#sustainable crop production systems

[planthealthday]

Enhancing sustainable plant protection through optimization and minimization.

We depend on them for food, oxygen and so much more... Protecting #PlantHealth is not optional.

[greenthestral]

The Perfect Storm: How Conflict, COVID-19, Climate Change, and Inequalities Are Colliding to Threaten Global Food Security

In recent years, the world has witnessed the emergence of multiple global challenges, each possessing the potential to cause significant harm on its own. Yet, a perfect storm is brewing as these issues converge to create an even more menacing threat: the undermining of food security worldwide. The combination of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and growing inequalities is wreaking havoc on vulnerable communities and exacerbating the already existing food crises. This article will explore the intricate links between these factors and discuss the urgent need for coordinated efforts to address the imminent crisis.

Conflict and Food Insecurity

Conflict has long been a major driver of food insecurity in various regions around the world. Armed conflicts disrupt agricultural activities, cause mass displacement of populations, and impede food distribution channels. In war-torn countries, farmers are often unable to tend to their fields, leading to reduced crop yields and scarcity of essential food items. Moreover, violence and insecurity restrict humanitarian access, leaving millions without access to food aid.

The conflict-food insecurity nexus perpetuates a vicious cycle. Food scarcity can fuel tensions and exacerbate existing conflicts, creating a feedback loop that further disrupts food production and distribution systems. Nations that are already struggling with political instability and conflict find it particularly challenging to implement long-term strategies for food security.

COVID-19's Impact on Food Security

The COVID-19 pandemic has left no corner of the globe untouched. Its impact on food security has been devastating, affecting vulnerable populations in both developed and developing nations. The pandemic's effects on food production, supply chains, and markets have been multi-faceted.

Firstly, restrictions on movement and trade disruptions resulted in labor shortages, hindering agricultural activities and harvests. Farmers faced difficulties in accessing seeds, fertilizers, and other essential inputs, leading to reduced yields. Additionally, travel restrictions and closed borders disrupted the movement of goods, causing supply chain bottlenecks and price fluctuations.

Secondly, the pandemic has led to an economic downturn, pushing millions into poverty and food insecurity. Unemployment and reduced incomes have left people struggling to afford basic necessities, including food. The closure of schools, which often provided meals for vulnerable children, further exacerbated the crisis.

Lastly, the pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of informal food markets, which are crucial for food access in many low-income countries. Lockdowns and social distancing measures disrupted these markets, making it challenging for small-scale food producers and traders to reach consumers, leading to food waste and losses.

Climate Change and Food Insecurity

Climate change remains one of the most significant threats to food security. Rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events have severe implications for agriculture. Smallholder farmers, who constitute a significant portion of the global food producers, are particularly vulnerable to climate-related disruptions.

Changing weather patterns can lead to droughts, floods, and heatwaves, which affect crop yields and livestock production. Pests and diseases that thrive in warmer climates also pose additional challenges to agricultural productivity. The unpredictability of weather patterns makes it difficult for farmers to plan and adapt their farming practices effectively.

Additionally, climate change impacts marine ecosystems, threatening the livelihoods of millions of people who rely on fisheries and aquaculture for food and income. The degradation of coral reefs and ocean acidification further exacerbate these issues.

Widening Inequalities in Food Access

While global hunger is primarily a problem of food production and distribution, it is also significantly influenced by inequalities in access to food and resources. Wealth disparities, unequal access to education and healthcare, and discriminatory policies all contribute to food insecurity.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the unequal burden it places on disadvantaged communities, with marginalized groups suffering the most severe consequences. Women, for instance, often face greater challenges in accessing resources and are disproportionately affected by food crises. Moreover, rural populations tend to be more vulnerable to food insecurity due to limited access to markets and social services.

In many regions, there are stark disparities in land ownership, with large agribusinesses controlling vast areas of arable land, while smallholder farmers struggle with fragmented plots and lack of resources. This concentration of land and power perpetuates inequality in food production and distribution.

A Call for Coordinated Action

The convergence of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and growing inequalities poses a grave threat to global food security. Addressing these challenges requires coordinated action at the international, national, and community levels.

Firstly, conflicts must be resolved through diplomatic means, promoting peacebuilding efforts, and ensuring safe access for humanitarian agencies. Sustainable development and peace go hand in hand, and resolving conflicts is essential to creating conditions for food security.

Secondly, the world must come together to address the long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes supporting vulnerable populations through social safety nets, investing in healthcare systems, and fostering economic recovery to reduce poverty and inequality.

Thirdly, combating climate change and its effects on food security demands a swift transition to sustainable agricultural practices. Investing in climate-resilient crops, promoting water conservation, and implementing renewable energy solutions are all vital steps in mitigating climate change impacts.

Lastly, reducing inequalities in food access requires implementing inclusive policies and empowering marginalized communities. Providing access to education, healthcare, and credit facilities for smallholder farmers can help lift them out of poverty and improve food security.

Conclusion

The convergence of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and growing inequalities presents a formidable challenge to global food security. To avert the impending crisis, urgent action is required on multiple fronts. By addressing the root causes of conflict, supporting communities affected by the pandemic, combating climate change, and promoting inclusivity, we can work towards a more secure and sustainable food future for all. It is time for the world to come together and take decisive action to prevent this perfect storm from unleashing its full force on the most vulnerable populations. Only through global cooperation and commitment can we ensure a hunger-free world for generations to come.

What's In It For Me? (WIIFM)

As a reader, understanding the convergence of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and growing inequalities is vital to grasp the urgency of the global food security crisis. This article sheds light on how these interconnected issues are undermining food availability and accessibility worldwide. By gaining insight into the complex web of challenges facing food security, readers can be better equipped to take informed actions in their personal lives and support initiatives that promote peace, resilience, and equity in food systems.

Call to Action (CTA)

Let's be part of the solution! In the face of these global challenges, it's essential to take action to protect food security for all. Here are some steps you can take:

Stay Informed: Continue educating yourself about the intersections of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and inequalities with food security.

Support Sustainable Farming: Choose locally sourced, organic, and sustainable food options to support resilient farming practices.

Advocate for Change: Raise awareness about food security issues and advocate for policies that promote equitable access to food and resources.

Donate to Organizations: Support reputable NGOs and initiatives working to alleviate food insecurity and build resilience in vulnerable communities.

Reduce Food Waste: Make a conscious effort to reduce food waste in your household and community.

Take Climate Action: Support efforts to combat climate change and promote sustainable environmental practices.

Engage with Communities: Get involved in community-based efforts to address food insecurity and support local food initiatives.

Together, we can make a difference in the fight against food insecurity and create a more sustainable and equitable world.

