged foods, ready-to-cook and ready-to-eat products. Millets deserve the same treatment. From millet noodles to quick-cook flours, the scope is massive. This isn’t just about food, it’s a space for entrepreneurs, startups, and farmer collectives to build the millet economy. Convenience is what will make millets mainstream again.

Where do we go from here?

• Bring millets into PDS, mid-day meals, and urban shelves.
• Support community seed banks to revive traditional varieties.
• Reform subsidies so they reward soil health, not just fertilizer use.
• Make millets aspirational with recipes, ready-to-cook products, and modern branding.

The Green Revolution was the need of the hour. But what we forgot to do was renew millets alongside. We replaced a diversity-rich food culture with monocultures. We traded resilience for yields, and long-term health for short-term survival. Now we need a Nutritional Revolution that restores balance to our diets, our farms, and our future.

Cheers

Check out the previous posts: #DecodeAgri04: Who will grow the crops in a world obsessed with tech? & Why hardest way is the smartest way!

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

This morning, I saw a cartoon from The New Yorker. The caption reads: “One day, son, this farmland will be yours to sell to a tech company building data centers.” Funny. But maybe not that far from reality.

Across the world, fiber cables are being laid, AI models are being trained, and server farms are expanding. Developed countries are busy building the backbone of the digital economy. Many of them import food often from the same developing countries now selling land to tech parks.

So here’s the question: If farms become servers, and developing nations can’t tech up fast enough, who’s going to grow our food?

In developed nations, tech powers agriculture. Smart irrigation, soil sensors, drones, and robotics help farmers produce more with less. Even if they import certain foods, their systems are tech backed and resilient.

But in many parts of the developing world, it’s a different story. Small farmers still run on 2G. Many don’t have access to smartphones, real-time data, or even reliable weather forecasts. We talk about AI in agri, but on ground it sounds more like: Can we get data on rainfed maize in a district? Sorry, we operate under 2G… still loading.

Let’s be clear. This isn’t a tech vs agri debate. That’s a false binary. The real question is, Why aren’t they working together?

We don’t have to pick between grain and gigabytes. Agri and tech should go hand in hand. Data centers need land. So do crops. It’s not about this or that. It’s about how and who.

The truth is the land used by solar parks and server farms is still minimal overall. Most of it is near metros or degraded zones. But if tech is rolled out without inclusion, then it becomes another land grab.

Countries like India need to lead with a middle path. One that invests in both digital infra and agricultural resilience. We can’t afford to choose between food and future. We need both. So, back to the question.
Who will grow crops in a world obsessed with tech?

The answer won’t come from code alone. It’ll come from policies that value land, systems that include the small farmers, and tech that doesn’t leave anyone buffering.

Because no matter how advanced we become, we still need to eat. Governance sits at the heart of this. Who owns land? Who makes decisions? Who benefits? That’s where we’ll go next.

Cheers!

Check out the other post: Just Start. Finish What You Start!

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

There is a certain comfort in picking up a vegetables and fruits wrapped in brown paper or with label as organic. It feels different. Calmer. Healthier. Sometimes, even holier.

Over the last few years, organic has become more than a word. It’s become a feeling. But like many things that get romanticized, the word has started slipping from its roots. Today, not everything that looks organic is organic.

Mentioned in earlier posts, PoPs and Their Far-Reaching Impacts and the Dirty Dozen Debate, but let’s understand the gap between what’s marketed and what’s practiced.

The rise of organic as a vibe

We are living in a time where aesthetic sells over substance. The moment we see green-toned branding, hand-written chalkboard menus, or words like organic, natural, chemical free, from the farm, we let our guard down and buy it. It’s understandable. We want to believe that someone, somewhere, grew our food with care without synthetic sprays, growth regulators, or artificial ripening agents.

This desire for authenticity has created a market where the appearance of organic matters more than the reality of it. Sellers have learned to speak and sell the language of conscious consumers.

