Many underlying drivers of vulnerability often coincide with the determinants of adaptive capacity

Posted on September 26, 2023 by hemp2022

The IPCC’s First Assessment Report , published in 1990, presented a description of the possible vulnerabilities experienced in different domains ; it provided no explicit definition of vulnerability. In 1995, the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report defined vulnerability as “the extent to which climate change may damage or harm a system. It depends not only on a system’s sensitivity but also on its ability to adapt to new climatic conditions” . Later, a special IPCC report titled The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability focused on presenting the current state of vulnerability for each of the world’s geographical regions. The first assessment to dedicate an entire chapter to the conceptualization and operationalization of vulnerability was the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report , published in 2001. Topics mainly focused on impacts and offered only a limited incorporation of the full social-science perspective. TAR was also the first IPCC report to introduce vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. These were part of the vulnerability framework used in the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. This vulnerability formulation defines exposure as the degree of climate variation to which a system is exposed. Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected by such climate variation. Lastly, adaptive capacity is the system’s ability to adjust to climate variability and extreme weather events in order to moderate potential damages, and to take advantage of opportunities to cope with the consequences . In 2012, the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation introduced a framework that uses a vulnerability interpretation different from previous reports. Vulnerability, according to this framework, does not depend on climate events but is entirely based on pre-existing social vulnerability. Furthermore,greenhouse growing racks exposure does not depend on the hazard but on the amount of population and wealth at risk. This approach became prevalent in disaster management literature, where hazards and exposure areas are well-defined.

The IPCC has stated that the disaster risk-management community has helped highlight “the role of social factors in the constitution of risk, moving away from purely physical explanations and attributions of loss and damage” . It is important to understand the various levels of social vulnerability because they lead to different levels of losses and damages under similar exposure to physical phenomenon . The existing capacity to respond to a hazard predominantly determines people’s vulnerability to natural hazards rather than what may or may not happen in the future . Following this vulnerability framework shift, in 2014, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report reflected significant changes. The IPCC now sees vulnerability as shaped by human conditions; when combined with the hazard it is referred to as “climate risk.” This report moves away from interpreting vulnerability in terms of outcome and toward interpreting it contextually. It is valuable to ask how these two main vulnerability interpretations are different. Approaches to vulnerability assessment are shaped by the interpretations of both natural and social scientists. Natural scientists tend to focus on applying the concept descriptively, while social scientists search for a more contextual explanatory approach. These could be summarized in terms of the two primary interpretations of the vulnerability concept: end-point and starting-point . The end-point interpretation measures future vulnerability descriptively using a top down approach for its assessment. Outcome vulnerability is seen as a residual of impacts minus adaptation. This interpretation expects a linear result wherein projected biophysical impacts on an exposed unit are counteracted by the socio-economic capacity of the unit to take adaptation measures. A commonly used example of an outcome vulnerability framework is the one in the TAR and AR4 reports. However, the latest report and the SREX special report favor a starting-point interpretation for vulnerability. The starting-point interpretation has its origins in the desire to assess social vulnerability and identify changes and the distribution of vulnerability. This contextual vulnerability approach assumes that vulnerability is generated by a diversity of processes, but it is exacerbated by the biophysical impacts of interest . In terms of adaptive capacity, this interpretation assumes that vulnerability determines adaptive capacity. In addition, adaptive capacity is seen to be a part of present-day vulnerability.

Contextual vulnerability is the existing system’s inability to cope with changing biophysical conditions and, at the same time, be influenced by changes in other conditions . As seen in both interpretations, a chicken-or-egg dilemma of order is present with respect to adaptive capacity and vulnerability.In addition, the contextual interpretation tries to focus on the present, while an outcome interpretation concentrates on the future. O’Brien et al. emphasizes that these interpretations are complementary—they conceptualize vulnerability from different perspectives. Assessing all potential points of vulnerability is very difficult. But with the literature shifting away from a primary focus on the biophysical hazard event, stakeholders are increasingly accepting that managing a disaster goes well beyond the hazard agent itself . A greater portion of the resulting disaster is shaped by vulnerability rather than by the hazard itself . Human vulnerabilities need to be an integral concern in the development and assessment of disaster-related policies. Due to the “Babylonian Confusion” when defining vulnerability, this dissertation uses the term social vulnerability to express the vulnerability that encompasses the pre-existing conditions of a location. Since social vulnerability is partly a by-product of social inequalities, it can be defined as “the susceptibility of social groups to the impacts of hazards, as well as their resiliency, or ability to adequately recover from them” . Social vulnerability encompasses an array of concepts, including susceptibility to harm and lack of adaptive capacity . Furthermore, social vulnerability includes disturbances to livelihoods . Rural populations, especially in developing countries, practice livelihoods that directly depend on natural resources . A livelihood involves the assets and activities that combine to determine how an individual or group makes a living . For a livelihood to be sustainable,vertical hydroponic garden it needs to be able to cope with and recover from shocks and maintain or enhance people’s capabilities without undermining natural resources .