Blog Excerpt

In an increasingly interconnected world, the convergence of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and growing inequalities is posing a severe threat to global food security. This blog article delves into the intricate links between these pressing issues and how they are undermining food availability and access on a worldwide scale. By understanding the challenges at hand, we can pave the way for actionable solutions that promote resilience, equity, and sustainability in food systems. Join us in exploring the complex web of factors impacting food security and discover how you can be part of the solution.

Meta description in 320 characters to appear in the Google Search Engine

Explore the perfect storm of conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and inequalities converging to threaten food security worldwide. Discover how you can take action in this urgent global crisis.

[headspace-hotel]

Many people, especially USAmericans, are very resistant to knowing the plants and living according to the ways of the plants. They lash out with a mix of arrogance and fear: "Don't you know what bad things would happen if we lived a different way? There is a REASON for living this way. Would you have us go Back—backward to the time without vaccines or antibiotics????"

Ah, yes, the two immutable categories that all proposals for change fit into: Backward Change and Forward Change! Either we must invent a a futuristic, entirely new solution with SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY that further industrializes and increases the productivity of our world, or we must give up vaccines and antibiotics and become starving illiterate medieval peasants.

Every human practice anywhere on Earth that has declined, stopped, or become displaced by another practice, was clearly objectively worse than whatever replaced it. You see, the only possible reason a way of life could decline or disappear is that it sucked and had it coming anyway!!! Pre-industrial human history is worthless except as a cautionary tale about how miserable we would all be without *checks notes* factories, fossil fuels and colonialism. Obviously!

Anyway, who do you think benefits from the idea that pesticide-dependent, corporate-controlled industrialized monoculture farming liberates us all from spending our short, painful lives as filthy, miserable peasants toiling in the fields?

First of all, I think it's silly to act like farming is a uniquely awful way to live. I can't believe I have to say this, but the awful part of being a medieval peasant was the oppression and poverty, not the fact that harvesting wheat is a lot of work and cows are stinky. Same goes for farm labor in the modern USA: the bad part is that most people working farms are undocumented migrant workers that are getting treated like garbage and who can't complain about it because their boss will rat them out to ICE.

Work is just work. Any work has dignity when the people doing it are paid properly and not being abused. Abuse and human trafficking is rampant in agriculture, but industrialization and consolidation of small farms into gigantic corporate owned farms sure as hell isn't making it better.

Is working on a farm somehow more miserable than working in a factory, a fast food restaurant, or a retail store? Give me a break. "At least I'm not doing physical labor in the sun," you say, at your job where you're forced to stand on concrete for 8 hours and develop chronic pain by age 24.

When you read about small farmers going out of business because of huge corporations, none of them are going "Yay! Now that Giant Corporation has swallowed up all the farms in the area, we can all enjoy the luxurious privileges of the industrial era, like working RETAIL!" What you do see a lot of is farmers bitterly grieving the loss of their way of life.

And also, the fact is, sustainable forms of polyculture farming that create a functional ecosystem made up of many different useful and edible plants are actually way MORE efficient at producing food than a monoculture. The reason we don't do it as much, is that it can't be industrialized where everything is harvested with machines.

Some places folks are starting to get the idea and planting two crops together in alternating rows, letting the mutualistic relationship between plants boost the yields of both, but indigenous people in many parts of the world have been doing this stuff basically forever. I read about a style of agroforestry from Central America that has TWENTY crops all together on the same field.

Our modern system of farming is necessary for feeding the world? Bullshit! Our technology is very powerful and useful, but our harmful monocultures, dangerous pesticides, and wasteful usage of land and resources are making the system very inefficient and severely degrading nature's ability to provide for us.

What is needed, is a SYNTHESIS of the power and insights of technology and science, with the ancient wisdom and knowledge gained by closely and carefully observing Nature. We do not need to reject one, to embrace the other! They should be friends!

Our system thinks land is only used for one thing at a time. Even our science often thinks this way. A corn field has the purpose of producing corn, and no other purpose, so all other plants in the corn must be killed, and it must be a monoculture of only corn.

But this means that the symbiosis between different plants that help each other is destroyed, so we must pollute the earth with fertilizers that wash into bodies of water and cause eutrophication, where algae explode in number and turn the water to green goo. Nature always has variety and diversity with many plants sharing the same space. It supports much more animal life (we are animals!) this way. The Three Sisters" are the perfect example of mutualism between plants being used in an agricultural environment. The planting of corn, beans, and squash together has been traditionally used clear across the North American continent.

And in North America, the weeds we have here are mostly edible plants too. Some of them were even domesticated themselves! Imagine a garden where every weed that pops up is also an edible or otherwise useful crop, and therefore a welcomed friend! So when weeds like Amaranth and Sunflower pop up in your field, that should not be a cause for alarm, but rather the system of symbiosis working as it should.

A field of one single crop is limited in how much it can produce, because one crop fits into a single niche in what should be a whole ecosystem, and worse, it requires artificial inputs to make up for what the rest of the plant community would normally provide. The field with twenty crops does not produce the same amount as the monoculture field divided in twenty ways, but instead produces much more while being a habitat for wild animals, because each plant has its own niche.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Zuni farmers in the southwestern United States made it through long stretches of extremely low rainfall between A.D. 1200 and 1400 by embracing small-scale, decentralized irrigation systems. Farmers in Ghana coped with severe droughts from 1450 to 1650 by planting indigenous African grains, like drought-tolerant pearl millet. Ancient practices like these are gaining new interest today. As countries face unprecedented heat waves, storms and melting glaciers, some farmers and international development organizations are reaching deep into the agricultural archives to revive these ancient solutions. Drought-stricken farmers in Spain have reclaimed medieval Moorish irrigation technology. International companies hungry for carbon offsets have paid big money for biochar made using pre-Columbian Amazonian production techniques. Texas ranchers have turned to ancient cover cropping methods to buffer against unpredictable weather patterns. But grasping for ancient technologies and techniques without paying attention to historical context misses one of the most important lessons ancient farmers can reveal: Agricultural sustainability is as much about power and sovereignty as it is about soil, water and crops.

[gothhabiba]

[The Israeli burning of olive-tree groves] is familiar to thousands of Palestinian families. In the name of security, Israel systematically removes them from the land and erases their historic rootedness to this geographic place. For Palestinians, food and agriculture are not merely a pastime; they are a way of life. Without it, they���re rendered powerless economically, voiceless politically and devoid of their own cultural legacy. Yet that’s exactly why a sovereign and self-supporting food system is an early target of the Israel.

The Israeli occupation has transformed the Palestinian food system, converting it from a producer society to a consumer society, according to multiple West Bank residents. A tangled web of laws makes it difficult to sell crops or products like tahini for prices high enough to function as a sustainable income, and settlements continue to encroach upon Palestinian villages, seizing arable land and restricting access to crucial natural resources like water. Food is the first frontier of this conflict, and the Palestinian right to produce, sell and eat local food is a barometer for the future viability of the resistance movement.

