Small farms advantage – aff 1ac

Download 164.5 Kb.
Size164.5 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14



1AC – Small Farms Advantage

Organics are growing but need increased market demand --- even small shifts are key.

Jason Best, 11/10/2016. Regular contributor to TakePart who has worked for Gourmet and the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Organic Farming in the U.S. Is Now Bigger Than Ever,” TakePart,
More than 4 million acres of U.S. farmland now are devoted to organic agriculture, according to a new report from the market research firm Mercaris, a record that marks an 11 percent increase over two years ago. The number of certified organic farms is close to 15,000, rising just over 6 percent since 2014.

While it may not be shocking that hotbeds of consumer demand for organic food such as California and New York are among the leading states in the total acreage of organic farmland—with 688,000 acres, California is No. 1—Montana, Wisconsin, and North Dakota rounding out the top five is something of a surprise. Montana’s 30 percent increase of 100,000 acres of organic acreage since 2014 bumps it into the No. 2 spot, while North Dakota’s increase of more than 40,000 acres pushes it past Oregon, which now ranks sixth. Colorado and Texas round out the top eight.

To be sure, the amount of organic cropland in the U.S. remains but a sliver of the total overall. Organic corn, wheat, and soybeans each account for less than 1 percent of the total number of acres planted with each crop. The largest organic crop, oats, accounts for 3.6 percent of all the oats grown in the U.S.

But double-digit growth in organic farmland is nothing to sniff at, and as you might expect, it’s a trend fueled by a consumer demand for organic products that continues to boom. According to the Organic Trade Association, sales of organic products grew almost 11 percent last year, the fourth straight year of double-digit growth. Compare that with the relatively meager growth rate of the market for food products overall (3.3 percent in 2015), and you can see why big food companies such as General Mills are committing themselves to expanding their organic offerings—which in turn is driving them to launch programs aimed at increasing the amount of organic farmland in the U.S.

“I think we will see more of an impact of those programs in the next few years as more farmers start the transition process [to organic],” Alex Heilman, sales associate at Mercaris, told Civil Eats.

As more Americans make the switch to buying everything from organic eggs to organic cereal, it has created something of a paradox: The U.S. exports more grain for animal feed than any other country in the world, but because so many of our crops are conventionally grown—i.e., genetically modified and sprayed with pesticides—those same crops can’t be used in the production of organic food at home. Thus, the U.S. has been forced to import an increasing amount of organic feed from other countries. Imports of organic corn, for example, tripled over the last year, according to Bloomberg News, and it is primarily used as feed for dairy cows to help meet Americans’ demand for organic milk, which has tripled since 2007.

In a week that has been consumed by election news and in a country trying to come to grips with Donald Trump’s upset win over Hillary Clinton, it can seem like small potatoes to go all rah-rah over a report that organic acreage has hit a record high in the U.S. While there’s ample reason for progressive-minded folks who have been advocating for a more sustainable food supply to despair over the sort of setbacks a Trump administration might pose—for example, cutting funding to the federal programs designed to help farmers make the transition to organic—it’s also worth remembering that we don’t just vote our conscience every two or four years at the polls; in our market-based economy, we vote every day with our wallets.

Organics have long benefited from a kind of halo of healthy goodness. But when it comes to promoting sustainable agriculture and its related environmental benefits, committing to buying organic when you can is one of the best things you can do—whether we’re talking about avoiding GMOs or reining in the amount of toxic agrochemicals polluting our land and water. After all, a company like General Mills isn’t getting ready to launch a program devoted to increasing the amount of organic farmland out of the goodness of its heart; it’s doing it because consumers are essentially calling for it every time they choose organic oatmeal over conventional. Small choices really can add up to big differences.

Healthy school lunch programs create institutional markets for small farmers --- helps reverse farm consolidation and maintain food system sustainability.