Early geographers and social anthropologists performed studies focusing on livelihoods and modes of life . However, such perspectives on development did not dominate the literature until the late 1980s, when interests in livelihoods connected three concepts: sustainable, rural, and livelihoods. Reflecting the complexities of relating these concepts, numerous frameworks that attempted to do so arose in the 1990s. The most popular became the Sustainable Livelihood Framework that resulted from research by Scoones . In the SLF, Scoones addressed issues regarding susceptibility and adaptive capacity to climate variability/change, to a limited extent . It became common to use SLF to measure social vulnerability, especially with farmers and rural populations. The SLF ascended as a holistic tool that considers not only income but also gender relations, social institutions, and property rights necessary to support a standard of living . It has been applied in various studies to examine the contextual and multi-dimensional nature of vulnerability . The framework has also proven beneficial for assessing the ability of households to withstand shocks . It highlighted that people need to possess basic tangible and intangible assets to successfully pursue different livelihood strategies . The possession and usability of assets, as described by the SLF, reveal differences in households’ recovery from disasters that could result from adaptation and livelihood resilience . The SLF looks at five types of “capitals,” for which there are wide and, for some capitals, contested literature about their definition and measurement. The capitals included in this framework are: human, social, financial, physical, and natural . The concept of capital implies the presence of usable productive resources. It is understood that all capitals are interdependent and interrelated . Capitals are not merely possessions but take three distinctive roles: a vehicle to make a living, a way to give meaning to that living, and a challenge to the structures under which people make a living . Human capital arises from the idea that nowadays humans are in charge of evolution and from the transformative effects of science and technology . Personal abilities, including education and health status, are used to measure human capital. Such capital may be the most important component of the framework , mainly because using some resources depends on an individual’s depth of knowledge and level of cognitive skills . Social capital comprises real-world links between groups or individuals that enhance networking. This capital contains features of social organization that can facilitate coordinated actions . It provides the adhesive which smooths co-operation, exchange, and innovation. However, social networks can also be a barrier that members use to exclude others and reinforce dominance or privilege. According to its effects, social capital can be divided into three categories: bonding, bridging, or linking . Social capital categorized as bonding comprises groups that tend to be homogeneous in terms of socioeconomic background. Due to the strong ties among the members, social capital in this sense can help the flow of information within the group, but it can also limit diversity . Social capital that functions as a bridge provides weaker connections among members who possess similar social standing but different backgrounds . However, this category provides a higher diversity of members. When ties between different economic and social classes exists, we can speak of linking social capital. This category aids poorer residents in obtaining information to which they did not have access within their own networks .

Compared to these human and social capitals, the last three capitals discussed in the SLF are more concrete. Financial capital refers to those assets that can be used to purchase other capitals. Physical capital represents the basic infrastructure and production equipment such as transportation, water systems, and energy. Natural capital comprises goods and services such as the type of soil, available land, and plant genetics.A single measure of vulnerability is not possible; therefore, the common approach for its quantification is through the creation of composite indices or indicator-based assessments . An indicator is an observed measure, qualitative or quantitative, that can help to simplify and explain a complex reality . A composite index aggregates several individual indicators to provide a single value that measures the multidimensional, complex, and meaningful issue of vulnerability . Plagued with a lack of consensus, an ideal methodology for the creation of a composite vulnerability index does not exist . Methods for doing so encompass uncertainty, subjectivity, and assumptions that should be recognized and made clear throughout the analysis . Such uncertainties should not be presented as a shortcoming but rather an ‘honest picture’ that stimulates the creation of policies that are flexible and adaptable . Before creating an index, however, a clear and compelling conceptual and theoretical framework for vulnerability needs to be developed. This first stage of this development should focus on exploring and evaluating approaches, fundamental concepts, and relevant theoretical frameworks for understanding vulnerability, as well as on conceptualizing the structure and composition of the complex system being analyzed . The vulnerable entity or system’s boundaries are typically difficult to define accurately. In part, this difficulty arises from the desire to measure the vulnerability of entire countries or complex systems. But even when the vulnerability assessment is restricted to a local scale, the system/entity interacts with a vast array of institutional, economic, political, and social contexts, which creates uncertain boundaries . After a conceptual framework is chosen, a well-defined spatial scale and scope of analysis is required. Applying an index to different spatial scales may result in different vulnerability patterns . Scale is related to the resolution that is available for the data. Although scale is important, however, selecting indicators to make up your index is a greater challenge in the vulnerability community. Indicators are useful in simplifying a system’s complexity, but as we have noted, they need to be used with caution when operationalizing vulnerability. Different approaches are taken to choosing indicators. Deductive arguments use a top-down approach to select indicators a-priori based on a theoretical framework. Inductive, bottom-up, approaches are data-based; they start with a larger set of indicators which are reduced by using either factor analysis or principal components analysis . This inductive approach is good for data reduction, but its subjectivity at critical stages contributes to uncertainty .

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , | Comments Off on Many underlying drivers of vulnerability often coincide with the determinants of adaptive capacity

Southeast Asia is currently the centre of the amphibian trade as food for human consumption

Posted on September 25, 2023 by hemp2022

Regulations and restrictions on the amphibian pet trade would provide safer conditions for both humans and wildlife. These recommendations resonate well with ethics in civil societies around the world . For instance, following the implementation of the wildlife trade ban in China, a questionnaire was developed by Chinese conservation organisations to understand the public’s point of view. In urban environments the survey received over 100,000 responses with 96.4% supporting a ban on consumption of all wild animals, and over 90% supporting a ban of all trade in wild animals, including for food or medicinal use . In another survey conducted in March 2020, covering several eastern Asian regions , 93% of the 5000 respondents highlighted the same willingness to eliminate illegal and unregulated markets, with 82% of respondents wishing to do so because of fear of further zoonoses . Eastern Asia has therefore shown strong leadership following the current pandemic, the resultant increase in public awareness, and in synergy with the need for quick action to mitigate against further pandemics. However, in this region amphibian trade is not well regulated, amphibian species richness is poorly understood and most species are not nationally protected . For instance, only a small proportion of declining amphibian species are currently listed on CITES , yet the amphibian trade is a major cause of population declines in several species . In view of the global amphibian decline and the risks of zoonoses, we support the current wildlife trade bans, as well as measures to safeguard wildlife from over exploitation, and propose the following recommendations specifically for amphibians.Historically, much of the internationally traded amphibian meat originated in Bangladesh and India ,hydroponic vertical farming until the Indian bullfrog and the Indian green frog were included on Appendix II of CITES, and the trade of the species was banned in both countries due to the illegal and unsustainable capture of wild frogs .