I’ve worked with farmers who genuinely try to reduce chemical usage and lean towards traditional practices. I’ve also met sellers who loosely use the word organic because they know it gives them an edge. In many cases, even they don’t fully understand the depth of what organic really involves. The intention might be good, but the system is missing. And that’s where the problem starts.

What does real organic mean?

True organic farming isn’t a label. It’s a disciplined process. In India, if a farmer wants to be certified organic under systems like NPOP (National Programme for Organic Production) or PGS-India (Participatory Guarantee System), they have to commit to at least three years of conversion. That means no synthetic inputs (fertilizers, pesticides or any inorganic substances), strict field records, internal inspections, buffer zones, regular soil and residue testing, and an audit trail from seed to shelf.

Certification bodies come with their own systems of checks. Farmers have to maintain logbooks, verify seed sources, submit for inspections. Even after all this, every batch of produce might not pass. It’s hard, honest work.

In contrast, the term chemical free has no legal weight. A seller or farmer might skip pesticides but still use chemical fertilizers. Or maybe they used biopesticides but without dosage clarity or withdrawal period. Maybe they sprayed something mild once, but it still left residue. Without documentation, there’s no way to know. People gets confused with chemical free and organic.

Where do consumers stand?

It’s not easy being a conscious consumer in today’s food ecosystem. Everything looks green, healthy, honest. But the real work lies beneath the surface. This doesn’t mean we stop trusting farmers or small sellers. Many of them are doing their best, especially those in the early phase of conversion. But if we truly care about what goes into our bodies, we need to start asking better questions. Was this grown organically? Is there a certification? Look for terms like India Organic, PGS-India Organic, PGS-India Green or Jaivik Bharat.

Real organic farming takes time, investment, and commitment. Hence, we can also support the right efforts farmer groups trying for PGS certification, collectives that publish test reports, brands that share their sourcing stories honestly.

The more we learn about what goes into our plate, the more power we have to shape not just our own health but also the systems that feed us.

The procedure and labels holds different for the exports and imports. Maybe in the upcoming blogs.

Cheers!

Check out the other post: When brain shouted and gut whispered!

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

There are a lot of problems waiting to be solved, some easy, some deeply complex. And with the rise of AI, we’re seeing exponential growth across sectors. AI is blooming, thriving off the data we feed it through our clicks, our choices, our language, our habits. It’s trained, and then it evolves. Because we, the users are constantly handing it billions of data points.

But what happens in places where the data doesn’t exist?

India, an agriculture based economy, still runs heavily on manual processes, and scattered supply chains. We rarely pause to think about where our food really comes from. Take the cucumber or vegetable, there will be no traceability. No indication of where it was grown, what inputs were used, or how far it traveled. It’s not just about one vegetable. It’s about a deeper gap in the system. A missing layer of infrastructure we’ve learned to overlook.

Without accessible data from the field, it becomes incredibly difficult to build solutions that can strengthen and scale both agricultural exports and domestic consumption.

As AI systems advance, they’ll need structured, reliable, on-ground data to solve meaningful problems in food and farming. This isn’t just about automating for efficiency. It’s about including sectors that have long been left out of the digital revolution.

There’s a growing need for tools that collect, verify, and process agricultural data IoT devices, lightweight farm tracking systems, simple software made for farmers, not engineers.

The opportunity isn’t just in building smarter algorithms. It’s in building deeper connections to the field.

If we want intelligence to scale, we need to first make the ground visible. A few agritech startups are working on this, but we need more solutions that are grounded in local realities and built with farmers in mind. Until then, the promise of data-driven agriculture will stay out of reach for most.

Cheers

Check out the other post: Accountability Ends. Guilt Doesn’t!

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

In my last piece, I wrote about how traders and consumers often act as the real buyers in agriculture. Their preferences, what sells, what fetches premium, what is required in bulk shape what gets grown by the farmers.

But that’s only one part of the system. If you shift the lens from building for the market to empowering farmers on the ground, the story becomes more complex.