[...] [In 1994, Israel and Palestine] signed the Paris Protocol to regulate economic interaction. The agreement hamstrung any hopes at Palestinian economic development, all but guaranteeing it would become dependent on Israel. It gave Israel full control of borders and put the sole customs clearinghouse under its jurisdiction. Goods entering and exiting Palestine remain subjected to Israeli taxes. Palestinian exports are heavily taxed while Israeli goods enter Palestine freely. Israeli goods, especially produce and food-related products like tahini and olive oil, flood the market with alternatives cheaper than local options.

What’s transpired as a result is the dramatic transformation of Palestine, says Raya Ziada, who founded an acroecology nonprofit based in Ramallah. “We depend on other people, whether that’s Israel or international aid, and we have to follow other people’s direction on producing food.”

Raya and others argue this is a deliberate act by the Israelis to handicap opposition to the occupation.

—Carly Graf, "Food Is the First Frontier of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," 2019.

[thedansemacabres]

Introduction To Supporting Sustainable Agriculture For Witches and Pagans

[ID: An image of yellow grain stocks, soon to be harvested. The several stocks reach towards a blurred open sky, focusing the camera on he grains themselves. The leaves of the grains are green and the cereals are exposed].

PAGANISM AND WITCHCRAFT ARE MOVEMENTS WITHIN A SELF-DESTRUCTIVE CAPITALIST SOCIETY. As the world becomes more aware of the importance of sustainability, so does the duty of humanity to uphold the idea of the steward, stemming from various indigenous worldviews, in the modern era. I make this small introduction as a viticulturist working towards organic and environmentally friendly grape production. I also do work on a food farm, as a second job—a regenerative farm, so I suppose that is my qualifications. Sustainable—or rather regenerative agriculture—grows in recognition. And as paganism and witchcraft continue to blossom, learning and supporting sustainability is naturally a path for us to take. I will say that this is influenced by I living in the USA, however, there are thousands of groups across the world for sustainable agriculture, of which tend to be easy to research.

So let us unite in caring for the world together, and here is an introduction to supporting sustainable/regenerative agriculture. 

A QUICK BRIEF ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 

Sustainable agriculture, in truth, is a movement to practise agriculture as it has been done for thousands of years—this time, with more innovation from science and microbiology especially. The legal definition in the USA of sustainable agriculture is: 

The term ”sustainable agriculture” (U.S. Code Title 7, Section 3103) means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long-term:

A more common man’s definition would be farming in a way that provides society’s food and textile needs without overuse of natural resources, artificial supplements and pest controls, without compromising the future generation’s needs and ability to produce resources. The agriculture industry has one of the largest and most detrimental impacts on the environment, and sustainable agriculture is the alternative movement to it. 

Sustainable agriculture also has the perk of being physically better for you—the nutrient quality of crops in the USA has dropped by 47%, and the majority of our food goes to waste. Imagine if it was composted and reused? Or even better—we buy only what we need. We as pagans and witches can help change this. 

BUYING ORGANIC (IT REALLY WORKS)

The first step is buying organic. While cliche, it does work: organic operations have certain rules to abide by, which excludes environmentally dangerous chemicals—many of which, such as DDT, which causes ecological genocide and death to people. Organic operations have to use natural ways of fertilising, such as compost, which to many of us—such as myself—revere the cycle of life, rot, and death. Organic standards do vary depending on the country, but the key idea is farming without artificial fertilisers, using organic seeds, supplementing with animal manure, fertility managed through management practices, etc. 

However, organic does have its flaws. Certified organic costs many, of which many small farmers cannot afford. The nutrient quality of organic food, while tending to be better, is still poor compared to regeneratively grown crops. Furthermore, the process to become certified organic is often gruelling—you can practise completely organically, but if you are not certified, it is not organic. Which, while a quality control insurance, is both a bonus and a hurdle. 

JOINING A CSA

Moving from organic is joining a CSA (“Community supported agriculture”). The USDA defines far better than I could: 

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), one type of direct marketing, consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community’s farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production.

By purchasing a farm share, you receive food from the farm for the agreed upon production year. I personally enjoy CSAs for the relational aspect—choosing a CSA is about having a relationship, not only with the farmer(s), but also the land you receive food from. I volunteer for my CSA and sometimes I get extra cash from it—partaking in the act of caring for the land. Joining a CSA also means taking your precious capital away from the larger food industry and directly supporting growers—and CSAs typically practise sustainable and/or regenerative agriculture. 

CSAs are also found all over the world and many can deliver their products to food deserts and other areas with limited agricultural access. I volunteer from time to time for a food bank that does exactly that with the produce I helped grow on the vegetable farm I work for. 

FARM MARKETS AND STALLS 

Another way of personally connecting to sustainable agriculture is entering the realm of the farm stall. The farmer’s market is one of my personal favourite experiences—people buzzing about searching for ingredients, smiles as farmers sell crops and products such as honey or baked goods, etc. The personal connection stretches into the earth, and into the past it buries—as I purchase my apples from the stall, I cannot help but see a thousand lives unfold. People have been doing this for thousands of years and here I stand, doing it all over again. 

Advertisement

Farmers’ markets are dependent on your local area, yet in most you can still develop personal community connections. Paganism often stresses community as an ideal and a state of life. And witchcraft often stresses a connection to the soil. What better place, then, is purchasing the products from the locals who commune with the land? 

VOLUNTEERING 

If you are able to, I absolutely recommend volunteering. I have worked with aquaponic systems, food banks, farms, cider-making companies, soil conservation groups, etc. There is so much opportunity—and perhaps employment—in these fields. The knowledge I have gained has been wonderful. As one example, I learned that fertilisers reduce carbon sequestration as plants absorb carbon to help with nutrient intake. If they have all their nutrients ready, they do not need to work to obtain carbon to help absorb it. This does not even get into the symbiotic relationship fungi have with roots, or the world of hyphae. Volunteering provides community and connection. Actions and words change the world, and the world grows ever better with help—including how much or how little you may provide. It also makes a wonderful devotional activity. 

RESOURCING FOOD AND COOKING 

Buying from farmers is not always easy, however. Produce often has to be processed, requiring labour and work with some crops such as carrots. Other times, it is a hard effort to cook and many of us—such as myself—often have very limited energy. There are solutions to this, thankfully:

Many farmers can and will process foods. Some even do canning, which can be good to stock up on food and lessen the energy inputs. 

Value-added products: farms also try to avoid waste, and these products often become dried snacks if fruit, frozen, etc. 