The amphibian legal trade then shifted, primarily to Indonesia, and resulted in an increase from 180 million to 1 billion individual frogs of several species being traded between 1998 and 2007 . The principal importers for the food industry are the European Union and the United States of America , although the trade within the region is not negligible . The domestic harvest of native wild amphibians in the USA and France has already impacted amphibians through the loss of large populations of some species . These countries are now relying on imported frog meat that is generally not traceable . In addition, a significant proportion of the current amphibian trade for food and pets is unsustainable, likely to involve laundering of wild-caught specimens as captive-bred , and likely to spread batrachochytrids and other pathogens . An example of unsustainable trade is the mismatch between the quota set for the white-lipped tree frog by the Indonesian Captive Breeding Production Plan and the potential reproduction based on breeding biology of the species . However, the risks linked to trade need to be mitigated for some species, especially in Indonesia – the primary contributor to the amphibian trade. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam ordered a ban on the trade of wildlife in March 2020, implemented in July by the Prime Minister , stipulating that wild animals and products thereof cannot be traded or consumed even when authorised by CITES permits. In addition, it recommends the closure of illegal wildlife markets, the improvement of wildlife farming management and the development of a database for threatened species currently in captivity . The ban has already resulted in several amphibian species being removed from the trade . However, this is a temporary measure with an extension being discussed , and specific licences for farmers can still be legally acquired. Nonetheless, this ban means that the sale of wild native East Asian bullfrogs has been discontinued in the country and the bullfrog populations may improve from a break in wild harvests . Furthermore, the environment may benefit from a decreased risk of pathogen transmission . If the trade ban is upheld, amphibians currently in captivity would likely need to be either euthanised or released.

While culling without financial subsidy is unlikely, these captive populations would probably be illegally sold or released into the wild, as seen in other species in similar situations . Similar to instances of individuals escaping from farms , the release of farmed amphibians can result in genetic homogenisation and the loss of genetic diversity across wild populations , as well as increasing the likelihood of pathogen transmission between released farmed stock and wild amphibians . Genetic homogenisation is a particularly salient problem in species complexes where cryptic species await formal description, such as H. rugulosusand Andrias spp. . Fortunately, in the case of H. rugulosus, frogs are generally harvested locally for the establishment of farms, therefore escape or release is unlikely to result in the introduction of individuals from segregated or different populations/ species that may threaten genetic integrity . Other native species have the potential to be locally farmed, such as Fejervarya cancrivora and Limnonectes macrodon in Southeast Asia , and Rana spp. in North East Asia, where amphibian farming relies on species that are better adapted to cooler climates . For instance, there were 152 farms breeding Rana in northeastern China in 2007 . In R Korea, farming of three Rana species has been permitted since 2005 , and several dozen facilities are now farming Rana species . While farming native species can sometimes be benign, the available numbers of captive-bred Rana are not currently satisfying the market . In R Korea, farms can apply for permits to import the same species as the one they breed, mostly from China . In China and Russia, this translates to illegal harvesting from the wild , smuggling , unsustainable export , and species laundering under the cover of farming following the significant depletion of wild populations . A complication for the amphibian meat trade arises when a farmed species is non-native, such as the American bullfrog . Multiple escapes and releases have resulted in feral populations of a highly invasive species becoming established in all eastern Asian countries where its ecological requirements are met .

The presence of L. catesbeianus has been linked to introduced pathogens and higher pathogen prevalence in native amphibians , as the species is a known reservoir of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis , ranavirus and other parasites . The presence of the species outside of its range has been clearly linked to numerous declines in native species , and negative economic impacts when invasive populations are established . While upholding the trade ban in Vietnam has a strong conservation benefit for many native species, it may also result in the establishment of farms of invasive species, such as L. catesbeianus, and the establishment of invasive populations when farmed individuals release or escape. Similar issues have been expressed about the possibilities of other species becoming invasive. For instance, in the Philippines and in the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak in Borneo, H. rugulosus is a non-native species commercially farmed for the food trade as well as for fishing bait and aquaculture feed , despite the climate of the area being adequate for invasions by the species . Additionally, Chinese giant salamanders that were released in Japan after being farmed for food, now hybridise with the native Japanese giant salamanders and threaten their genetic integrity . Consequently,vertical agriculture we recommend upholding trade bans, especially for live individuals and threatened species. While farming of L. catesbeianus has not been as successful as expected in some countries, such as Indonesia and the R Korea , it is still a widespread practice in some other regions , and escapees from farms in all regions continue to threaten the surrounding wildlife. Farming of native frogs has also been developed into a lucrative business , with Hoplobatrachus spp. individuals reaching marketable size within four months . For comparison, L. catesbeianus takes up to three years in natural weather conditions around 40◦N, or eight months at 25–30 ◦C . Areas with a tropical climate can profitably farm H. rugulosus or Fejervarya spp., especially given that some of these species are considered to be delicacies in some regions . Colder areas can rely on Rana spp., where research shows that the farming of R. chensinensis and R. dybowskii can be profitable and where it is now relatively prevalent . However, the current farming of native species cannot be treated as a net-positive conservation intervention. For instance, harvesters in Indonesia believe that harvested species are declining, although an alternative explanation is competition between harvesters . Similarly, populations of the native H. rugulosus in China have declined by approximately 30% between the 1980s and 2010s , and other large-bodied frog species have declined in Southeast Asia during the last decades . In addition, the genus Rana has declined over 60 to 70% of its range despite the active development of amphibian farming in China, resulting in a 21.5% decrease in populations of Rana over 15 years , on par with the decline in Rana populations in Russia . Breeding of these species in farms has not decreased the intensity of harvesting in the wild , and it is therefore important that the farming of native species starts supporting conservation efforts by relieving pressure on wild populations and that these operations cease the laundering of individuals and contributing to the decline and extirpation of wild populations.