Anupama Joshi, Andrea Misako Azuma, and Gail Feenstra, October 2008. **MS, Director of the National Farm to School Program, Center for Food & Justice, Urban & Environmental Policy Institute (MS M1), Occidental College, Los Angeles; **MS, Project Manager of Community Benefit, Kaiser Permanente Southern California; **EdD, RD, is a Food Systems Analyst at the UC Sustainable Agriculture Research, and Education Program, University of California, Davis. “Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference? Findings and Future Research Needs,” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 3.2-3, 229-246.
Farm-to-school programs can be discussed in the larger context of health and environmental and agricultural crises that are gaining public attention and threatening the long-term sustainability of food systems. Specifically, recent changes in the food system have had impacts on human health and small and medium-size farm viability and are addressed below.

The prevalence of obesity and overweight has been elevated to a major public health concern in the United States. Between 1999–2000 and 2003–2004, the prevalence of overweight rose from 13.8% to 16.0% among girls and from 14.0% to 18.2% among boys.6 Corresponding diet-related diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, are also increasing in prevalence7 and are of concern to health professionals and policymakers.

A variety of school-based obesity prevention efforts have been implemented and evaluated with varying degrees of success in increasing students’ consumption of healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables. Nutrition education programs have yielded slight increases in fruit and vegetable consumption among students, ranging from 0.2 to 0.99 servings/day.8,9 Research on salad bar offerings showed no significant difference in fruit and vegetable consumption between self-serve and preportioned salad bar meals. Researchers did find, however, that the greatest variety of items offered led to the greatest number of fruit and vegetable servings consumed.10 School gardens are another strategy for improving nutrition and educational outcomes in school settings, but scant research has been conducted to evaluate outcomes associated with gardening programs.11 There is evidence to suggest that teachers perceive gardens to be “somewhat to very effective at enhancing academic performance, physical activity, language arts, and healthful eating habits.”12 In comparing the impacts of classroom-based nutrition education and hands-on gardening activities, research conducted with fourth-graders documented a significant and lasting increase in knowledge and preference for vegetables among students who received nutrition education and those who participated in nutrition education combined with gardening, as compared to a control group.13

In addition to changes in health and weight status, the agricultural industry has also undergone major changes in recent decades, as it has become increasingly marked by global competition and U.S. agricultural and trade policies that favor large farms. Small farms are experiencing hardships due to inaccessible markets, cheap imports, and high packing and distribution costs per unit for small volumes.14 According to the 2002 U.S. Census of Agriculture the number of small farms decreased about 4% between 1997 and 2002. Farms with sales under $2,500 (the smallest category) and those over $500,000 (the largest farms) increased in number, but farms with sales in all categories between $2,500 to $499,999 decreased in number.15 This phenomenon has been called “the disappearing middle.” With changing conditions, some small and medium-sized farms have sought alternative markets, such as farmers markets, cooperatives, and community-supported agriculture. Institutional markets are another venue for small and medium-sized farms, as the demand for local and sustainably produced food is increasing at schools, colleges and universities, and hospitals nationwide.

Genetic diversity from small farms key to prevent extinction.

James K Boyce, July 2004. Department of Economics & Political Economy Research and Environmental research at the University of Massachusetts, “A Future for Small Farms? Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture”. Political Economic Research Institute,
There is a future for small farms. Or, to be more precise, there can be and should be a future for them. Given the dependence of ‘modern’ low-diversity agriculture on ‘traditional’ high-diversity agriculture, the long-term food security of humankind will depend on small farms and their continued provision of the environmental service of in situ conservation of crop genetic diversity. Policies to support small farms can be advocated, therefore, not merely as a matter of sympathy, or nostalgia, or equity. Such policies are also a matter of human survival. The diversity that underpins the sustainability of world agriculture did not fall from the sky. It was bequeathed to us by the 400 generations of farmers who have carried on the process of artificial selection since plants were first domesticated. Until recently, we took this diversity for granted. The ancient reservoirs of crop genetic diversity, plant geneticist Jack Harlan (1975, p. 619) wrote three decades ago, ‘seemed to most people as inexhaustible as oil in Arabia.’ Yet, Harlan warned, ‘the speed which enormous crop diversity can be essentially wiped out is astonishing.’ The central thesis of this essay is that efforts to conserve in situ diversity must go hand-in-hand with efforts to support the small farmers around the world who sustain this diversity. Economists and environmentalists alike by and large have neglected this issue. In thrall to a myopic notion of efficiency, many economists fail to appreciate that diversity is the sine qua non of resilience and sustainability. In thrall to a romantic notion of ‘wilderness,’ many environmentalists fail to appreciate that agricultural biodiversity is just as valuable – indeed, arguably more valuable from the standpoint of human well-being – as the diversity found in tropical rainforests or the spotted owls found in the ancient forests of the northwestern United States.