Asking farmers if they would be open to accommodating this. Chances are, they would! The farmer I purchase my CSA share from certainly does. 

Going to farmers markets instead of buying a CSA, aligning with your energy levels. 

And if any of your purchased goods are going unused, you can always freeze them. 

DEMETER, CERES, VEIA, ETC: THE FORGOTTEN AGRICULTURE GODS

Agricultural gods are often neglected. Even gods presiding over agriculture often do not have those aspects venerated—Dionysos is a god of viticulture and Apollon a god of cattle. While I myself love Dionysos as a party and wine god, the core of him remains firmly in the vineyards and fields, branching into the expanses of the wild. I find him far more in the curling vines as I prune them than in the simple delights of the wine I ferment. Even more obscure gods, such as Veia, the Etruscan goddess of agriculture, are seldom known.

Persephone receives the worst of this: I enjoy her too as a dread queen, and people do acknowledge her as Kore, but she is far more popular as the queen of the underworld instead of the dear daughter of Demeter. I do understand this, though—I did not feel the might of Demeter and Persephone until I began to move soil with my own hands. A complete difference to the ancient world, where the Eleusinian mysteries appealed to thousands. Times change, and while some things should be left to the past, our link to these gods have been severed. After all, how many of us reading know where our food comes from? I did not until I began to purchase from the land I grew to know personally. The grocery store has become a land of tearing us from the land, instead of the food hub it should be.

Yet, while paganism forgets agriculture gods, they have not forgotten us. The new world of farming is more conductive and welcoming than ever. I find that while older, bigoted people exist, the majority of new farmers tend to be LGBT+. My own boss is trans and aro, and I myself am transgender and gay. The other young farmers I know are some flavour of LGBT+, or mixed/poc. There’s a growing movement for Black farmers, elaborated in a lovely text called We Are Each Other’s Harvest. 

Indigenous farming is also growing and I absolutely recommend buying from indigenous farmers. At this point, I consider Demeter to be a patron of LGBT+ people in this regard—she gives an escape to farmers such as myself. Bigotry is far from my mind under her tender care, as divine Helios shines above and Okeanos’ daughters bring fresh water to the crops. Paganism is also more commonly accepted—I find that farmers find out that I am pagan and tell me to do rituals for their crops instead of reacting poorly. Or they’re pagan themselves; a farmer I know turned out to be Wiccan and uses the wheel of the year to keep track of production. 

Incorporating these divinities—or concepts surrounding them—into our crafts and altars is the spiritual step towards better agriculture. Holy Demeter continues to guide me, even before I knew it. 

WANT CHANGE? DO IT YOURSELF! 

If you want change in the world, you have to act. And if you wish for better agriculture, there is always the chance to do it yourself. Sustainable agriculture is often far more accessible than people think: like witchcraft and divination, it is a practice. Homesteading is often appealing to many of us, including myself, and there are plenty of resources to begin. There are even grants to help one improve their home to be more sustainable, i.e. solar panels. Gardening is another, smaller option. Many of us find that plants we grow and nourish are far more potentant in craft, and more receptive to magical workings. 

Caring for plants is fundamental to our natures and there are a thousand ways to delve into it. I personally have joined conservation groups, my local soil conservation group, work with the NRCs in the USA, and more. The path to fully reconnecting to nature and agriculture is personal—united in a common cause to fight for this beautiful world. To immerse yourself in sustainable agriculture, I honestly recommend researching and finding your own path. Mine lies in soil and rot, grapevines and fruit trees. Others do vegetables and cereal grains, or perhaps join unions and legislators. Everyone has a share in the beauty of life, our lives stemming from the land’s gentle sprouts. 

Questions and or help may be given through my ask box on tumblr—if there is a way I can help, let me know. My knowledge is invaluable I believe, as I continue to learn and grow in the grey-clothed arms of Demeter, Dionysos, and Kore. 

FURTHER READING:

Baszile, N. (2021). We are each other’s harvest. HarperCollins.

Hatley, J. (2016). Robin Wall Kimmerer. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Environmental Philosophy, 13(1), 143–145. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil201613137

Regenerative Agriculture 101. (2021, November 29). https://www.nrdc.org/stories/regenerative-agriculture-101#what-is

And in truth, far more than I could count. 

References

Community Supported Agriculture | National Agricultural Library. (n.d.). https://www.nal.usda.gov/farms-and-agricultural-production-systems/community-supported-agriculture

Navazio, J. (2012). The Organic seed Grower: A Farmer’s Guide to Vegetable Seed Production. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Plaster, E. (2008). Soil Science and Management. Cengage Learning.

Sheaffer, C. C., & Moncada, K. M. (2012). Introduction to agronomy: food, crops, and environment. Cengage Learning.

Sheldrake, M. (2020). Entangled life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds & Shape Our Futures. Random House.

Sustainable Agriculture | National Agricultural Library. (n.d.). https://www.nal.usda.gov/farms-and-agricultural-production-systems/sustainable-agriculture

[anarchywoofwoof]

Full Article Text:

The United Kingdom is facing dire food shortages, forcing prices to skyrocket, and experts predict this is only the beginning.

What's happening?

According to a report by The Guardian, extreme weather is wreaking havoc on crops across the region. England experienced more rainfall during the past 18 months than it has over any 18-month period since record-keeping began in 1836.

Because the rain hasn't stopped, many farmers have been unable to get crops such as potatoes, carrots, and wheat into the ground. "Usually, you get rain but there will be pockets of dry weather for two or three weeks at a time to do the planting. That simply hasn't happened," farmer Tom Allen-Stevens told The Guardian.

Farmers have also planted fewer potatoes, opting for less weather-dependent and financially secure crops. At the same time, many of the potatoes that have been planted are rotting in the ground.

"There is a concern that we won't ever have the volumes [of potatoes] we had in the past in the future," British Growers Association CEO Jack Ward told The Guardian. "We are not in a good position and it is 100% not sustainable," Ward added.

Why is it important?

English farmers aren't alone — people are struggling to grow crops worldwide because of extreme weather.

Dry weather in Brazil and heavy rain in Vietnam have farmers concerned about pepper production. Severe drought in Spain and record-breaking rain and snowfall in California have made it difficult for farmers to cultivate olives for olive oil. El Niño and rising temperatures cut Peru's blueberry yield in half last year. Everyone's favorite drinks — coffee, beer, and wine — have all been impacted by extreme weather.

According to an ABC News report, the strain on the agriculture industry will likely continue to cause food prices to soar.

If these were just isolated events, farmers could more easily adapt — bad growing seasons are nothing new. The problem is that rising temperatures are directly linked to the increasing amount of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, humans have burned dirty energy sources such as coal, oil, and gas, which release a significant amount of those gases. Our climate is changing so drastically that the 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the last decade.