Therefore, we recommend a complete ban on the farming of nonnative amphibian species, especially when there is a high potential for feral populations of such species to become established in the environment surrounding the farm, i.e. non-native species to become naturalised. In the absence of alternatives, and when possible and ecologically sustainable, non-native species should be replaced by local native species. A certification system to trace the provenance and source of animals by both sellers and buyers, as used in fisheries, could help identify and curb illegal wild harvests; however, clear mechanisms to prevent fraud are also needed . Alternatively, regulated harvest of wild populations could still be allowed at specific times of the year and in specific contexts, such as rice fields, as these are the primary habitat of numerous common and non-threatened Asian anuran species . Considering this, rice fields would require protection, as an increasingly high number of rice fields are being developed for non-agricultural uses, especially in northern Asia . Finally, it would be important to give consideration to rectifying the negative impact of farming non-native species, such as the local eradication of feral populations of L. catesbeianus, already planned by some nations , following precedents set elsewhere . Amphibian pathogens are spread and introduced through the wildlife trade , and the pet trade is known to be a significant pathway for the spread of amphibian pathogens . In addition, the pet trade threaten species and may result in the introduction of feral populations, and while no such species has been reported in Asia, to our knowledge, potentially invasive species have been found in the wild, such as Xenopus laevis in R Korea following release or escape . Another amphibian invasion related to the trade is Polypedates megacephalus, which was introduced at several localities with horticultural plants, and the populations have been increasing ever since . However, international trade is not the only problem, and trade of species between provinces of a country with different species assemblages results in the same loss. Southeast Asia is a hub for international amphibian trade, and this has a critical impact on threatened species . As a result, several species in the region have exhibited declines in population sizes and have been locally extirpated . Specifically, the pet trade is now the primary threat to some Southeast Asian newts, with the USA the largest importer until recently . An example is the Lao warty newt in Lao People’s Democratic Republic, where collection for the pet trade is a principal driver for the species’ decline . Villagers relied on the sale of 100 individuals to European, Japanese, and Chinese collectors in 2008 and 2009, an unsustainable number for the species .

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Southeast Asia is currently the centre of the amphibian trade as food for human consumption

The activities of urban farms fall naturally under definitions and descriptions of agroecology

Posted on September 22, 2023 by hemp2022

It also serves to reaffirm cultural identity and a sense of place for immigrant and refugee families. Agroecology places a strong emphasis on human and social values, such as dignity, equity, inclusion and justice contributing to improved livelihoods of [urban] communities . Our study demonstrated that the majority of farm respondents placed food security, education, and environmental sustainability above profit, sales and yield. Forty percent of respondents self-identified as “Educational” farms, and most others offer educational workshops and demonstrations as part of their focus on horizontal knowledge-sharing. Agroecology seeks to address gender inequalities by creating opportunities for women. The majority of our study respondents were also women. As a grassroots movement, urban agroecology can empower women to become their own agents of change.Our results suggest the opportunity to reconceptualize and refocus the urban food policy discussion in U.S. cities around urban agriculture in a way that includes and values their social, educational, and cultural services. Urban farms are recreational and cultural heritage sites bearing comparison to public parks and museums, while also producing invaluable healthy food in areas that most need it. They provide important respite, social connection, and stress reduction to urban residents, often particularly in need of peaceful spaces. In the words of one farmer, “Urban farms can be havens of peace, health, and community, but it requires heavy involvement and advocacy from those communities for the long term in order to be successful” . Agroecology calls for responsible and effective governance to support the transition to just, equitable and sustainable food and farming systems. In an urban environment, this requires the creation of enabling policies that ensure equitable land access and producer control over access to land, especially among the more vulnerable and historically marginalized populations. Land access is expressed most frequently as an obstacle to scaling urban food production by survey respondents, and it is certainly more of a challenge for lower-income and minority groups interested in cultivating their own “commons” . There are examples among our East Bay survey respondents of collective governance at the farm and community level, such as one farm site which is owned cooperatively by three non-profit organizations that collectively serve minority and formerly incarcerated populations,cannabis grow facility layout aspiring beginning farmers, and the local community through a cooperative goat dairy, fruit tree nursery, and annual vegetable production plots.

City and county governance bodies have an opportunity to strengthen the resilience of urban agriculture operations and opportunities for farmer collaboration by providing subsidies and incentives for social and ecosystem services. City-level efforts to compensate or recognize farmers for ecosystem services such as soil remediation and carbon sequestration, for example, are not yet realized. Further examples of responsible governance from our data include recommendations for public procurement programs to source food from aggregated urban produce . Our respondents are engaged in circular and solidarity economies, key features of agroecology, including bartering, sharing, and exchanging resources and produce with those in their social networks. They are also interested in collaborating in a localized effort to strengthen the link between producers and consumers by aggregating produce and sharing distribution . As cities work to fulfill their role in providing basic services to citizens, farmers are pointing out an important opportunity to provide refrigerated transportation, storage, and organizational infrastructure to transfer all possible produce grown on urban farms to the best distribution sites. Communication platforms, transport systems, and streamlined procurement in this arena following from other regional “food hub” models could improve the landscape for urban food distribution dramatically . All urban farm respondents are also engaged in closed-loop waste cycles: through composting all farm waste onsite and collecting food scraps from local businesses, farms are involved in a process of regeneration, from food debris to soil.Through extending the UAE framework from farms to urban policy and planning conversations, more efficient pathways for addressing food insecurity in part through strategic centers of urban production and distribution can emerge in cities of the East Bay and elsewhere in the United States. Finally, agroecology relies on the co-creation and sharing of knowledge. Top-down models of food system transformation have had little success. Urban planners have an opportunity to address food insecurity and other urban food system challenges including production, consumption, waste management and recycling by co-creating solutions with urban farmers through participatory processes and investing in community-led solutions. In our systematic review of the literature on whether urban agriculture improves urban food security, we found three key factors mediating the effect of UA on food security: the economic realities of achieving an economically viable urban farm, the role of city policy and planning, and the importance of civic engagement in the urban food system .