Farmers don’t resist change because they’re stubborn. They resist it because they’ve learned to be careful. With limited margins, high risk, and often no fallback, they adopt tools only when they’re useful, proven, and trusted. A weather app that helps decide when to sow, a neighbor who sees better yield after using a soil test and that’s what moves them.

Information, when accessible and actionable, makes them confident. Not because they’re being “pulled” by the market, but because they see value in their own terms. The agricultural system is not a straight line from consumer to trader to farmer. It’s a dynamic web.

Farmers make decisions based on subsidies, local prices, water availability, and peer behavior. Traders respond to what’s produced. Governments quietly shape the direction through policy. And consumers rarely see the full picture.

So yes, in business terms, the buyer is often someone downstream. But in development terms, the farmer is not passive. They’re navigating constraints, testing options, and influencing outcomes in their own way sometimes visibly, sometimes subtly.

They may not pull the demand but they hold up the system. If Part 1 was about following the money, Part 2 is about understanding the ground. Traders and consumers may pull demand they shape what gets bought. But farmers carry the weight, they decide what’s possible, sustainable, and worth the risk.

In agriculture, it’s not about who leads and who follows. It’s about how value flows and how choices are made across a system that’s part market, part habit, part survival.

Cheers!

PS: Farmer lens

Check out the previous post: So… What’s Next?

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

Agriculture in India is often narrated through the image of the farmer. They become the one standing at the center of the agri economy. Policies are drafted, startups are built, and innovations are pitched with the assumption that the farmer is the primary customer. But this isn’t the frame.

In reality, the farmer is not the one driving the market. The true economic forces that shape what gets grown, how it’s grown, and which technologies succeed originate from two other players in this ecosystem. The trader and the consumer are they key players here.

If you follow the flow of money, influence, and decision making power in agriculture, it becomes clear that the farmer is not the initiator of demand, but the responder. They are the price takers and not makers.

Small and medium farmers rarely operate with complete autonomy over what they buy or what they produce. In India, we have the majority of them. Their decisions are heavily shaped by external factors. This includes, what the local trader is paying more for, what crops their neighbors are planting, what mandi prices are trending, what might work in the coming season based on monsoon. In brief, farmers are reacting to market signals. They don’t always have the power to make the decision rather try to survive within it.

Now look at the other end, the consumer.

People in cities want organic food. Pesticide-free fruits. Fresh, traceable vegetables to add to their clean diet. Also millets. These preferences are loud and growing. The modern Indian consumer is shaping agricultural patterns in more ways than we see. Because of this, retailers and D2C brands or startups/companies adjust how they buy. They want certified produce (harder). They demand better quality. They’re even willing to pay more.

This demand moves upstream right from the store to the trader, and then from the trader to the farm. So, the trader becomes the first true buyer in this chain. They are the ones who decide what they will procure, what quality they will accept, and how they will price it. They set the norms for volume, timing, quality of produce, inputs and many more.

we assume that the farmer is the buyer. The apps, tools, and products for the farmer as if they are the ones making bold purchasing decisions. But farmers often don’t have that freedom. They won’t invest in new tools unless someone downstream is paying more. They won’t shift practices unless there’s a clear gain seen by people or at least by their neighbor.

This is why understanding who the real buyers are in agriculture matters. The farmer are important and nothing moves without their hands in the soil. In agriculture, it begins with the people who pay and more often than not, that’s the trader who procures and the consumer who consumes.

Understanding this isn’t just a mindset shift. It’s a strategy reset for the transformation.

Because in this ecosystem, the real customer isn’t where the field starts. It’s where the money ends.

Cheers

PS: For builders. For Farmer lens – Part 2.

Check out the previous post: Why EVs have DMU in India?

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

Hit the play button to hear the audio version!

I was reading Zero to One and came across this section where Peter compares biotech startups with tech startups. It made me pause for a bit because it made so much sense, especially with my agri background.

