• Energy Research

Grazing systems emit greenhouse gases, which can, under specific agro-ecological conditions, be partly or entirely offset by soil carbon sequestration. However, any sequestration is time-limited, reversible, and at a global level outweighed by emissions from grazing systems. Thus, grazing systems are globally a net contributor to climate change and the time scale of key processes needs to be factored into any mitigation efforts. Failing to do so leads to unrealistic expectations of soil carbon management in grazing systems as a mitigation strategy. Protecting the large carbon stocks in grazing lands is also essential in order to avoid further climate change from additional CO2 release. Despite the time-limited and reversible nature of soil carbon sequestration in grazing lands, sequestration should be promoted in cases where it delivers environmental and agronomic benefits as well as for its potential, particularly on degraded land, to increase the feasibility of limiting global warming to less than 2 or preferably 1.5 °C. Some peer-reviewed sequestration estimates are of a similar order of magnitude to other food systems mitigation options over a 10–20 years period, such as reducing food loss and waste by 15% or aligning diets with current health related dietary-recommendations. However, caution should be applied to such comparisons since mitigation estimates are associated with large uncertainties and will ultimately depend on the economic cost-benefit relation, feasibility of implementation and time frame considered.

Grazing systems emit greenhouse gases, which can, under specific agro-ecological conditions, be partly or entirely offset by soil carbon sequestration. However, any sequestration is time-limited, reversible, and at a global level outweighed by emissions from grazing systems. Thus, grazing systems are globally a net contributor to climate change and the time scale of key processes needs to be factored into any mitigation efforts. Failing to do so leads to unrealistic expectations of soil carbon management in grazing systems as a mitigation strategy. Protecting the large carbon stocks in grazing lands is also essential in order to avoid further climate change from additional CO2 release. Despite the time-limited and reversible nature of soil carbon sequestration in grazing lands, sequestration should be promoted in cases where it delivers environmental and agronomic benefits as well as for its potential, particularly on degraded land, to increase the feasibility of limiting global warming to less than 2 or preferably 1.5 °C. Some peer-reviewed sequestration estimates are of a similar order of magnitude to other food systems mitigation options over a 10–20 years period, such as reducing food loss and waste by 15% or aligning diets with current health related dietary-recommendations. However, caution should be applied to such comparisons since mitigation estimates are associated with large uncertainties and will ultimately depend on the economic cost-benefit relation, feasibility of implementation and time frame considered.

Much scientific literature proposes reduction of animal-source foods to reduce environmental impacts of the food system. However, these dietary solutions differ regarding level and type of animal-source foods. We review this literature and our results show that these differences relate to differences in employed methodological approaches. Approaches that consider systemic consequences throughout the food system propose to limit livestock to low-opportunity-cost feed, where feed availability drives level and type of animal-source foods, resulting in poultry and pork being reduced most. Approaches with fixed impacts propose to reduce animal-source foods depending on current impact intensities, suggesting largest reductions for beef. By linking differences in dietary solutions to methodological approaches, our results contribute to informed choices of researchers, policy makers, and consumers. Global Food Security, 24 ISSN:2211-9124

Much scientific literature proposes reduction of animal-source foods to reduce environmental impacts of the food system. However, these dietary solutions differ regarding level and type of animal-source foods. We review this literature and our results show that these differences relate to differences in employed methodological approaches. Approaches that consider systemic consequences throughout the food system propose to limit livestock to low-opportunity-cost feed, where feed availability drives level and type of animal-source foods, resulting in poultry and pork being reduced most. Approaches with fixed impacts propose to reduce animal-source foods depending on current impact intensities, suggesting largest reductions for beef. By linking differences in dietary solutions to methodological approaches, our results contribute to informed choices of researchers, policy makers, and consumers. Global Food Security, 24 ISSN:2211-9124

AbstractThe introduction of organic farm management practices in sub-Saharan Africa could act as a lever for supporting regional sustainable development. In this study, we sought to assess the sustainability performance of organic (certified and non-certified) and non-organic farms in the dry Kajiado County and the wet Murang’a County in Kenya, based on four sustainability dimensions:Good Governance,Environmental Integrity,Economic ResilienceandSocial Well-Being. We collected household survey data from 400 smallholder farms, which were formally characterized into five types (mixed organic and conventional, certified organic, organic, conventional, and subsistence farms). We used multivariate analysis of variance, linear fixed-effects and general linear models to examine differences in sustainability performance. Model results indicate that all farms lack reliable farm management information and that only limited knowledge, skills and social security exist for farmers and farm workers. Comparison of the five farm types indicates no significant differences in their sustainability performance. Nonetheless, certified organic farms had better sustainability performance than non-certified farms due to higher economic resilience, environmental integrity, better support and training for workers. However, except for avoiding the use of agrochemicals in certified farms, there is relatively little difference in the farm management practices across farm types. Our results also indicate that farms in Murang’a were more sustainable than those in Kajiado due to better regional land-tenure security and conflict resolution mechanisms, soil and water conservation measures, and farm commercial viability. Nonetheless, unlike Kajiado, farms in Murang’a showed a tendency toward poor animal husbandry practices which affects overall animal welfare, limited credit uptake and market involvement. The results of this study can support decision making to identify appropriate interventions for improving sustainability in smallholder farms.

AbstractThe introduction of organic farm management practices in sub-Saharan Africa could act as a lever for supporting regional sustainable development. In this study, we sought to assess the sustainability performance of organic (certified and non-certified) and non-organic farms in the dry Kajiado County and the wet Murang’a County in Kenya, based on four sustainability dimensions:Good Governance,Environmental Integrity,Economic ResilienceandSocial Well-Being. We collected household survey data from 400 smallholder farms, which were formally characterized into five types (mixed organic and conventional, certified organic, organic, conventional, and subsistence farms). We used multivariate analysis of variance, linear fixed-effects and general linear models to examine differences in sustainability performance. Model results indicate that all farms lack reliable farm management information and that only limited knowledge, skills and social security exist for farmers and farm workers. Comparison of the five farm types indicates no significant differences in their sustainability performance. Nonetheless, certified organic farms had better sustainability performance than non-certified farms due to higher economic resilience, environmental integrity, better support and training for workers. However, except for avoiding the use of agrochemicals in certified farms, there is relatively little difference in the farm management practices across farm types. Our results also indicate that farms in Murang’a were more sustainable than those in Kajiado due to better regional land-tenure security and conflict resolution mechanisms, soil and water conservation measures, and farm commercial viability. Nonetheless, unlike Kajiado, farms in Murang’a showed a tendency toward poor animal husbandry practices which affects overall animal welfare, limited credit uptake and market involvement. The results of this study can support decision making to identify appropriate interventions for improving sustainability in smallholder farms.