A radical transformation toward a more equitable, sustainable and just urban food system will require more responsible governance and investment in UA as a public good, that is driven by active community engagement and advocacy. We believe that urban agroecology principles provide an effective framework to capture the multiple ecological, social, economic and political dimensions of urban farming, beyond yield and profits, enabling those seeking transformative food systems change in the U.S. in the U.S. a common language and opportunity to measure and communicate more clearly the multiple benefits worthy of public investment. Framing this work as urban agroecology values the knowledge creation, community building, and human well-being that are also products of urban food initiatives. Our data illustrates how urban food sites are spaces of vibrant civic engagement and food literacy development yet remain undervalued by city planners and under constant threat of conversion as well as pressures of gentrification. With the majority of operations in our study functioning as non-profits, it is questionable whether many urban farms would actually be considered a true “agricultural” operation per the USDA definition as a majority of farms earn less than $1,000 in sales annually. As such, they are largely ineligible to apply for funding or loans from many of the federal and state agencies or granting programs such as the Farm Service Agency or NRCS. The idea that the UAE framework can illuminate multiple and often hidden sociopolitical dimensions of urban food production sites is powerful. For example, over 75% of urban farming sites in our study came into being for a multitude of reasons: including re-establishing justice and dignity into historically neglected and marginalized urban communities, fighting poverty, resisting the environmentally extractive, exploitative, racist, and obesity-inducing industrial farming system, reclaiming the ability to be self-sufficient and work with your hands, and re-educating society about the physical and emotional value of cultivating the Earth. Urban farmers aspire to many things: affirming a human right to healthy food, a food literate civil society,grow rack land tenure arrangements that favor socially beneficial rather than profit-maximizing land uses, and alternative forms of exchange and value creation outside the capitalist political economy. The term “agroecology” locates these values in a historical network of similar efforts to transform the global food system along socially just and ecologically resilient lines.

Reframing UA through the lens of UAE can ultimately help U.S. policy makers and city planners better understand and support urban agroecological endeavors, and provide researchers, urban citizens and urban food producers a more inclusive mode of inquiry that can lead to transformative food system change, taking care not to dismantle, invalidate, or eliminate the revolutionary, anti-oppression elements through overly prescriptive “policy solutions.” When it comes to researching, documenting, and advancing transitions to sustainable food systems through agroecology, the urban context is an important one to consider, given the growing percentage of the global population living in cities. We acknowledge Gliessman’s call for applications of his “5 levels of food systems change,” showing in our data how East Bay urban farmers are endeavoring to scale up to Level 5: “build a new global food system, based on equity, participation, democracy, and justice, that is not only sustainable but helps restore and protect earth’s life support systems upon which we all depend” . We encourage future engaged scholarship in the U.S. that employs a UAE framework to ask and answer important remaining questions about the transition to sustainable food systems, in partnership with urban farmers, around valuation, preservation, and connectivity of diversified food production sites in the modern city. The realities of climate change, both already experienced and forecast for the future, make teaching young people about the causes, consequences and solutions to climate change a national imperative for public and private education. Climate mitigating action is needed at all levels, from international to individual. Current levels of awareness and knowledge about climate change are “insufficient in leading to effective behavioral change” . Leaders in climate change education argue that “based on carefully developed evidence, the emissions gap cannot be closed without also closing the education gap—that is, the gap between the science and society’s understanding of climate change, the threats it poses, and the energy transition it demands” . Effective climate change education practices are badly needed to close the gap, as authors go on to state, “education for action requires more than scientific literacy; it must integrate concepts and dynamics across disciplines and in ways that address affective, social, and cultural forces—a challenge that can be met through effective and evidence based climate change education” . As a whole, the Lowell middle school demonstrated much higher levels of knowledge and engagement around climate change than the average American teenager or adult. Based on a 2010 nationally representative survey of American teenagers, knowledge of climate science basic facts was found to be very low . 59% of American adults fall into the “Alarmed” or “Concerned” categories of the YPCCC Six Americas spectrum as of December 2018 compared to 82% of Lowell middle school students.

What remains a challenge both nationally and at Lowell is building optimism around our ability to solve climate change: only 8% of youth agreed that we can and will do something to mitigate climate change in a recent study , and a mere 5% of Lowell students indicated they believe their generation will solve climate change. While acknowledging the receptive audience for implementing the curriculum, the results relating to increased student engagement, increased reading scores and favorable response to a humanities-focused climate curriculum are nevertheless significant and worth building on as an approach to middle school climate education. Further hypotheses are generated such as the claim that climate change as an engaging topic can help boost student performance in core academic disciplines , requiring further testing via controlled experiments. The time period between 6th and 8th grade is a significant youth development stage during which students develop capacity in knowledge retention and empathy and gain exposure to many new topics, and yet the 6th graders performed equal to or above the 8th graders on most climate knowledge and engagement questions. They shared information learned with families and friends more often than their 8th grade peers learning about climate change through science only, generating important hypotheses for CCE/IGL scholars . Results and best practices from this case study should be applied intentionally to other classrooms and school contexts. The web of support is a crucial enabling factor as well as the participation of key influencers, which must be identified in other contexts. The Lowell School curriculum coordinator suggests several vehicles for integrating similar curricula into more structured, state-mandated public school subject matter: through choice of reading materials in civics classes, suggested options for student independent research projects, and current events classes at the high school level. She outlines three specific opportunities for incorporating climate education into social studies classrooms through tweaks to what is already happening, rather than major curriculum overhauls: 1) in elementary school states and regions studies, where studying the climate of the state or region is already an explicit objective, 2) middle school global geography classes, and 3) in high school current events classes. She sees these as opportunities to “lean into the climate change challenges and how people are addressing them in different contexts” , while minimizing instructional tradeoffs. The Director concurs, adding, “for independent schools this change is very easy. But for public schools, there’s so much you can do with this curriculum too. If you have to teach about government, geography, or history you can use pieces of this [integrated into pre-existing units and curriculum mandates]” .