He puts it out there pretty straight. Biotech startups are tough. You’re working in an environment full of uncertainty, the subject itself, biology is complex and hard to control, the path forward isn’t always clear, regulations can be intense, and the costs? Super high. Then you look at tech startups, particularly software. Things feel simpler, almost. Variables are often clearly defined, you can create controlled environments (like code on a server), costs can be lower, and there’s a huge pool of people ready to jump in, build, and experiment quickly.

As someone from agriculture, this resonated because I often puzzle over why it seems so hard for many agri-startups to really gain traction and sustain themselves, especially those trying to innovate at the core of farming. When I look around, sure, there are many exciting agri-startups working on tools such as building drones, designing better machines, optimizing inputs with software, creating marketplaces. Those are valuable, absolutely.

But fewer seem to break the territory of working directly with the soil, the plants, the intricate ecosystems. Why? Because that space is just unpredictable. It’s not like writing code where you expect a certain output if the logic is right. Here, things grow, they decay, they react to climate shifts, unexpected pests arrive, the soil microbes change the game. There are just so many moving parts.

Maybe the agri-startups that are truly digging into the biology aren’t like tech startups at all. Maybe they’re much more like biotech startups. And maybe that’s why they often struggle to fit the typical fast-paced tech mold. You just can’t copy the speed and iteration cycles of software when your ‘code’ is a living, breathing, responding organism or ecosystem. The very nature of the work is fundamentally different.

I was also reading about using remote sensing to spot plant diseases or nutrient issues from afar. Sounds incredibly exciting, doesn’t it? But the reality isn’t nearly so simple. The data those colored pixels on a map needs serious validation on the ground initially. You have to gather tons of real world data, run experiments, maybe take leaf samples, dig into the soil, and only then, maybe, can you figure out what’s actually stressing that plant whether its a pest or deficiency or something else. It’s not a button-click diagnosis. It requires understanding what nature is doing, what the plant is experiencing, how the whole environment is interacting. It’s biology first, technology second.

Even think about hydroponics. We create these controlled environments, lights, clean pipes and taking soil out of the equation, aiming for predictability. But even there, biology finds ways to surprise you. How the roots behave, precisely how nutrients are taken up, the subtle shifts in microbial life within the system they all bring their own layer of randomness. It’s not as purely plug and play as it might look from the outside.

Maybe that’s the beauty of it, too. Maybe the point isn’t just to move fast. Maybe it’s about building slow, with real intention, learning from the ground up. Because nature operates on its own clock, and it won’t reveal its secrets too fast. Not easy to decode tho.

What about scaling, then? It takes years if it sustains, doesn’t it?

Cheers

PS: Would love to hear what you think!

Check out the other posts of Agriculture

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

When we obsess over current trends, we often miss what we’ve left behind. Recently, I’ve noticed sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata) everywhere—in supermarkets, street food stalls, retail shops, and even fields. It’s undeniably tasty and appealing.

This popularity is likely due to consumer preference or the effects of capitalism. However, traditional orange corn (Zea mays var. indurata), which was once common, is now mostly grown for poultry feed.

Perhaps we’ve developed a fondness for sweetness in everything. I remember a time when orange corn was readily available and a staple in many homes. Now, it feels like it’s slipping away.

Hope I am not the one!

Cheers!

Check out the other posts of Agriculture

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

I was speaking to an old friend yesterday, and she stressed the importance of exercise and self-health being just as vital as others’s health. This morning, as I was doing some stretches and walking with my dad, I noticed that my mother was in the kitchen cooking breakfast. 

While she does go for a walk in the evening, she is always quite occupied in the morning. It struck me that she is sacrificing her health to make sure we have food. This thought kept me occupied for a while. Why questions arose. Later, I attended a webinar on rural women. The webinar exposed me to issues that are often unidentified or not discussed enough.