"As climate change worsens, the threat to our food supply chains — both at home and overseas — will grow," Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit analyst Amber Sawyer told The Guardian.

What can we do about it?

"Fortunately, we know many ways we can make the food system more resilient while reducing food emissions. The biggest opportunity in high-income nations is a reduction in meat consumption and exploration of more plants in our diets," said Dr. Paul Behrens, an associate professor of environmental change at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

If we replace a quarter of our meat consumption with vegetables, we could cut around 100 million tons of air pollution yearly. It may seem strange to suggest eating more vegetables with the decline in crop production. However, reducing the land and water used for animal agriculture and diverting those resources to growing more produce would drastically help the declining food supply.

Growing our own food is also a great way to reduce our reliance on store-bought produce, and it can save you hundreds of dollars a year at the grocery store.

[becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys]

Hi, what do you think about this news?

BBC News - Climate: NFU Cymru opts out of farming scheme over tree planting

Interesting, isn't it?

Here's the thing: it is a fact that we need more trees than we currently have, that Wales is under-forested, and that decades of inaction mean we now have to make big changes fast rather than incremental changes safely. Given that the Welsh Government is actively trying to base modern Welsh identity on environmentalism (we are the only country in the entire world with dedicated sustainability legislation in the form of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act, and we're third in the world for recycling rates), it was inevitable that they were going to seize the bull by the horns, so to speak, and set a strict target.

In fact, they have past form for this - there's a reason we're third in the world for recycling. I am simplifying this massively and going to make any lawyers reading this wince, but the way EU legislation works is that the member states agree something should be legislated for, the EU makes a directive, and then the member states each interpret and apply that directive how they want into their own laws (sorry lawyers). In the case of recycling, the EU member states collectively decided we needed to get serious about diversion from landfill in 2008 with the Waste Framework Directive, and then the UK chose how to go about that.

But, waste management is a devolved area. So Wales, Scotland, NI and England all got to implement it themselves how they wanted to. England didn't set any specific targets; it was more like "endeavour to be recycling 50% of waste across the country by X year." But the Welsh Government went "Right, lads, here's the targets: 58% by 2015/16, 64% by 2020, and zero waste by 2050. We'll let you pick the recycling bag colours."

(In Swansea it's green for paper, cardboard, metal and glass, pink for plastic, white for garden waste, and you get a special dark green bin for food waste with a locking lid to keep the seagulls out.)

But that meant Welsh councils had to actually move on it, with the result that we smashed those targets. We're now aiming for 70% recycling by 2025, and zero waste might be brought forward to 2030, because the government likes the model of "Shoot for the moon and land among the stars."

So like. It has worked, in the past.

BUT, the problem with setting arbitrary targets like that is that it doesn't always work, and what happens to people who get caught in the gears, so to speak?

In this case, this is a subsidy scheme. It's still in consultation, but if it goes ahead, farmers get money from the public purse for doing something "for the public good" - they need to tree plant 10% of their land, and manage another 10% as wildlife habitat. Currently, this is true for every farm, regardless of its nature. 20% of productive land removed, and you'll be paid to do so.

But, will that work for every farm? No. No it won't. The smaller your set up, the more that 20% is going to bite into profits that the subsidies won't compensate; and what if you only have productive land? A flatish farm, somewhere in Powys, used for crops rather than livestock? 20% of that is very, very different to 20% of an upland sheep farm with sections that are almost impassable and very difficult to round up the sheep from anyway, where you can simply fence off and plant up the slopes to create ffridd and woodlands. It's a one size fits few policy. I fully believe the government saying plenty of farmers are all for it - this will work for many. But for many others, it's simply not financially viable.

But what I find REALLY interesting about that article, actually, is the way the farmers are framing their objections:

(NFU Cymru) president Aled Jones said farmers were prepared to integrate more trees into farming systems - from "shelterbelts, streamside corridors to field corners". "But we will not take our productive land out of food production for tree-planting," he said.

SHELTERBELTS. That is the Pontbren effect. Pontbren taught us that farmer-led environmental schemes work, and provide additional unexpected benefits including in revenue (it was designed to simply allow the sheep to stay out year round, but the flood control and soil conservation that came with it brought their own benefits - silvopasture, how I love thee.) Now it's there as proof-of-concept, farmers want a piece of that action. They want to be more environmentally sound. But, those trees have to serve an economic purpose, not a solely environmental one; otherwise, it's not going to work for farmers.

And it's very frustrating that the Welsh Government have forgotten that crucial lesson in trying to implement this. But then, as I say, it's true that we need big changes now, and are running out of time for the soft incremental changes. I just think the two could have been married better.

[ghelgheli]

According to Marx, metabolic rift appears in three different levels and forms. First and most fundamentally, metabolic rift is the material disruption of cyclical processes in natural metabolism under the regime of capital. Marx’s favourite example is the exhaustion of the soil by modern agriculture. Modern large-scale, industrial agriculture makes plants absorb soil nutrition as much as and as fast as possible so that they can be sold to customers in large cities even beyond national borders. It was Justus von Liebig’s Agricultural Chemistry (1862) and his theory of metabolism that prompted Marx to integrate an analysis of the ‘robbery’ system of agriculture into Capital. [...]

Liebig harshly criticized modern ‘robbery agriculture’ (Raubbau), which only aims at the maximization of short-term profit and lets plants absorb as many nutrients from the soil as possible without replenishing them. Market competition drives farmers to large-scale agriculture, intensifying land usage without sufficient management and care. As a consequence, modern capitalist agriculture created a dangerous disruption in the metabolic cycle of soil nutrients. [...]

Marx formulated the problem of soil exhaustion as a contradiction created by capitalist production in the metabolism between humans and nature. Insofar as value cannot fully take the metabolism between humans and nature into account and capitalist production prioritizes the infinite accumulation of value, the realization of sustainable production within capitalism faces insurmountable barriers.

This fundamental level of metabolic rift in the form of the disruption of material flow cannot occur without being supplemented and reinforced by two further dimensions. The second dimension of metabolic rift is the spatial rift. Marx highly valued Liebig in Capital because his Agricultural Chemistry provided a scientific foundation for his earlier critical analysis of the social division of labour, which he conceptualized as the ‘contradiction between town and country’ in The German Ideology. Liebig lamented that those crops that are sold in modern large cities do not return to the original soil after they are consumed by the workers. Instead, they flow into the rivers as sewage via water closets, only strengthening the tendency towards soil exhaustion.