Organic agriculture key to solve warming --- increases sequestration and resilience.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching, 2/1/2008. World renowned geneticist & biophysicist, Director of the Institute of Science in Society, she is co-founder of the International Science Panel on Genetic Modification. Researcher with Third World Network and the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). “Mitigating Climate Change through Organic Agriculture and Localized Food Systems,” Prism Webcast News,
Sustainable agriculture helps to counteract climate change by restoring soil organic matter content as well as reducing soil erosion and improving soil physical structure. Organic soils also have better water-holding capacity, which explains why organic production is much more resistant to climate extremes such as droughts and floods [31] (Organic Agriculture Enters Mainstream, Organic Yields on Par with Conventional & Ahead during Drought Years, SiS 28), and water conservation and management through agriculture will be an increasingly important part of mitigating climate change. The evidence for increased carbon sequestration in organic soils seems clear. Organic matter is restored through the addition of manures, compost, mulches and cover crops. The Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems (SAFS) Project at University of California Davis in the United States [32] found that organic carbon content of the soil increased in both organic and low-input systems compared with conventional systems, with larger pools of stored nutrients. Similarly, a study of 20 commercial farms in California found that organic fields had 28 percent more organic carbon [33]. This was also true in the Rodale Institute trials, where soil carbon levels had increased in the two organic systems after 15 years, but not in the conventional system [34]. After 22 years, the organic farming systems averaged 30 percent higher in organic matter in the soil than the conventional systems [31]. In the longest running agricultural trials on record of more than 160 years, the Broadbalk experiment at Rothamsted Experimental Station, manure-fertilized farming systems were compared with chemical-fertilized farming systems [35]. The manure fertilized systems of oat and forage maize consistently out yielded all the chemically fertilized systems. Soil organic carbon showed an impressive increase from a baseline of just over 0.1 percent N (a marker for organic carbon) at the start of the experiment in 1843 to more than double at 0.28 percent in 2000; whereas those in the unfertilized or chemical-fertilized plots had hardly changed in the same period. There was also more than double the microbial biomass in the manure-fertilized soil compared with the chemical-fertilized soils. It is estimated that up to 4 tonnes CO2 could be sequestered per hectare of organic soils each year [36]. On this basis, a fully organic UK could save 68 Mt of CO2 or 10.35 percent of its ghg emissions each year. Similarly, if the United States were to convert all its 65 million hectares of crop lands to organic, it would save 260 Mt CO2 a year [37]. Globally, with 1.5335 billion hectares of crop land [38] fully organic, an estimated� 6.134 Gt of CO2 could be sequestered each year, equivalent to more than 11 percent of the global emissions, or the entire share due to agriculture.

Shifting away from industrial agriculture is key to solve warming --- other countries model our food system.

Bruce Myers, March/April 2014. Senior attorney at the Environmental Law Institute. He co-directs ELI’s Industrial Agriculture Law & Policy Center. “Livestock’s Hoof Print,” The Environmental Forum, 31.2,
In the absence of a comprehensive federal law to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, an “all of the above” approach is now taking shape. President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, announced last year, relies on a mix of regulations and incentives to cut carbon pollution from power plants, accelerate the shift to clean energy, reduce emissions from transportation, and improve energy efficiency in industry, businesses, and homes. And environmentalists — a group that includes environmental professionals ex officio — have long been active on each of these fronts. Beyond pressing for policy reform, environmentalists have led the charge to opt out of, or reduce their demand for, activities that generate GHGs. This has meant lowering personal energy use by choosing green power, using public transportation, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, flying less, and making myriad other individual decisions that, in the aggregate, keep more carbon in the ground and out of the atmosphere.