In India, including rural areas, women’s participation in the workforce is significant, but as I learned from the webinar, the actual returns for their work are very low. I don’t have the exact data, but it’s clear that their efforts don’t translate into fair wages. In fact, their daily wage rates are often lower than the cost of a healthy diet. This economic imbalance makes it hard for them to sustain themselves. Then, where can they invest in their health or personal growth? 

Moreover, the issue of unemployment or underemployment for rural women is a major concern. In rural areas, women mainly work in agriculture, but as farms become more mechanized and seasonable, there are fewer jobs available throughout the year. With fewer agricultural jobs, women have fewer opportunities to earn money and improve their living standards. Even when women do participate in paid labor, the wages are so low that it hardly makes a difference in their financial independence.

This situation reminds me of something I heard in a podcast with Kunal Shah. He mentioned that in China, there’s a strong focus on healthcare that helps reduce the workload on women. China has developed systems that ensure women don’t have to carry the full burden of domestic duties and childcare. Partnership model; let’s explore this later. 

Women are also seen as essential contributors to the household’s economic health, and cultural expectations push them toward both work and family duties equally. As a result, rural women in China have higher participation in the workforce, along with better healthcare systems to support their needs. I even recall an audience member from a Western country suggesting something similar during a discussion.

Here, the problem is more deeply rooted. Women’s role in the household is seen as primary, and their work outside the home is secondary. This mindset, combined with low wages and poor job opportunities, keeps many rural women out of formal employment. But can Indian mothers trust others to help raise their children? LOL, NO. Guilt trapping, societal pressure and more. 

As I mentioned earlier, my own mother sacrifices her morning time for us, and that’s just one example. In many rural households, women spend hours preparing traditional foods, which often involve time-consuming tasks like soaking grains or grinding spices. While I’ve spoken in favor of sustainable agriculture and crops like millets (written blogs on the same), these traditional foods often take longer to prepare. This adds to women’s domestic burden, making it harder for them to find time for exercise or focus on their health.

The problem exists even at the grassroots level. Rural women are caught between their domestic responsibilities and the need to work for low wages. The result is a cycle where women sacrifice their health, time, and potential for the family, without enough support or recognition.

There is a need for both policy changes and a shift in cultural norms. We need better infrastructure, healthcare, and employment opportunities that value women’s work, both inside and outside the home. As someone who speaks high of sustainable agriculture and climate change awareness, I see the potential for change if we can also recognize the time-consuming nature of tasks and how they burden women.

I feel a mix of emotions. They need thoughtful consideration and different approaches. I’m still working through these ideas and hope to find clearer solutions in the future. In the meantime, I thought to write about it. Just raising awareness about the struggles rural women face and the importance of recognizing their value, both at home and in the workforce.

Happy International Day of Rural Women!

Amazing photos of rural women are taken by Sebastião Salgado. Please check them out!

Cheers

Check out the other posts of Agriculture

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

The widespread adoption of industrial agriculture has led to environmental degradation, soil erosion, and decreased crop diversity. In response, we are moving towards holistic approach that mimics nature’s cycles, promoting ecological balance and soil fertility through natural means. We have lot of natural farming techniques that are used widely. For instance, Natural farming, Organic farming, Zero budget farming and more. Since, I can’t keep myself preaching about Korean, (I had to stop somehow), I explored the Korean Natural Farming system.

Origin

Korean Natural Farming began with Master Han Kyu Cho, a Korean farmer and spiritual leader who started exploring natural farming methods in the 1960s. His journey was a response to the environmental degradation and soil depletion caused by chemical-based agriculture. By the 1980s, the core principles of KNF were developed, emphasizing the use of natural materials, indigenous microorganisms, and fermentation to enhance soil fertility and plant growth. KNF started gaining popularity among Korean farmers, who saw improvements in soil health, crop yields, and environmental sustainability. Some articles says that he was in Japan and learnt some. Not sure.

