Sustainable Farming Receiving Recognition!

Sustainable Farming Receiving Recognition!

I’ve talked a lot about the prospects and the problems facing sustainable agriculture in the 21st century, but how well are they being received around the world and is their recognition being awarded?

I came across an articled on Eco-Business, published on the 17th December 2015 - so a recent publication, which is reporting that four traditional farming systems in Bangladesh and Japan have been rewarded by the FAO as ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems’. But what does this mean? Is this important in the sustainable agricultural revolution that seems to be taking over the world?

The sites were designated during a meeting of the Scientific Committee at FAO’s Rome headquarters, and now bring the total of GIAHS systems to 36 sites located in 15 countries. GIAHS offer real solutions to food security, the conservation of natural resources and sustainable rural development, and as part of an FAO Coorporate Programme, should be entitled to ‘adequate policy guidance as well as investment’, the FAO Deputy Director-General Helena Semedo claims.

But what are these recent four traditional farms that have been rewarded as a GIAHS?

Japan - Ayu of the Nagara River System - One of cleanest rivers in Japan. Ayu fish benefit from clean waters mainted by upstream management.

Japan - Minabe-Tanabe Ume System - Allows for high-quality production of Ume and various kinds of fruit. System ensures stable livelihoods and makes communites more resilient to disasters.

Japan - Takachihogo-Shiibayama Mountainous Agriculture and Forestry System - Balances timber production with diverse farming activities.

Bangladesh - Floating garden Agricultural Practices - unique hydroponics system in which plants can be grown on the water on floating organic bed of water hyacinth, algae and other plant residues.

But what about other developing nations? How is West African farming being supported? There is no doub that the population growth in sub-Saharan Africa has spurred an increase in demand for agricultural and food products [Pretty, Toulmin, and Williams 2011], but Herrero [2010] believes that a better integration between crop and livestock activities at a farm level is a possible solution towards sustainability of these systems. Such integration involves the transfers between crop and livestock systems, but despite such scientific knowledge of sustainable agricultural alternatives, crop-livestock integration (CLI) remains limited due to the low transfers between crop and livestock components within mixed farms [Herrero 2010]. Sempore et al [2016] argues that through a particapatory approach, farmers’ knowledge and awareness of CLI evolved. This method, which in some of my previous blogs has been mentioned, relies on education and training, and according to Sempore et al [2016] proved to allow farmers to design and assess scenarios which ultimately increase transferable animal and plant biomasses in mixed crop-livestock production.

Through helping farmers in developing nations on an interactive level, farmers can assess the most feasible options in the short term and allows them to calculate changes in practices following cropping season. Despite this, there is always the burden of financial backing to support such measures, and without it can lead to limited impacts from this sustainable improvement.

What are consumer preferences when it comes to local farming?

What are consumer preferences when it comes to local farming?

Within the past ten years, the demand for food has increased massively in the US, and with the demand to reduce carbon emissions, the growth of local farming has been quite substantial, growing 111% from 1994 to 2004 [Darby et al 2008]. Adams et al [2010], however, argues that there has been a consumer shift in preference from organic farming to local farming, which ultimately has implications for the environment and society.

An interesting point I believe to begin with is augmented by Darby, who raises the point - what do consumers define as local? The perception of locally grown foods is not quite well understood, and if the distance between production and the consumer is the predominant driving factor, then national firms have difficulty in regarding their produce as ‘local’, especially with many consumers being influenced by ‘anti-corporate’ images that locally produced foods show [Darby et al 2008].

Adams et al [2010] believes that consumers have turned to local food from organic food as a more holistic alternative, as he emphasises a point made by Iles [2005], where consumers are now actually more interested in knowing food miles instead of reading the organic labels, as a general consensus that organic farming has become somewhat industrialised, and this ‘turn’ apparently - according to Adams - began in the 1990s as a result of interesting results from surveys, with one including 9% of respondents saying that their concern for the environment was their primary reason for buying organic produce. This was exacerbated by results found by Wolf [1997], which suggested that consumers in California indicate that locally grown produce are an important part of their shopping at farmers’ markets, whereas organic produce was less desirable. But why? Wolfe’s study also found that consumers perceived local food as fresher, better quality and cheaper. This is reinforced by some statistics produced in an article published in the same year as Wolfe’s study, with Gallons et al [1997] finding that local food is very important (49%) or somewhat important (31.5%), whereas organic food was considered at 15% very important and 19.9% somewhat important.

All in all, what determines a consumer’s preference between the two depends on various drivers, such as concern about industrialisation of organic agriculture and how fresh particular produce are. But according to Adams et al [2010], whether or not a change from organic to local food preference will have an effect on broader aspects of the food system, but still it provokes some interesting thoughts about agriculture and how society bases itself on information - even if its an image on a product!

Newsflash: What Is The Potential Of Seaweed Farming Regarding Ocean Restoration And Climate change?

What Is The Potential Of Seaweed Farming Regarding Ocean Restoration And Climate change?

What if there was a way to grow restorative species that make oceans cleaner, healthier and more habitable, but also help in reducing carbon emissions? Well, Bren Smith, director of Thimble Island Oyster Co., believes that his ‘3D ocean farms’ provide this solution that utilises the entire water column.

According to Mr. Smith, “A 3D ocean farm is designed to restore rather than deplete our oceans. We use our new farming methods to meet the growing need for sustainable seafood, while restoring ecosystems, mitigating climate change and building a new blue-green economy”. But why is using seaweed an option? According to FastCoExist, seaweed farms help clean the water from the pollution of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The kelp that these farms also grow absorb five times more carbon than land-based plants. Mr. Smith’s seaweed farming was considered so innovative that his project, GreenWave, was awarded $100,000 from the Fuller Challenge Prize, who augment how the infrastructure is simple but helps to provide vibrant ecosystems.

To me, there is no disbelief as to why Mr. Smith’s GreenWave project has received such an honourable award, as his project of 3D Ocean farms seems like one of the most innovative systems I have come across whilst studying sustainable farming, whilst the project also doesn’t remove people from work but instead creates employment, something developing nations could utilise? Whilst absorbing carbon at a fast rate, the farms also supposedly act as a storm surge protector, reducing the impact of storms on shoreline communities. Furthermore, the system also acts as an artificial reef, attracting 150 species that after a decade of what was once a barren patch of ocean, has now become a thriving ecosystem.