This antagonistic spatial relationship between town and country – it can be called ‘spatial rift’ – is founded upon a violent process of so-called primitive accumulation accompanied by depeasantization and massive urban growth of the working-class population concentrated in large cities. This not only necessitates the long-distance transport of products but also significantly increases the demand for agricultural products in large cities, leading to continuous cropping without fallowing under large-scale agriculture, which is intensified even more through market competition. In other words, robbery agriculture does not exist without the social division of labour unique to capitalist production, which is based upon the concentration of the working class in large cities and the corresponding necessity for the constant transport of their food from the countryside. [...]

The third dimension of metabolic rift is the temporal rift. As is obvious from the slow formation of soil nutrients and fossil fuels and the accelerating circulation of capital, there emerges a rift between nature’s time and capital’s time. Capital constantly attempts to shorten its turnover time and maximize valorization in a given time – the shortening of turnover time is an effective way of increasing the quantity of profit in the face of the decreasing rate of profit. This process is accompanied by increasing demands for floating capital in the form of cheap and abundant raw and auxiliary materials. Furthermore, capital constantly revolutionizes the production process, augmenting productive forces with an unprecedented speed compared with precapitalist societies. Productive forces can double or triple with the introduction of new machines, but nature cannot change its formation processes of phosphor or fossil fuel, so ‘it was likely that productivity in the production of raw materials would tend not to increase as rapidly as productivity in general (and, accordingly, the growing requirements for raw materials)’ (Lebowitz 2009: 138). This tendency can never be fully suspended because natural cycles exist independently of capital’s demands. Capital cannot produce without nature, but it also wishes that nature would vanish. [...]

The contradiction of capitalist accumulation is that increases in the social productivity are accompanied by a decrease in natural productivity due to robbery [... i]t is thus essential for capital to secure stable access to cheap resources, energy and food. [...]

The exploration of the earth and the invention of new technologies cannot repair the rift. The rift remains ‘irreparable’ in capitalism. This is because capital attempts to overcome rifts without recognizing its own absolute limits, which it cannot do. Instead, it simply attempts to relativize the absolute. This is what Marx meant when he wrote ‘every limit appears a barrier to overcome’ (Grundrisse: 408). Capital constantly invents new technologies, develops means of transportation, discovers new use-values and expands markets to overcome natural limits. [...]

Corresponding to the three dimensions of metabolic rifts, there are also three ways of shifting them. First, there is technological shift. Although Liebig warned about the collapse of European civilization due to robbery agriculture in the 19th century, his prediction apparently did not come true. This is largely thanks to Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, who invented the so-called Haber-Bosch process in 1906 that enabled the industrial mass production of ammonia (NH3) by fixing nitrogen from the air, and thus of chemical fertilizer to maintain soil fertility. Historically speaking, the problem of soil exhaustion due to a lack of inorganic substances was largely resolved thanks to this invention. Nevertheless, the Haber-Bosch process did not heal the rift but only shifted, generating other problems on a larger scale.

The production of NH3 uses a massive amount of natural gas as a source of hydrogen (H). In other words, it squanders another limited resource in order to produce ammonia as a remedy to soil exhaustion, but it is also quite energy intensive, producing a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) (responsible for 1 per cent of the total carbon emission in the world). Furthermore, excessive applications of chemical fertilizer leach into the environment, causing eutrophication and red tide, while nitrogen oxide pollutes water. Overdependence on chemical fertilizer disrupts soil ecology, so that it results in soil erosion, low water- and nutrient-holding capacity, and increased vulnerability to diseases and insects. Consequently, more frequent irrigation, a larger amount of fertilizer and more powerful equipment become necessary, together with pesticides. This kind of industrial agriculture consumes not just water but large quantities of oil also, which makes agriculture a serious driver of climate change. [...]

[T]here remains a constant need to shift the rift under capitalism, which continues to bring about new problems. This contradiction becomes more discernible in considering the second type of shifting the metabolic rift – that is, spatial shift, which expands the antagonism of the city and the countryside to a global scale in favour of the Global North. Spatial shift creates externality by a geographic displacement of ecological burdens to another social group living somewhere else. Again, Marx discussed this issue in relation to soil exhaustion in core capitalist countries in the 19th century. On the coast of Peru there were small islands consisting of the excrement of seabirds called guano that had accumulated over many years to form ‘guano islands’. [...]

In the 19th century, guano became ‘necessary’ to sustain soil fertility in Europe. Millions of tons of guano were dug up and continuously exported to Europe, resulting in its rapid exhaustion. Extractivism was accompanied by the brutal oppression of Indigenous people and the severe exploitation of thousands of Chinese ‘c**lies’ working under cruel conditions. Ultimately, the exhaustion of guano reserves provoked the Guano War (1865–6) and the Saltpetre War (1879–84) in the battle for the remaining guano reserves. As John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark (2009) argue, such a solution in favour of the Global North resulted in ‘ecological imperialism’. Although ecological imperialism shifts the rift to the peripheries and makes its imminent violence invisible in the centre, the metabolic rift only deepens on a global scale through long-distance trade, and the nutrient cycle becomes even more severely disrupted.

The third dimension of metabolic shift is the temporal shift. The discrepancy between nature’s time and capital’s time does not immediately bring about an ecological disaster because nature possesses ‘elasticity’. Its limits are not static but modifiable to a great extent. Climate crisis is a representative case of this metabolic shift. Massive CO2 emissions due to the excessive usage of fossil fuels is an apparent cause of climate change, but the emission of greenhouse gas does not immediately crystallize as climate breakdown. Capital exploits the opportunities opened up by this time lag to secure more profits from previous investments in drills and pipelines. Since capital reflects the voice of current shareholders, but not that of future generations, the costs are shifted onto the latter. As a result, future generations suffer from consequences for which they are not responsible. Marx characterized such an attitude inherent to capitalist development with the slogan ‘Après moi le déluge!’ (Capital I: 381).

This time lag generated by a temporal shift also induces a hope that it would be possible to invent new epoch-making technologies to combat against the ecological crisis in the future. In fact, one may think that it is better to continue economic growth which promotes technological development, rather than over-reducing carbon dioxide emissions and adversely affecting the economy. However, even if new negative emission technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) are invented, it will take a long time for them to spread throughout society and replace the old ones. In the meantime, the environmental crisis will continue to worsen due to our current inaction. As a result, the expected effects of the new technology can be cancelled out.

Kohei Saito, Marx in the Anthropocene

[acti-veg]

Why is honey not vegan it dosent harm the bees and it helps the environment

Honey is not vegan by any reasonable definition of the word. As vegans we avoid animal exploitation, whatever you may think about bees and honey, honey is very definitely the result of exploiting bees. Bees are amazing pollinators and they are vital for plants and natural ecosystems more generally, but that really has nothing to do with buying and eating honey.

