Reducing Global Warming: The Potential of Organic Agriculture

Climate change mitigation is urgent, and adaptation to climate change is crucial, particularly in agriculture, where food security is at stake. Agriculture, currently responsible for 20-30% of global greenhouse gas emissions (counting direct and indirect agricultural emissions), can however contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. The main mitigation potential lies in the capacity of agricultural soils to sequester CO2 through building organic matter. This potential can be realized by employing sustainable agricultural practices, such as those commonly found within organic farming systems. Examples of these practices are the use of organic fertilizers and crop rotations including legume leys and cover crops. Mitigation is also achieved in organic agriculture through the avoidance of open biomass burning, and the avoidance of synthetic fertilizers, the production of which causes emissions from fossil fuel use. , Andreas Gattinger1, Nic Lampkin3, Urs Niggli1 Common organic practices also contribute to adaptation. Building soil organic matter increases water retention capacity, and creates more stabile, fertile soils, thus reducing vulnerability to drought, extreme precipitation events, floods and water logging. Adaptation is further supported by increased agro-ecosystem diversity of organic farms, based on management decisions, reduced nitrogen inputs and the absence of chemical pesticides. The high diversity together with the lower input costs of organic agriculture is key to reducing production risks associated with extreme weather events. All these advantageous practices are not exclusive to organic agriculture. However, they are core parts of the organic production system, in contrast to most non-organic agriculture, where they play a minor role only. Mitigation in agriculture is however not restricted to the agricultural sector alone. Consumer preferences for products from conventional or organic farms, seasonal and local production, pest and disease resistant varieties, etc. strongly influence agricultural production systems, and thus the overall mitigation potential of agriculture. Even more influential are meat consumption and food wastage. Any discussion on mitigation of climate change in agriculture thus needs to address the entire food chain, and to be linked to general sustainable development strategies. The main challenges to dealing appropriately with the climate change mitigation and adaptation potential of organic agriculture, and agriculture in general, stem from a) insufficient understanding of some of the basic processes, such as the interaction of N2O emissions and soil carbon sequestration, contributions of roots to soil carbon sequestration, and the life-cycle emissions of organic fertilizers, such as compost; b) lack of procedures for emissions accounting which adequately represent agricultural production systems with multiple and diverse outputs, which also encompass ecosystem services; c) the problem to identify and design adequate policy frameworks for supporting mitigation and adaptation in agriculture, i.e. such that do not put systemic approaches at a disadvantage due to difficulties in the quantification of emissions, and in their allocation to single products; d) the necessity to assure that the current focus on mitigation does not lead to neglect of other factors influencing the sustainability of agriculture, such as pesticide loads, eutrophication, acidification or soil erosion; and e) the open questions, how to address consumer behaviour and how to further changes in consumption patterns, in order to utilize their mitigation potential

Quantifying nitrogen fluxes and their influence on the greenhouse gas balance: recent findings of the NitroEurope Integrated Project

The generation of reactive nitrogen (Nr) by human activities to stimulate agricultural productivity and the unintended formation of Nr in combustion processes both have major impacts on the global environment. Effects of excess Nr include the deterioration of air quality, water quality, soil quality and a decline in biodiversity. One of the most controversial impacts of nitrogen, however, is on the greenhouse gas balance. While recent papers have highlighted a possible benefit of nitrogen in enhancing rates of carbon sequestration, there remain many trade-offs between nitrogen and greenhouse gas exchange. The result is that the net effect of Nr on the global radiative balance has yet to be fully quantified. To better understand these relationships requires intense measurement and modelling of Nr fluxes at various temporal and spatial scales in order to make the link between different nitrogen forms and their fate in the environment. It is essential to measure fluxes for a wide range of ecosystems considering the biosphere-atmosphere exchange of the Nr components and greenhouse gases, as well as the fixation of di-nitrogen and its creation by denitrification. Long-term observations are needed for representative ecosystems, together with results from experiments addressing the responses of the key nitrogen and greenhouse gas fluxes to different global change drivers. The NitroEurope Integrated Project (in short NEU IP), funded under the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission, has developed and applied a strategy for quantifying these different terms on multiple scales. With the project nearing completion, this presentation reports selected preliminary findings. It highlights the first estimates of Nr inputs and net green-house gas exchange for a series of 13 flux ‘supersites’, complemented by the emerging results of Nr concentrations and related N inputs at a network of 58 ‘inferential sites’, which extend the European representativity of the results. In addition, new low cost methods to measure nitrogen fluxes will be reported, which have been extensively tested at those sites. Results from this 3-tier flux network are underpinned by emerging findings from an extensive network of manipulation sites. A combination of modelling at plot, landscape and European scales is used to upscale the results. Finally the talk will illustrate how nitrogen mitigation techniques are being considered at the European scale, including an estimation of the scale of costs involved in simultaneously mitigating nitrous oxide, ammonia and nitrate losse

Reducing Global Warming and Adapting to Climate Change: The Potential of Organic Agriculture