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The activities of urban farms fall naturally under definitions and descriptions of agroecology

Alternative economic models are emerging and require further study

Posted on September 21, 2023 by hemp2022

Urban agriculture remains a relatively small, yet important percentage of the larger food distribution system in cities: “few, if any, urban agriculture projects, are intended to replace traditional food retail or would claim to lead to food self sufficiency for individuals or for cities” . As such, very little is understood about where and how urban farmers distribute their food including modes of transportation delivery, either individually or in aggregate, and to whom . It is important to focus on the means through which food produced by different types of farm operations travels from farm to consumer, and the processes through which that food is exchanged , as this directly impacts access and consumption. The scholarly literature as well as media stories describe various modes by which fresh produce is distributed in the city to address fresh food access including both formal and informal distribution channels . Applying a distribution lens to the existing literature yields similar results to the food access analysis in that several articles theorize idealized distribution systems, showing the capacity of hypothetical urban and peri-urban farms to supply distribution networks that meet most urban food demands . Others highlight barriers and challenges farmers face in practice around distributing their produce to those in need while maintaining their operations . None, in our search, focus analysis on distribution flows of urban produced foods across a city. Rather, a more common focus is on which distribution channels are best for getting produce, not necessarily urban produced, into the hands of food insecure households or residents of “food deserts” . Is it a corner store, a large supermarket, or small local farm stand within a mile radius that households need to access fresh produce?Farmers markets as distribution sites receive critical assessments in the literature for their ability to serve as distribution channels to low-income consumers. Alison Hope Alkon writes about the closing of a farmers’ market in West Oakland,indoor grow tent a historically African American neighborhood, juxtaposed with the white spaces of farmers markets that are thriving in neighboring Berkeley in her book Black, White and Green: Farmers Markets, Race and the Green Economy.

She theorizes the promise and limitations of the “green economy” and chronicles the food movement’s anti-capitalist roots yet ultimate manifestation as reproducing capitalist inequalities. Lucan et al.’s study of farmers markets in the Bronx took issue with limited hours of operation, seasonality, affordable common produce, and availability of predominantly healthy foods among farmers markets compared to nearby stores . Accepting Electronic Benefit Transfer payments is a basic prerequisite for farmers markets to be considered accessible to low-income consumers, a concept pioneered by the GrowNYC’s Greenmarket program . While farmers markets in all 50 states now accept food stamps , the price of offerings such as a bunch of kale still exceeds the price of nearby fast food options that may offer a more filling but less nutritious meal option. Some states are moving in the direction of matching EBT funds through various “market match” policies, a step towards improving food distribution and access at farmers markets .The concept of a foodshed in the distribution literature, “like its analogue the watershed, can serve as a conceptual and methodological unit of analysis that provides a frame for action” . Foodshed analysis “provides a way to assess the capacity of regions to feed themselves” through proximate location of food production, distribution and consumption . Applying this concept, Peters et al. found that 34% of New York State’s total food needs could be met within an average distance of 49 miles. The foodshed, embedded in the local food systems and short food supply chain concepts, is a useful organizing principle for city planners to consider when designing effective food distribution networks, such as the example highlighted in integrating a farm into a housing development project in the South under the title of a “civic agriculture community,” facilitating proximate, affordable distribution channels. This exemplifies planning with a foodshed lens by specifying areas at the neighborhood scale for semi-commercial agriculture, neighborhood CSA, residential kitchen gardens, and residential development in order to build food access and ease of distribution into the neighborhood fabric. If urban farmers aren’t able to easily distribute their produce to consumers, either through sales or other forms of distribution, questions of improving food access are jeopardized as well, revealing the interconnectedness of the food systems framework from production to distribution to consumption.

Planning for improved urban food distribution includes ideas such as food hubs, agri-hood developments, public storage and transportation options, food aggregating facilities or organizations, mobile food distribution, or state investment in public markets . Mobile food distribution options are modeled and shown to increase access in Buffalo, NY, in Widener et al.’s theoretical analysis . Agri-hoods have gained increasing mention in local news outlets as a real estate trend in “Development Supported Agriculture , and as many as 200 currently exist or are under construction across the country” . They facilitate distribution by colocating food producers and consumers on strategically planned sites, providing shared infrastructure resources, and making land access affordable for farmers by cross-subsidizing with real estate development. Cooper’s report on food hubs in the south, a form of aggregating supply to enable expanded market access, highlights grassroots solutions developed by and for farmers of color, yet “major challenges [remain] associated with developing and maintaining food hubs within a racial equity framework” . Here again, the Google Alerts provide useful insights from gray literature and local news outlets into recent and effective strategies for city planners, be it food hubs, mobile food distribution options, online platforms for gleaning, second harvest, crop swaps, or distributing excess produce from backyard gardens. These are also areas that stand to benefit from additional scholarly research in terms of quantifying impact on consumption, food insecurity, and nutrition, expanding evaluations of urban food systems to include nonmonetary and informal distribution mechanisms. Integrating the access and distribution literature from above, we identified three themes that speak to the efficacy of urban agriculture in meeting food access goals: economic viability, policy and planning models, and civic engagement.In this section, we consider the economics of urban agriculture and the “economic marginalization” that prevents many operations from meeting all the social and environmental benefits of urban agriculture within a for-profit or capitalist-oriented production scheme. The urban food justice and food sovereignty movements in the U.S. are limited in practice in achieving their more radical or transformative goals due to the fact that they are operating within “a broader framework of [capitalist] market neoliberalism” .