Most pollinator bees are solitary bees, pollination in natural eco-systems is performed by these individuals, other insects and birds. They are the ones who are under threat, not the kind of bees we use to make honey. We are talking about managed hives of domesticated bees, most of whom are non-native and compete with natural pollinators for the same food sources. It is even thought they may be spreading disease to wild pollinators, too, who do a far better job of pollination than managed hives do.

Commercially owned hives are shipped in on-mass to pollinate some crops, but this is not sustainable and far from how natural pollination works. It is a symptom of our over-intensive farming system, and certainly not a point to make in favour of buying and eating honey. This just helps make honey production more profitable, it isn’t good for the environment and certainly isn’t good for the bees.

What’s more, honey in many instances does harm bees. As I mentioned bees compete with and sometimes even infect wild pollinators. On top of that, bees being crushed during harvesting is very common as any honest apiarist will tell you, even when using smoking techniques. Wing clipping of queens is also pretty common, as is selling and shipping queens in the post; I can’t imagine how stressful that must be. Keep in mind that even without any of this, we’re taking about taking their life’s work and often replacing it with a sugar syrup substitute. Bees just don’t make honey for us, it’s not ours to take.

The best way to actually support wild pollinators and their ecosystem is to grow local, pollinator-friendly flowers and to provide them with natural habitats and constructed ones like bug boxes, which are widely available to buy and very easy to make. The claim that honey is in some way good for bees or good for the environment is nothing but effective marketing.

[toadstoolgardens]

🌿Inviting Birds Into Your Garden🐦

Birds are essential to a healthy ecosystem, but not everyone takes kindly to them in their gardens. Birds love to eat berries, peck holes in fruits, and scratch up seedlings, but in the permaculture garden we strive to partner with nature to meet the needs of wildlife AND ourselves. Growing food for ourselves at the expense of wildlife has resulted, in part, in the current global food system that doesn't value the humans involved or the ecosystem.

"By attracting birds, small animals, and insects to our yards, we not only increase biodiversity but make our gardens more balanced, disease free, and productive as well." -Toby Hemenway, Gaia's Garden: A Guide to Small-Scale Permaculture

Benefits of a Bird-Friendly Garden

Birds are beautiful! Watching them enjoy your gardens and learning bird language is rewarding and entertaining

Birds keep insect problems in check

Birds loosen the soil as they forage and scratch

Birds provide natural fertilizer

The Combination that Works

"Creating a garden that your winged friends want to call home is easy. You'll need to provide food, water, and shelter. Any of these elements will bring birds to your garden for a visit. But providing all three will make them more inclined to take up residence." -Kris Bordessa, Attainable Sustainable: The Lost Art of Self-Reliant Living

Keep in mind that birds have different needs! Not all birds eat the same things and their nesting habits vary. So the real key is diversity! Plant a variety of plant types, textures, heights, and seasons of value.

Food

Birds have a varied diet of fruit/berries, insects, and nuts/seeds. Some have more specific diets than others. Some forage for food on the ground and some hunt above ground.

Year-Round Bird Food Sources

Evergreen trees - Provide shelter, protection, and sap for food

Flowers, tall grasses, and herbs - Provide cover for ground feeders, seeds, nectar, and insects to forage

Fruits (late spring through summer) - Blueberries, brambles like blackberries or raspberries, cherries, elderberries, mulberries, serviceberries, and wild plum. Birds LOVE mulberries especially and having them available will help deter birds from your other crops

Fruits (fall) - Aronia berries, dogwood, sea buckthorn, buffaloberry. In fall birds need to build up fat reserves to survive winter, give them a fall buffet!

Fruits (winter) - These are fruits that cling to branches over winter. Crabapple, hardy kiwi, hawthorn, highbush cranberry, medlar, sumac

Nectar-producing plants for hummingbirds - Bee balm, lupine, sage, maple trees, black locust trees

Nuts - Butternut, chestnut, hazelnut, pickory, piñon, walnut. Offer protection, good nesting sites, and insects to forage

Choose plants native to your area!

2. Water

Birds love natural moving water like streams or ponds. Replicate this with a 2 inch deep bird bath with a fountain! Place your bird bath near a shrub so they have perches and an escape route nearby.

3. Shelter & Protection

Birds need shelter from the elements and protection from predators along with their food and water sources.

Tall grass, dense shrubs, tree canopy, and thorny plants act as a save haven. Birds also nest at different heights, so offer a variety of trees and shrubs for them to settle in.

More plant ideas that provide nesting sites, shelter, and protection:

Apple

Persimmon

Rose

Serviceberry

"Without animals, nature just limps along." -Toby Hemenway

Source

[queerpyracy]

When you’re told there’s a simple solution to a very complex problem, you’re probably not getting the whole story.

Today’s meat consumption is a good example. Meat and dairy are increasingly under the world’s microscope as livestock—which rely on huge quantities of feed crops and occupy nearly 80 percent of global farmland—accounts for between 14 percent and 30 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It’s also the source of more frequent antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, and much of the global livestock and seafood industries have been exposed for unsafe and abusive working conditions.

This complex web of problems requires more than one answer. And yet “alternative proteins”—from plant-based to lab-grown “fake” meat and dairy—are being promoted as a simple solution. Products like the Impossible Burger, with its 15-plus ingredients, are now in supermarkets and fast food establishments worldwide. Lab-grown chicken has been on the market in Singapore since late 2020 and will likely soon be approved in the U.S. and elsewhere. These products are being sold as a “win-win-win” for animals, people, and the planet. According to Patrick Brown, the outspoken CEO of Impossible Foods, livestock is “the most destructive technology on earth,” and meat substitutes are “the last chance to save the planet.”

Dramatic claims about plant-based meat, lab-grown meat, and “cellular agriculture” have already succeeded in drawing billions of dollars to the sector, including from big-name investors like Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Governments are now paying attention as well. China is readying major investment in lab-grown meat as part of its latest Five-Year Agricultural Plan, and the U.S. government is ploughing $10 million into a National Institute for Cellular Agriculture. Denmark is also backing alternative proteins through a $98 million plant-based food fund.

But these products and their sustainability credentials rest on shaky ground, as I show in a new report out today, “The Politics of Protein,” from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food).

[Keep Reading]

[headspace-hotel]

I'm not super favorable about "insects as sustainably farmed food" because I feel like it obscures the nature of the global food crisis.

We aren't anywhere close to a hard limit on the amount of food we can produce or the amount of people we can feed.