Climate change mitigation is urgent, and adaptation to climate change is crucial, particularly in agriculture, where food security is at stake. Agriculture, currently responsible for 20-30% of global greenhouse gas emissions (counting direct and indirect agricultural emissions), can however contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. The main mitigation potential lies in the capacity of agricultural soils to sequester CO2 through building organic matter. This potential can be realized by employing sustainable agricultural practices, such as those commonly found within organic farming systems. Examples of these practices are the use of organic fertilizers and crop rotations including legume leys and cover crops. Mitigation is also achieved in organic agriculture through the avoidance of open biomass burning, and the avoidance of synthetic fertilizers, the production of which causes emissions from fossil fuel use. , Andreas Gattinger1, Nic Lampkin3, Urs Niggli1 Common organic practices also contribute to adaptation. Building soil organic matter increases water retention capacity, and creates more stabile, fertile soils, thus reducing vulnerability to drought, extreme precipitation events, floods and water logging. Adaptation is further supported by increased agro-ecosystem diversity of organic farms, based on management decisions, reduced nitrogen inputs and the absence of chemical pesticides. The high diversity together with the lower input costs of organic agriculture is key to reducing production risks associated with extreme weather events. All these advantageous practices are not exclusive to organic agriculture. However, they are core parts of the organic production system, in contrast to most non-organic agriculture, where they play a minor role only. Mitigation in agriculture is however not restricted to the agricultural sector alone. Consumer preferences for products from conventional or organic farms, seasonal and local production, pest and disease resistant varieties, etc. strongly influence agricultural production systems, and thus the overall mitigation potential of agriculture. Even more influential are meat consumption and food wastage. Any discussion on mitigation of climate change in agriculture thus needs to address the entire food chain, and to be linked to general sustainable development strategies. The main challenges to dealing appropriately with the climate change mitigation and adaptation potential of organic agriculture, and agriculture in general, stem from a) insufficient understanding of some of the basic processes, such as the interaction of N2O emissions and soil carbon sequestration, contributions of roots to soil carbon sequestration, and the life-cycle emissions of organic fertilizers, such as compost; b) lack of procedures for emissions accounting which adequately represent agricultural production systems with multiple and diverse outputs, which also encompass ecosystem services; c) the problem to identify and design adequate policy frameworks for supporting mitigation and adaptation in agriculture, i.e. such that do not put systemic approaches at a disadvantage due to difficulties in the quantification of emissions, and in their allocation to single products; d) the necessity to assure that the current focus on mitigation does not lead to neglect of other factors influencing the sustainability of agriculture, such as pesticide loads, eutrophication, acidification or soil erosion; and e) the open questions, how to address consumer behaviour and how to further changes in consumption patterns, in order to utilize their mitigation potential.adaptation; climate change; climate variability; mitigation; organic agriculture; rural development; sustainable livelihoods; vulnerability

Nitrogen flows and fate in rural landscapes

Chapter 11absen

Does Naloxone Reinstate Secondary Hyperalgesia in Humans after Resolution of a Burn Injury? A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized, Cross-Over Study

INTRODUCTION: Development of secondary hyperalgesia following a cutaneous injury is a centrally mediated, robust phenomenon. The pathophysiological role of endogenous opioid signalling to the development of hyperalgesia is unclear. Recent animal studies, carried out after the resolution of inflammatory pain, have demonstrated reinstatement of tactile hypersensitivity following administration of μ-opioid-receptor-antagonists. In the present study in humans, we analyzed the effect of naloxone when given after the resolution of secondary hyperalgesia following a first-degree burn injury. METHODS: Twenty-two healthy volunteers were included in this placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Following baseline assessment of thermal and mechanical thresholds, a first-degree burn injury (BI; 47°C, 7 minutes, thermode area 12.5 cm(2)) was induced on the lower leg. Secondary hyperalgesia areas around the BI-area, and separately produced by brief thermal sensitization on the contralateral thigh (BTS; 45°C, 3 minutes, area 12.5 cm(2)), were assessed using a polyamide monofilament at pre-BI and 1, 2, and 3 hours post-BI. At 72 hrs, BI and BTS secondary hyperalgesia areas were assessed prior to start of a 30 minutes intravenous infusion of naloxone (total dose 21 microg/kg) or placebo. Fifteen minutes after start of the infusion, BI and BTS secondary hyperalgesia areas were reassessed, along with mechanical and thermal thresholds. RESULTS: Secondary hyperalgesia areas were demonstrable in all volunteers 1–3 hrs post-BI, but were not demonstrable at 72 hrs post-burn in 73–86% of the subjects. Neither magnitude of secondary hyperalgesia areas nor the mechanical and thermal thresholds were associated with naloxone-treated compared to placebo-treated subjects. CONCLUSION: Naloxone (21 microg/kg) did not reinstate secondary hyperalgesia when administered 72 hours after a first-degree burn injury and did not increase BTS-generated hyperalgesia. The negative results may be due to the low dose of naloxone or insufficient tissue injury to generate latent sensitization