The challenge has not been growing enough food per se, but rather “producing and distributing food in ways accessible and affordable for the growing urban poor” while sustaining UA operations in a capitalist, production- and profit-oriented society. Daftary-Steel, Herrera and Porter declare that an urban farm cannot simultaneously provide jobs to vulnerable individuals, provide healthy food to low-income households and generate sustainable income and/or profits from sales. Therefore, what forms of urban agriculture are economically viable in today’s political economy? Operations that provide jobs, job training and professional development but sell mostly to high-end consumers , operations that are volunteer-driven or publicly funded and operations that cross-subsidize healthy food donations with revenues generated from other services besides food production or from crowd-sourced funding . When it comes to economic viability, many urban farming operations openly acknowledge that they are dependent on grants and donations to sustain their operations, which is a doubleedged sword. On the one hand, as long as an organization can prove itself worthy in receiving grants and donations, it may represent economic viability and long term sustainability. On the other,weed trimming tray if the organization is wrapped up in a charismatic individual leader or fails to receive ongoing grant injections beyond one or two initial successes, it will not achieve long-term economic viability.Examples include redistributive business models, barter and exchange networks, food aggregators, food recovery organizations, cooperatives, food hubs, and “agrihoods” . Food hubs are reframed as both tools for provision of market access and self-determination for black farm cooperatives in the South in Cooper’s report with potential to subvert historic racism and economic marginalization of black farmers. Key to this and other food policy reports in the gray literature is elevating voices and fostering dialogue led by communities of color.While food, and urban agriculture, used to be “strangers to the planning field” or “puzzling omissions” from American Planning Association resources prior to the early 2000s , there has been an increase in academic work in the past 10 years dealing with urban food systems planning. In this section we consider the policy landscape of various city and state efforts to incentivize and create space for urban agriculture. Policy is needed to lower costs for low income consumers and urban farmers seeking land, provide strategic location of distribution sites, and encourage year-round produce supply, often enabled by greenhouse systems in urban farms. Are current policy incentives enough to create expanded food access and community food security from urban farms? Horst et al. would argue no; rather, an explicit commitment to food justice and an “equity lens” is needed for policymakers and planners to create UA spaces that benefit low income and minority communities equally if not more than already advantaged groups. Due to the current landscape of “disparities in representation, leadership and funding, and insecure land tenure,” unless these problems are explicitly addressed, “even the most well intentioned initiatives will perpetuate or even reinforce the injustices that practitioners and supporters aim to address” .

This sentiment is echoed in Morales’ chapter in Cultivating Food Justice, which calls for “applied research to discover and advance policy objectives related to the antiracist and economic objectives espoused by the Growing Food and Justice Initiative” . This suggests that only by foregrounding issues of race and economic inequality can cities create UA spaces that address food insecurity. In asking the question “Can cities become self-reliant in food?” Grewal and Grewal find that, in a best-case scenario, the City of Cleveland can achieve almost 100% self-reliance in fresh produce needs, poultry and eggs, and honey, but only with huge amounts of planning support . Blum-evitts puts forth a foodshed assessment tool to allow planners to assess local farm capacity in relation to local food needs . Theoretical work such as this is important to advance ideas of what is possible and motivate efforts to make change, although it must constantly stay in dialogue with what is happening in practice and expand beyond a productivist focus on local food systems. Urban farms are, after all, producing a lot more than food, and “increasing food production in cities does not guarantee that people experiencing food insecurity will access that food” . UA is re-valued along a broader spectrum of “products” or outputs in Figure 12 below.Creating urban agriculture incentive zones is one possible approach to policy and planning, likely to benefit the propertied class via tax breaks . Policies such as California’s AB 551, the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone act, have come under criticism for not going far enough to build a just food system, relying on private rather than public spaces to support UA. It is unclear whether incentive zones will be widely adopted by cities and counties in California, and whether they will meaningfully address food access or food sovereignty, especially when the length of time required to devote a piece of land to urban agriculture is only 5 years. In cases where tax incentives are used to promote urban agriculture, primary beneficiaries of the policy are often the privileged class of property owners rather than low-income households or non-property-owning urban farmers. Cities with some sort of food policy regulating, allowing for or promoting urban agriculture include the City of Baltimore , City of Somerville, Detroit, Portland, Madison, Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, Austin, Minneapolis, New Orleans,Milwaukee, Boston, and Chicago12. Many policies allow for commercial sales of urban-produced food within the city as “approved sources” ; allow for value-added processing and sale of urban produced foods in people’s home kitchens ; create tax incentives for property owners to convert land into urban farms ; amend zoning regulations ; or set up urban beekeeping pilot projects .

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Alternative economic models are emerging and require further study

The food hub project is in progress and could be expedited with funding and community support

Posted on September 20, 2023 by hemp2022

Dig, transplant, bed down, repeat. Six inch spacing, four rows per planting bed. Finish the row, water it in, keep moving. Lopez Harvest sells lettuce mix, a specialty blend of “Island Greens,” chard, microgreens, arugula, herbs, and various seasonal vegetables and specialty crops to most of the for-profit food retail and business operations on the island. Christine, the farm owner, sends out a “pick list” to all customers a week in advance, takes orders by a certain day, and harvests and delivers all orders herself. This is her answer to the question “what does it take to be a successful small-scale farmer on a small island?” She sells her surplus produce directly to retail and restaurant, finding this to be more profitable than selling at the seasonal weekly Farmer’s Market or direct to consumers. She raises additional vegetables for personal consumption, reducing her own need to purchase store-bought foods, and facilitates a meat-share program where costs and benefits from raising meat chickens are shared among participating households. These non-monetary and cooperative forms of exchange are important to the economic viability of her operations. Christine now receives additional revenue from her participation in a beginning farmer mentoring program, where she earns up to $1,000 annually for mentoring younger farmers in their first year of operation . Her farm is on shared land purchased by three couples, and was acquired with family support, a common method for overcoming high barriers to entry for farmland access . While some rows of her field are planted to commercial crops, others are in rye-vetch cover crop mix gaining fertility for next year, or mustards to deter wire worms. The cover crop is mowed down and incorporated into the beds,procona London container with some beds serving as experiments for no-till practices where she has also tried occultation techniques to germinate and kill weeds prior to transplanting. This is difficult to enact on her land due to heavy clay soils that need some disturbance to be made ready for tender transplants and is a work in progress.

