Participatory Action Research experiences in Andalusia. Linking science and day-to-day life. Role of public policies

Andalucia holds 54% of the certified organic Spanish area, and 30% of the total amount of operators (MAGRAMA, 2013). From 2004 up to 2007, the regional government implemented, through the Organic Action Plans (Plan Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica) specific public policies for research and knowledge transfer based on Participatory Action Research methodology (CAP, 2007). This article aims to focus on this methodology potential as a means to enhance stakeholders and civil society participation and engagement in the knowledge transfer activities

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Guide of andalusian local varieties. Tomato varieties from Vega of Granada

Local varieties (also called traditional varieties) are a key asset for agricultural sustainability and food security. The Vega of Granada is a region with a rich agricultural heritage, especially in irrigated crops. Farmers in this region still grow traditional varieties of various vegetables. This document included the characterization and management of two local varieties of tomato with special features: the &ldquo;bull egg&rdquo; tomato and &ldquo;purple&rdquo; tomato. These varieties are still grown today in the Vega de Granada for its organoleptic quality. The document provides an annex (Annex 1) with the descriptors used and an annex (Annex 2) with the interview guide.Las variedades locales (tambi&eacute;n llamadas tradicionales) constituyen un patrimonio fundamental para la sustentabilidad agraria y la seguridad alimentaria, que es necesario conservar. La Vega de Granada es una comarca con un rico patrimonio agrario, especialmente en cultivos de regad&iacute;o. En esta ficha incluimos la caracterizaci&oacute;n y manejo de dos variedades locales de tomate de especial inter&eacute;s: el tomate huevo de toro y el tomate morado. Estas variedades contin&uacute;an siendo cultivadas actualmente en la Vega de Granada por su calidad organol&eacute;ptica. El documento contiene un anexo (Anexo 1) con los descriptores aplicados y otro anexo (Anexo 2) con el gui&oacute;n de entrevista empleado. </p

Evaluation of substrates for the growth of certified organic seedlings

Seedling production for organic farming is regulated by European legislation, which limits the available substrates and prevents the use of synthetic chemicals. Furthermore, the use of peat, which is permissible, is unsustainable because it is a non-renewable material extracted from ecologically valuable ecosystems. Therefore, it is necessary to find alternatives substrates. The assessment test consists of 12 mixtures of 6 basic materials: alperujo compost, vine pomace compost, vermicompost, vermiculite, white peat and coconut fiber, which were compared with the control . We used the floating tray system. Experimental design was randomized block with four replications per crop (tomato and lettuce). The peat could be replaced completely with a mixture of coconut fiber, vermicompost and vermiculite, but the exact composition must be refined in subsequent trials. The partial substitution of peat with 30% of vine pomace compost also provided very good quality seedlings.La normativa europea que regula la producción de plántula ecológica limita los substratos disponibles y prohíbe el uso de fertilizantes y plaguicidas provenientes de síntesis química. Además, el uso de la turba, que sí está permitido, es insostenible debido a que es un material no renovable extraído de ecosistemas valiosos. Por ello, es necesario buscar alternativas. El ensayo realizado evalúa 12 mezclas de 6 materiales básicos: compost de alperujo, compost de orujo de uva, vermicompost, vermiculita, turba rubia y fibra de coco, que se comparan con un control. Se empleó el método de bandejas flotantes. El diseño experimental fue en bloques al azar con 4 repeticiones por cultivo (tomate y lechuga). La turba pudo ser sustituida completamente con una mezcla de fibra de coco, vermicompost y vermiculita, pero la composición exacta debe ser afinada en posteriores ensayos. La sustitución parcial de turba con un 30% de compost de orujo de uva también proporcionó plántulas de muy buena calidad

Assessing the energy trap of industrial agriculture in North America and Europe: 82 balances from 1830 to 2012

Early energy analyses of agriculture revealed that behind higher labor and land productivity of industrial farming, there was a decrease in energy returns on energy (EROI) invested, in comparison to more traditional organic agricultural systems. Studies on recent trends show that efficiency gains in production and use of inputs have again somewhat improved energy returns. However, most of these agricultural energy studies have focused only on external inputs at the crop level, concealing the important role of internal biomass flows that livestock and forestry recirculate within agroecosystems. Here, we synthesize the results of 82 farm systems in North America and Europe from 1830 to 2012 that for the first time show the changing energy profiles of agroecosystems, including livestock and forestry, with a multi-EROI approach that accounts for the energy returns on external inputs, on internal biomass reuses, and on all inputs invested. With this historical circular bioeconomic approach, we found a general trend towards much lower external returns, little or no increases in internal returns, and almost no improvement in total returns. This “energy trap” was driven by shifts towards a growing dependence of crop production on fossil-fueled external inputs, much more intensive livestock production based on feed grains, less forestry, and a structural disintegration of agroecosystem components by increasingly linear industrial farm managements. We conclude that overcoming the energy trap requires nature-based solutions to reduce current dependence on fossil-fueled external industrial inputs and increase the circularity and complexity of agroecosystems to provide healthier diets with less animal products.Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This research was supported by the international Partnership Grant SSHRC-895-2011-1020 on “Sustainable farm systems: long-term socioecological metabolism in western agriculture” funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, together with other matching contributions such as the Spanish project PID2021-123129NB-C4 and the European Research Council (ERC-2017-StG 757995 HEFT)

If you're not confused, you're not paying attention: Ochrobactrum is not Brucella

Bacteria of the genus Brucella are facultative intracellular parasites that cause brucellosis, a severe animal and human disease. Recently, a group of taxonomists merged the brucellae with the primarily free-living, phylogenetically related Ochrobactrum spp. in the genus Brucella. This change, founded only on global genomic analysis and the fortuitous isolation of some opportunistic Ochrobactrum spp. from medically compromised patients, has been automatically included in culture collections and databases. We argue that clinical and environmental microbiologists should not accept this nomenclature, and we advise against its use because (i) it was presented without in-depth phylogenetic analyses and did not consider alternative taxonomic solutions; (ii) it was launched without the input of experts in brucellosis or Ochrobactrum; (iii) it applies a non-consensus genus concept that disregards taxonomically relevant differences in structure, physiology, population structure, core-pangenome assemblies, genome structure, genomic traits, clinical features, treatment, prevention, diagnosis, genus description rules, and, above all, pathogenicity; and (iv) placing these two bacterial groups in the same genus creates risks for veterinarians, medical doctors, clinical laboratories, health authorities, and legislators who deal with brucellosis, a disease that is particularly relevant in low- and middle-income countries. Based on all this information, we urge microbiologists, bacterial collections, genomic databases, journals, and public health boards to keep the Brucella and Ochrobactrum genera separate to avoid further bewilderment and harm