In the 1990s, Cho established the Korean Natural Farming Association (KNFA) to promote KNF practices, provide training, and support farmers. KNF training programs and workshops spread throughout Korea, attracting international attention and interest. Cho also authored several books on KNF, including “Korean Natural Farming: Indigenous Microorganisms and Fermented Solutions” (2003). I couldn’t get the exact links of it. Maybe because, they have it all in Korean.

Techniques and Practices

Composting and Mulching: KNF emphasizes enhancing soil structure and increasing organic matter through composting and mulching. Organic waste is turned into nutrient-rich compost that improves soil health. Applying organic materials like straw or leaves to the soil surface retains moisture, reduces erosion, and suppresses weeds.

Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO): A key component is the use of indigenous microorganisms. These native microbes, including bacteria, fungi, and protozoa, help decompose organic matter, solubilize minerals, and produce plant growth promoters. Farmers collect soil samples from undisturbed natural areas to harness beneficial native microbes, which are then introduced to the soil and crops.

Specific Microbes:

1. Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB): Utilized to ferment organic materials and enhance soil fertility.
2. Photosynthetic Bacteria (PSB): Used to improve soil structure and nutrient availability.
3. Yeast: Employed in fermentation processes to produce beneficial enzymes and nutrients.
4. Fungi: Applied to decompose organic matter and enhance nutrient cycling.
5. Actinomycetes: Utilized for their ability to decompose complex organic materials and suppress soil-borne disease.

Fermented Plant Extracts: KNF practitioners create various fermented solutions to enrich the soil and support plant health. These include Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ) Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ) Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN).

No-Till Farming: Avoiding or minimizing soil disturbance is another crucial aspect of KNF, preserving soil structure and organic matter. This practice helps maintain soil health, supports beneficial microorganisms, and reduces erosion and runoff.

Cover Cropping and Biodiversity: Planting cover crops such as legumes (green manures and green leaf manures) during off-seasons protects and enriches the soil. KNF also focuses on biodiversity, promoting the coexistence of diverse plant and animal species. This enhances ecosystem resilience and adaptability, encourages natural pest control through beneficial insects and predators, and reduces the need for chemical pesticides.

Nutrient Cycling and Water Conservation: Utilize the plant and animal residues and recycle them to get nutrients within the farm system, maintaining soil fertility. Techniques such as contour planting and rainwater harvesting helps to optimize the water use, reducing the dependency on external sources of water.

Implementation Tips:

1. Local Adaptation: Use local, native microbes adapted to your environment.
2. Environmental Conditions: Maintain proper moisture, temperature, and pH conditions for microbial growth.
3. Microbial Diversity: Avoid over-reliance on a single microbe, promote diversity. That’s the core of this.
4. Monitoring: Regularly observe the system and analyze the microbial community.

Korean Natural Farming offers a scientifically grounded approach to sustainable agriculture, using the power of natural processes to maintain the ecological balance and soil fertility. By emphasizing the use of natural materials, indigenous microorganisms, and diverse farming techniques, KNF presents a viable alternative to conventional chemical-based agriculture. May be I should stop talking about Korean and Korean culture. But this, offers a holistic approach, focusing on the IMOs. More information can be availed from published works as well. The valuable insights into creating more resilient and ecologically balanced farming practices. Challenges might raise while implementation.

Cheers.

Check out the other posts of Agriculture

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R

With the recent technologies and innovations in our modern world, there are some drawbacks that lie beneath the surface. One such issue is called as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). It is a group of toxic chemicals that pose a risk to human health and the environment. These substances stay in the environment for long periods, travel long distances through air and water, and even bioaccumulate in living organisms. Indeed, they provide benefits in agriculture and industry, but now they have emerged as formidable challenges to human health, the environment, and the sustainability of our food systems.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

POPs are organic compounds that include a wide range of industrial chemicals, pesticides, and the byproducts of industrial processes and combustion. There are 12 initial POPs mentioned in the Stockholm convention under the major three categories. Pesticides (aldrin, DDT, etc.), industrial chemicals (hexachlorobenzene), and by-products (PCDD, PCDF, and PCBs) are mentioned in the convention. These compounds resist environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. POPs have contaminated every environmental part, including air, water, and soil, even in remote areas like the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

Given the widespread use and persistence of POPs, international efforts have been made to identify and regulate the most harmful among them, known as the ‘Dirty Dozen’.