But the national climate policy dialogue has mostly steered clear of a significant category of GHG emissions: those associated with the production of meat and other animal products by an ever more industrialized livestock sector. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 14.5 percent of all heat-trapping GHGs emitted into the atmosphere through human activity is attributable, directly or indirectly, to the livestock sector. By 2050, meat production is projected to double due to increasing population and growing per capita demand. And according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010, the livestock sector alone could, by 2050, account for 70 percent of what the authors characterize as humanity’s “suggested safe operating space” for anthropogenic GHGs. It is well past time to elevate the role of livestock, and especially the industrialized production of meat, as a matter of national climate policy.

How does raising animals have such a serious climate impact? In broad strokes, the livestock sector (and in particular the industrial livestock sector) generates GHG emissions through the production of feed for animals, during animal rearing, and in connection with the processing of animal products. Transportation and energy emissions factor in at every phase of the process, generating the familiar gas carbon dioxide. As in all economic sectors, industrial livestock production activities consume energy and so result in carbon dioxide emissions. Energy is used throughout the livestock production process, for example, in the manufacture of chemical inputs (such as fertilizer), in the operation of farm machinery and equipment, and in processing and transporting final products. But where livestock production really separates itself from most other sectors is through the emission of large amounts of the far more potent heat-trapping gases methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (N2 O). These two gases are responsible for nearly three-quarters of the global livestock sector’s CO2 -equivalent emissions.

Methane is a major culprit. It is the most abundant non-CO2 GHG in the atmosphere, measured by concentration. Worldwide, agricultural activities are the primary source of anthropogenic CH4 emissions — with livestock as the primary contributor. In the United States, EPA assigns about one third of anthropogenic methane emissions to livestock production — placing it just ahead of attention-grabbing natural gas and petroleum systems as a source. As most people know, cows and other ruminants expel methane as a by-product of their digestive process: this is called “enteric fermentation.” Earth is home to over 3.5 billion domestic ruminants, not counting wild populations. Cattle and other ruminants are overwhelmingly responsible for livestock methane emissions. And this isn’t only about what comes out of the front end of the animal: methane, along with nitrous oxide, is also generated by the storage and processing of manure. Industrial livestock systems generate enormous amounts of waste, which is often stored in large lagoons.

Despite a much shorter atmospheric lifespan when compared with CO2 (12 years as compared with 50–200 years), methane paints a troubling climate picture. First, methane’s potency as a heattrapper may have been seriously underestimated. Late last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that methane’s heat-trapping capacity (or global warming potential, GWP) over the relevant 20-year and 100-year time horizons, is, respectively, 86 and 34 times that of carbon dioxide. In contrast, FAO’s most recent analysis uses a lower 100-year GWP of 25, and EPA’s last GHG inventory relied on an even lower, and especially outdated, 100-year GWP of 21—though the agency has just raised the figure to 25, effective in 2014. Whatever the proper 100-year GWP for methane, given the increasingly dire news on the state of climate change, it may well make more sense to assess methane’s potency based on the higher GWP associated with a shorter, 20-year horizon. The IPCC has acknowledged that the choice of time horizon amounts to a “value judgment.”

Second, there is probably already more methane in the atmosphere than was previously estimated, according to new measurements. A 2013 Harvard study on methane published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences included a finding that U.S. methane emissions due to ruminants and manure are actually up to twice the magnitude shown in existing GHG inventories (and methane attributable to fossil fuel extraction and processing could be multiples of existing estimates). EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has promised that the agency will “take a close look” at these latest methane measurements. Bottom line: methane is both worse and more prevalent than scientists knew until quite recently. And the livestock sector is a methane machine.