But our economic system keeps human labor forces that work on farms in dire poverty and sterilizes the landscape of smallholder farms that grow a variety of crops and cultivars while maintaining natural biodiversity, replacing them with vast monocultures and factory farms that replace human labor and sustainable practices with machinery and mass application of pesticides/herbicides/antibiotics/etc

The goal of the system is to consolidate as much wealth at the top of a pyramid of extracting wealth from land and labor, and this means farming ought to be consolidated under the control of Corporation, so the "solutions" considered to be viable are just those that simplify farming down to "input raw materials-> output Product" as much as possible. Most of the multitude of foods we can raise or grow sustainably require decentralized, personalized human labor to some extent, knowledgeable humans who are actually present and active in their relationship with the ecosystem

but our economic system sees the optimal way as "Dump corn into Facility-> Get sellable product." Farming as a way to convert land area and an investment of machinery and chemicals into Profit.

basically, insects are more factory-farmable than anything we have now and that's why they're considered such a good option as a sustainable food source

[probablyasocialecologist]

“We are seeing a growing interest in cork as a sustainable material,” says Rui Novais, a materials expert at the University of Aveiro in Portugal. “Compared with materials like polyurethane foam [used for thermal insulation], products made with cork require less energy and produce less CO2 emissions.” The cork oak’s thick bark adapted to defend the tree from fire, making it a powerful insulating material that’s been used to shield fuel tanks on NASA spacecraft and electric car batteries. It’s also resistant to water and oil, and can withstand compression while retaining springiness. “It’s an extraordinary, renewable and biodegradable material,” says Novais. “It’s also very durable. It has been demonstrated that cork products remain virtually unchanged for more than 50 years.” Part of the carbon absorbed by cork oak trees is transferred to cork products, which can be used for long periods, repurposed and recycled. Several studies found that cork is carbon negative, meaning it can store more carbon than what is required to produce it. When cork planks are trimmed and punched to form natural cork stoppers, the leftovers are ground into granules and pressed together to form cork sheets or blocks. “Even cork dust is used to produce energy,” says João Rui Ferreira, secretary general of the Portuguese Cork Association. “It feeds the industry’s boilers and powers some of the production.”

[...]

Most of the cork produced in Portugal grows in the gently undulating hills and plains in the south of the country, in an ancient agroforestry system known as montado. This savannah-like ecosystem combines cork, holm oaks and olive trees with pastures, grazing livestock, crops and fallows. “The soil in southern Portugal is very poor, there is very little rain and temperatures are very high in the summer,” says Teresa Pinto-Correia, a professor at the University of Évora in Portugal specializing in rural landscapes and agricultural systems. “But this kind of system is productive even when resources are scarce and conditions are difficult.” For centuries, locals have preserved the montado because cork provided landowners with a source of income. This mosaic of habitats supports hundreds of species, including the Iberian lynx, the world’s most endangered wildcat, and the threatened Imperial eagle. One of the world’s oldest known cork oak trees, planted in 1783 in Águas de Moura, is known as “the whistler” because so many birds visit its large sprawling branches. Iberian pigs feed on acorns and goats graze the interwoven pastures. Interspersing cork oak trees with animals and crops can boost production and biodiversity, but also build soil, control erosion, retain water, combat desertification and sequester carbon, says Pinto-Correia.

[mochinomnoms]

https://www.tumblr.com/mochinomnoms/750399534369275905/your-talk-about-museums-and-ancient-artifacts

No no, please, do tell about the agriculture of Mexico! They made islands for agriculture?? What type of products grew on them? How did they work??

Do you have any recommendations of sites or works to see more of it?

Also you should see the type of economy Incas had, like, they didn’t have a writing system; which is why keeping languages like Quechua really complicated, and their economy was more family based? It’s kinda complicated to explain for me but it’s more akin to trading than anything modern in my opinion.

Chinampas! They're very cool and a super ingenious method of agriculture that doesn't affect the rainforest around them but utilizes the lakes! I'll be using this and this as my main source to reference.

"Chinampa system is an historical system adapted to face hydrologic and climatic constraints and the pressure by the high city’s food demand. The chinampa farmers have been able to handle certain balance between the sustained yield and the environmental and technological management factors. This ecosystem performance has been based on the biological stability improvement, including sophisticated farming methods such as multiple cropping and shift of crops."

As you can see, they're man-made and developed by the Mexica (Aztecs) in the 14th century in the lakes of Xochimilco and Chalco, which surround Lake Texcoco, the lake that Mexico City takes residence in.

They're best described as “floating gardens” and due to the nutrient rich materials used to built them, are very fertile and can grow a great variety of crops. This of course includes Mexico's staple crop of maiz, but also beans, squash, tomatoes, chili peppers, and even flowers. The chinampas system provides a built-in natural irrigation system, and were home to aquatic wildlife and birds. This benefits the system further, as these animals increase the fertility and nutrients in the water and soil. There was also a drainage system, which facilitated the movement of water and sediments!

There were some cultural practices in association with chinampas, but they're best associated with the sort of 'urbanization' that Tenochtitlan was going under as the Mexica grew.

There have been much more recent studies done on the chinampas system, as modern agriculture as we know it is highly unsustainable due to lack of land and the general environmental concerns around agriculture. Utilizing chinampas in modern agricultural system has several benefits which include space efficiency, biodiversity, sustainable water management, carbon sesquention (migating climate change), and community engagement.

The last is particularly important, as it involves local communities in food production and builds on the concept of 'third-spaces' for people. Third spaces are typically places that individuals can spend time with their communities without the need to spend money for services or products. Libraries are the best example of this, but there have been others that have been lost over time.

This is not to say that chinampas don't exist anymore! They very much due primarily in San Gregorio, Xochimilco, Mexico City. THere are also some in San Luis, Tiahuac, and Mixiquic.

Other countries around the world have been inspired by chinampas, such as the Floating Gardens of Bangladesh, the Green Float project in Osaka Bay, Japan, and the Urban Rivers project in Chicago, USA.

There are some difficulties in maintaining current chinampas and bringing them back, as many of the original lakes were drained by the Spanish which reduced their ability to support agriculture. Earthquakes have also damaged them and the canals, as well as the scarcity of fresh water, pesticides, climate change, urban development, and water pollution.

I've gone on a bit long now, but I am familiar with the Inca and Quechua communication system you are referring to! It's a system based on knots if I'm not mistaken! I might be inclined to go into that in a future date!

[materialsscienceandengineering]

Researchers turn to two crops to tackle environmental harm of apparel made with synthetic fibers

From risottos to sauces, mushrooms have long been a staple in the kitchen. Now fungi are showing the potential to serve up more than just flavor—as a sustainable, bendy material for the fashion industry. Researchers are using the web-like structure of the mushroom's root system—the mycelium—as an alternative to synthetic fibers for clothing and other products such as car seats. "It's definitely a change of mindset in the manufacturing process," said Annalisa Moro, EU project leader at Italy-based Mogu, which makes interior-design products from the mycelium. "You're really collaborating with nature to grow something rather than create it, so it's kind of futuristic."

Read more.