Dirty Dozen

It is a term used to describe the twelve harmful POPs identified by the Stockholm Convention. It is an international treaty aimed at restricting and eliminating the production and use of these chemicals. The Dirty Dozen includes aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxaphene, dioxins, and furans. There is a list of fruits and vegetables that are high in residues that is updated every year. Some of them include blueberries, apples, strawberries, and more. Check it out.

Environmental Impact of POPs

Soil Contamination

POPs can remain in the soil for decades and affect the soil microbial communities. They are crucial for plant growth, which leads to reduced production. For example, DDT is banned, yet it is found in soil today. Furthermore, this affects soil health.

Water Pollution

POPs accumulate in water bodies, posing a risk to the organisms in the aquatic system. Some studies show that PCBs and dioxins cause deformities and reproductive issues in fish and other organisms. It can also contaminate drinking water sources, thereby affecting human health.

Air Pollution

POPs can travel long distances with the help of the atmosphere. It can settle from the air onto the land and water, leading to widespread contamination.

Wildlife

POPs are highly toxic. They can accumulate in the fatty tissues of living organisms, and their concentration gets increased as they move up the food chain. This leads to greater levels due to biomagnification. Research has shown that levels of POPs can be up to 10 times higher in top predators like polar bears compared to their prey species, demonstrating the process of biomagnification along the food chain.

Climate change

The relationship between POPs and climate change is a complex and concerning one. The rise in temperature is causing the glaciers to melt. These can release the trapped POPs, exacerbating the environment and health.

Gender-Specific Impact of POPs

POPs have specific impacts on women and their children, especially in developing countries. POPs interfere with the hormonal system, leading to reproductive health issues. Studies show that women are associated with infertility, miscarriages, and adverse birth outcomes. Along with that, a few more research findings say that women in high exposure areas have POP concentrations in their breast milk. It is ten times higher than those in low exposure areas. One more study found that women exposed to POPs have a higher risk of developing breast cancer.

POPs affect men’s reproductive health as well. It disrupts their hormonal balance, leading to reduced testosterone levels.

Impact on Farmers

Farmers are often directly exposed to pesticides containing POPs. Studies show that farmers exposed to high levels of dioxins and PCBs are at greater risk of developing cancer.

Moreover, contaminated soils can reduce crop yield and productivity. Research findings say that POP contamination led to a 15 percent reduction in crop yields, affecting the farmer’s livelihood.

Farmers’ Dilemma

Now, let’s look at it from the farmer’s lens. The use of fertilizer and pesticides has been a long-standing practice for protecting crops from pests and diseases. This also ensures good production and productivity. This also helps them produce the crops at a commercial level across a vast area. However, with respect to environmental concerns, the transition to organic farming requires several years. They have to rely on natural fertilizers and biological pest controls, composts, crop rotation, and the use of organic matter. This phase is called the organic transition period, which is time consuming and costly.

This takes around three to five years, often leading to poor crop yields and financial problems for the farmers. It becomes troublesome for marginal and small farmers in developing countries like India who are operating on thin margins. They find themselves in a difficult position, balancing the immediate economic demands with long-term sustainable practices. Limited training, a knowledge gap, and organic inputs further exacerbate these challenges.

Bridging the Gap Between Conventional and Organic Farming

Achieving a sustainable balance between feeding the growing global population and shifting towards organic farming practices is a complex challenge. The global population is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. This seems to be a challenge, especially while considering the transition. Organic farming includes the benefits of environmental protection, healthy produce, good soil health, microbial conditions, and better biodiversity. However, shifting to organic farming poses’ greater hurdles. This includes lower initial yields, lack of knowledge, financial instability, input costs, and time consumption.