Next, animal feed production is a significant but overlooked pathway for the emission of livestock GHGs. The majority of livestock production in the United States follows an industrial model where feed is grown elsewhere and transported to the animal facility. More corn is grown in the United States for animal feed than for any other purpose, including for ethanol production, and livestock consume 97 percent of soybean meal. That feed was almost certainly genetically modified and was produced through the application of fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide, inputs that had to be manufactured and transported. Substantial amounts of CO2 and N2 O are generated at this initial phase of livestock production. Nitrous oxide is over 300 times more potent as a heat-trapper than carbon di- oxide; agricultural soil management and the manufacture of chemical fertilizer are major sources of N2 O emissions. The more industrialized the system, the greater the need for chemicals, mechanical equipment, transportation, and processing. All of this contributes to a hefty climate hoof print.

Despite the links between industrialized animal production and GHG emissions, another study (again, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and authored by an Australian scientist) concludes that smaller producers in the developing world actually account for the majority of global livestock GHG emissions. There are more total animals in developing nations, their livestock production systems are typically far less efficient than in developed countries, and the demand for meat in developing countries is growing rapidly. Land conversion to make room for feed crops and pasture is also a problem: in 2006, FAO grabbed headlines with its finding that a third of global livestock GHG emissions were the result of deforestation in developing countries — though FAO has used new methodolgy to revise that figure down to nine percent, still a large number.

Nevertheless, the drive to consume large quantities of meat has its roots firmly in developed countries. Americans, for example, are among the top per-capita consumers of meat in the world; we eat it at roughly three times the global average. Though U.S. meat consumption has dipped slightly in recent years, per capita consumption is up dramatically over the last half century. Residents of developed nations eat vastly more meat per capita, even as they tend to have far more dietary options. And industrialized nations are exporting their eating habits: a 2013 report issued by the U.N. Environment Program noted that citizens of the developed world are “setting a standard for food consumption patterns, especially of meat and dairy products, that is far from being sustainable, while at the same time leading to significant additional health risks through over consumption.” Livestock-related GHG emissions are everyone’s problem.

FAO’s global work on livestock and climate change has, to date, been the most recognized and cited. FAO takes a broad lifecycle analysis approach to identifying livestock sources and estimating all direct and indirect emissions associated with the sector. EPA, by comparison, in its most recent GHG inventory, relies on IPCC methodology and reports only on direct livestock GHG emissions attributable to enteric fermentation and manure management. This approach has the effect of obscuring the full extent of the CO2 emissions attributable to animal feed production.

Even so, FAO has detractors. A 2009 Worldwatch Institute report made a splash with findings by two World Bank experts who argue that livestock’s global GHG contribution is a whopping 51 percent — multiples of FAO’s estimate. The researchers claim that FAO overlooked, underestimated, and misallocated a variety of GHG contributions associated with the sector.

Others take on FAO from a different direction. Farmer and author Eliot Coleman, for example, argues that the problem isn’t meat at all, but rather industrial agriculture. Industrialized meat production depends on the burning of fossil fuels, the manufacture and heavy use of chemical fertilizer for feed crops, and the need to contend with vast amounts of manure. By contrast, long-term pasture used for grass-fed beef can actually sequester carbon, and healthy, well-managed grasslands are home to CH4 - chomping microbes that can potentially counterbalance the methane emissions of the ruminants grazing there. Proponents of grass-fed beef argue that in comparing its GHG impacts to those of industrial meat (which actually tends to have lower methane emissions from enteric fermentation), it is important to examine all of the environmental impacts of each production system — including the full range of GHG sources and sinks associated with each.

Climate change is a system disruptor and a risk amplifier--only mitigation prevents biodiversity loss, marine ecosystem collapse, resource wars, global food scarcity, and extreme weather events

Pachauri & Meyer 15 (Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC, Leo Meyer Head, Technical Support Unit IPCC were the editors for this IPCC report, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp)
SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. {2.3}

Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts. Some risks are particularly relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while others are global. The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change, including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequences. {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box 2.4}

A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to be high by the observation that natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}

Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}

Until mid-century, projected climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}

In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}

Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2}

Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate. From a poverty perspective, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at regional scales. {2.3.2}

Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries with low income. Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}

Download 164.5 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

The database is protected by copyright © 2023
send message

    Main page