Mapping and linking supply- and demand-side measures in climate-smart agriculture. A review

Climate change and food security are two of humanity’s greatest challenges and are highly interlinked. On the one hand, climate change puts pressure on food security. On the other hand, farming significantly contributes to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This calls for climate-smart agriculture—agriculture that helps to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Climate-smart agriculture measures are diverse and include emission reductions, sink enhancements, and fossil fuel offsets for mitigation. Adaptation measures include technological advancements, adaptive farming practices, and financial management. Here, we review the potentials and trade-offs of climate-smart agricultural measures by producers and consumers. Our two main findings are as follows: (1) The benefits of measures are often site-dependent and differ according to agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizer use), environmental conditions (e.g., carbon sequestration potential), or the production and consumption of specific products (e.g., rice and meat). (2) Climate-smart agricultural measures on the supply side are likely to be insufficient or ineffective if not accompanied by changes in consumer behavior, as climate-smart agriculture will affect the supply of agricultural commodities and require changes on the demand side in response. Such linkages between demand and supply require simultaneous policy and market incentives. It, therefore, requires interdisciplinary cooperation to meet the twin challenge of climate change and food security. The link to consumer behavior is often neglected in research but regarded as an essential component of climate-smart agriculture. We argue for not solely focusing research and implementation on one-sided measures but designing good, site-specific combinations of both demand- and supply-side measures to use the potential of agriculture more effectively to mitigate and adapt to climate change

Methane emission rates averaged over a year from ten farm-scale manure storage tanks

Methane (CH4) emissions from animal manure stored in outdoor tanks are difficult to predict because of several influencing factors. In this study, the tracer gas dispersion method (TDM) was used to quantify CH4 emissions from ten manure storage tanks, along with the collection of supporting information, in order to identify its emission drivers. The dataset included two tanks storing dairy cattle manure, six holding pig manure, and two with digestate from manure-based biogas plants. CH4 emissions from the tanks were measured six to 14 times over a year. Emissions varied from 0.02 to 14.30 kg h−1, or when normalised by the volume of manure stored, emission factors (EFs) varied from 0.05 to 11 g m−3 h−1. Annual average CH4 EFs varied greatly between the tanks, ranging from 0.20 to 2.75 g m−3 h−1. Normalised EFs are similar to literature values for cattle and digested manure, but at the high end of the interval for pig manure. The averaged manure temperature for all tanks varied from 10.6 to 16.4 °C, which was higher than reported in a previous Danish study. Volatile solids (VS) concentration was in average higher for cattle manure (ranging from 3.1 and 4.4 %) than pig manure (ranging from 1.0 to 3.6 %). CH4 emission rates were positively correlated with manure temperature, whereas this was not the case for VS concentration. Annual average EFs were higher for pig than for cattle manure (a factor of 2.5), which was greater than digested manure emissions (a factor of 1.2). For the pig manure storage tanks, CH4 emissions were higher for covered tanks than for uncovered tanks (by a factor of 2.3). In this study, manure storage tanks showed a large disparity in emission rates, driven not only by physical factors, but also by farm management practices

A Methodology for Sustainable Management of Food Waste

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.As much as one third of the food intentionally grown for human consumption is never consumed and is therefore wasted, with significant environmental, social and economic ramifications. An increasing number of publications in this area currently consider different aspects of this critical issue, and generally focus on proactive approaches to reduce food waste, or reactive solutions for more efficient waste management. In this context, this paper takes a holistic approach with the aim of achieving a better understanding of the different types of food waste, and using this knowledge to support informed decisions for more sustainable management of food waste. With this aim, existing food waste categorizations are reviewed and their usefulness are analysed. A systematic methodology to identify types of food waste through a nine-stage categorization is used in conjunction with a version of the waste hierarchy applied to food products. For each type of food waste characterized, a set of waste management alternatives are suggested in order to minimize environmental impacts and maximize social and economic benefits. This decision-support process is demonstrated for two case studies from the UK food manufacturing sector. As a result, types of food waste which could be managed in a more sustainable manner are identified and recommendations are given. The applicability of the categorisation process for industrial food waste management is discussed

Packaging Strategies That Save Food : A Research Agenda for 2030

Thoroughly considering and optimizing packaging systems can avoid food loss and waste. We suggest a number of issues that must be explored and review the associated challenges. Five main issues were recognized through the extensive experience of the authors and engagement of multiple stakeholders. The issues promoted are classified as follows: (1) identify and obtain specific data of packaging functions that influence food waste; (2) understand the total environmental burden of product/package by considering the trade-off between product protection and preservation and environmental footprint; (3) develop understanding of how these functions should be treated in environmental footprint evaluations; (4) improve packaging design processes to also consider reducing food waste; and (5) analyze stakeholder incentives to reduce food loss and waste. Packaging measures that save food will be important to fulfill the United Nations Sustainable Development goal to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and to reduce food losses along production and supply chains.Funding agencies:  European Union grant through the Interreg Sweden-Norway program; VINNOVA, Swedens Innovation Agency, project Vinnvaxt; Foundation for Research Levy on Agricultural Products (Oslo, Norway) [NFR 262306]</p