Can organic farming feed the world?

Despite these challenges, certain studies suggest that organic farming can contribute to global sustainability. However, there are several factors that need to be addressed.

Yield Improvement

A yield gap study found that organic farming yield is 18.4% lower than that of conventional farming. This gap can be minimized with improved organic techniques. Apart from that, techniques such as green manure, crop rotation, and composting can improve soil fertility and structure, leading to better yields in the long run.

Research and Development

Investing more in the research and development of organic farming techniques that can help farmers increase yields. Developing crop varieties that are more resilient to pests and diseases. Exploring more bio-based pesticides, focusing on precision agriculture technologies, and finding cost-effective alternatives to POPs are also crucial.

Training and knowledge sharing

Training programs and knowledge sharing initiatives can be taken to equip farmers with the necessary skills. The process, organic certification steps, etc. should be prioritized. This can also help them understand the long-term benefits of sustainability.

Market Development

Strengthening the local and regional markets for organic produce and ensuring that small and marginal farmers receive fair prices for their products. Certification schemes, fair trade, and consumer awareness campaigns can help build a market for organic goods.

Public Awareness

Raising awareness among consumers about the risks of POPs and also the benefits of organic farming. This can drive consumer demand for safer and more environmentally conscious food products.

In conclusion, addressing the challenge of POPs requires a multi-faceted approach involving regulation, education, and innovation. This involves efforts from international organizations, the government, researchers, farmers, and even consumers. To feed the growing population while mitigating the impacts of POPs and climate change, it is imperative that we prioritize long-term sustainability over short term gains. Through concerted efforts, we can create a future where agriculture is both productive and sustainable, ensuring food security and environmental protection for generations to come.

Cheers!

Check out the other posts of Agriculture

Follow on IG & X for more!

If you like what you see and wish to support my work, then

Share your thoughts/suggestion at the comment section or mail at

randomwhyss[@]gmail[dot]com

Don’t miss out! Get notified about new blog posts straight to your inbox !

(No spam, pinky promise!)

Enter your mail to receive updates

Reference

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (n.d.). Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Retrieved from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/resources/fact_sheets.html
• Cohn, B. A., Wolff, M. S., Cirillo, P. M., & Sholtz, R. I. (2007). DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(10), 1406-1414. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.10260
• Dietz, R., Riget, F. F., Sonne, C., Letcher, R. J., Born, E. W., & Muir, D. C. (2004). Levels and effects of persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic environment. Science of the Total Environment, 323(1-3), 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.10.032
• Hickey, J. J., & Anderson, D. W. (1968). Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes in raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science, 162(3850), 271-273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3850.271
• International POPs Elimination Network. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ipen.org/
• Ponisio, L. C., M’Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C., Palomino, J., Valpine, P. de, & Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1799), 20141396. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396
• Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://chm.pops.int/Home/tabid/2121/Default.aspx
• Tsukimori, K., Tokunaga, S., Shibata, S., Uchi, H., Nakayama, D., Ishimaru, T., … & Fukushima, M. (2008). Long-term effects of polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins on pregnancy outcomes in women. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(5), 737-742. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.10714
• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (n.d.). Persistent Organic Pollutants. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/resources/factsheet/persistent-organic-pollutants-pops
• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (n.d.). Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue, A Global Response. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/persistent-organic-pollutants-global-issue-global-response
• Wang, X., Wang, C., Zhu, T., Gong, P., Fu, J., & Cong, Z. (2019). Persistent organic pollutants in the polar regions and the Tibetan Plateau: A review of current knowledge and future prospects. Environmental Pollution, 248, 191-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.093
• World Bank. (2018). Food Loss and Waste: Addressing the Critical Issues. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-loss-and-waste
• World Health Organization (WHO). (n.d.). Dioxins and their effects on human health. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dioxins-and-their-effects-on-human-health

turtles all the way down!

Sunandhini R