Commercial crops are rotated onto previously cover cropped beds, a dance between production of plants and soil. In Christine’s mind, “good farming is good for the climate;” she adopts practices when they prove beneficial for her land, crops, soil, and business model, and it just so happens that many of these practices are anointed in academic research as climate mitigating strategies. Christine exemplifies a successful independent, woman-owned business model. She receives seasonal labor support through the LCLT intern program and through informal work trade agreements with friends and neighbors. Christine is a vocal contributor at the monthly farmer coffees, sharing what she’s learned about effective weed control strategies , and a gifted farme reducator. She collaborates with WSU San Extension on a research project to reduce wire worm pest pressure in lettuce crops and is also a collaborator on the Western SARE bio-char cocompost grant, participating in the field trial and soil/crop data collection processes. Christine recognizes the attractiveness of entering into farming cooperatively or with farm partners but struggles with the difficult proposition of supporting multiple households with limited farm revenue streams and land use restrictions. When it comes to sharing land in her current situation, she would love to be able to build and provide more farm worker housing, but is restricted from doing so by county zoning policies that prevent more than two houses from being built on a parcel designated as “farmland7.” The county zoning codes are ripe for reform, but notoriously difficult to get right in terms of regulatory verbiage that protects farmland from becoming housing developments yet allows for ample and affordable farm worker housing. Currently grappling with her own problems of farmland succession, scaling back, and transitioning her land, Christine hopes that the land can continue to be farmed, while still allowing her and her partner to extract their equity and support their own retirement. On the way to working out these details, Christine continues to get up early each morning of the summer, turn on the irrigation system and harvest high-quality vegetables, sharing her beautiful food production space and boundless stores of knowledge with those seeking it in her community.Meike Meissner and Mike McMahon moved to Lopez Island with their three children in spring 2018, after signing on to a 15-year long term affordable lease of Stonecrest Farm through LCLT.

Meike and Mike got their farming start in California, where they both worked at the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center. They grew their experience in the American West, participating in a rangeland internship in Montana and establishing an award-winning contract grazing operation in Colorado. Thinking holistically and with climate change in mind, Meike and Mike practice a combination of farming and conservation work. They are both trained in managed grazing through Holistic Management International, an offshoot of the Savory Institute, and believe in the value of animals as regenerative elements for degraded rangeland. Upon moving to Lopez, they have faced inevitable start-up obstacles in establishing pasture-raised heritage pigs, rotationally grazed beef cattle, chickens, and kitchen processing facility. The pasture areas have been so degraded from repeated haying that there is little nutritious forage available for their cattle operation, which they would like to be 100% grass-fed and finished, with no supplemental hay fed to their animals. Before this is possible, they must regenerate the available forage and bring back high-nutrient plant biomass on their land, through a creative, locally tailored approach to grassland ecosystem restoration. In the meantime, they are leasing other land for rotational grazing of their beef cows. Adding to the quandary is decades of selective cattle breeding in the United States to maximize high-protein feed-to-meat conversion as quickly as possible. Venturing into the field of epigenetics, Meike laments the fact that there are few cattle breeds in the U.S. particularly well suited to convert poor forage to high quality meat,cut flower transport bucket which would represent another opportunity for minimizing external inputs in the form of supplemental animal feed.Meike spoke at length about her abhorrence of using anything the comes wrapped in plastic and avoiding petroleum products in farm operations wherever possible. When it comes to removing and controlling weeds in their home garden without chemicals, tillage, or black plastic cover, there is a seeming dearth of options remaining; however, a return to natural methods and materials such as hugelkulture beds, permaculture principles, and sheet mulching with cardboard, wood chips, and tons of compost offer promising potential. Meike and Mike think in terms of returning all waste products as inputs to some other farm process. Dead weeds become organic material for building soil, inedible food items become high nutrient components of their pigs’ diet. They are on a challenging path toward land regeneration first, ideally unlocking food production and economic viability down the line.Two of the three farms highlighted in the section above acquired farmland in the first place due to wealth transfers from previous careers or family members. The value proposition of purchasing farmland and paying off debts through limited farm incomes is otherwise extremely difficult and disadvantages low income and minority groups who have been excluded from generational land and wealth accumulation. There is not yet a “social safety net” in place to enable farming as an equal-opportunity, financially viable or desirable career pathway, in terms of guaranteed income, health care, and time off to support personal well being. This is preventing the easy transition of farmland from current to new farmers and causing hesitancy among young people seeking to make an early career as a farmer in the San Juan Islands, ultimately challenging the sustainability of agriculture on the islands as a “way of life.” In order to avoid a situation where only the wealthy can afford to farm sustainably, policy mechanisms must be put in place to democratize land access.

Promoting and facilitating cooperative ownership and buy-in to farmland is something the county has yet to address effectively; it is challenging, and yet a promising action step for enabling successful farmland transition for a more diverse array of new farmers . Opportunities exist on the production side of the Lopez food system in the form of local knowledge accumulated over decades of implementing sustainable and regenerative, agroecological practices, that is ripe for sharing and transferring to new and beginning farmers through mentorship programs or the establishment of a more formalized “farmer training program” on the islands. Additionally, on the land acquisition front, the LCLT long-term affordable lease model piloted with the Stonecrest Farm purchase could lead to other transfers of farmland at low cost to new farmers . On a small island such as Lopez, there are opportunities to share and collaborate on distribution activities especially for complementary products. However, the limited number and size of markets could prohibit entry into a channel that is already dominated by one farmer or food business; therefore, diversifying and coordinating with other farmers is an opportunity to streamline distribution activities. Opportunities exist for farms growing fruit to partner with and distribute alongside farms growing vegetables, meat or dairy products, which would be expedited by access to enabling infrastructure such as a shared refrigerated truck, aggregated cold storage, and designated food delivery person to transport products from farms to customers and retail locations. Ideally a shared transport system could be optimized to reduce vehicle miles traveled for food distribution, and a transport vehicle could be a hybrid or electric model to meet local goals of carbon emissions reductions in all facets of the food system. Efforts to streamline distribution exist in the form of the proposed San Juan Island Food Hub, which would provide institutional support for aggregating and distributing farm products between islands, improving transparency between producers and food purveyors. According to a 2015 Food Hub Feasibility Study led by the Ag Guild and ARC, there is a strong desire and opportunity for a San Juan County Food Hub to provide an online platform for ordering, aggregated cold storage, and aggregated purchase opportunities that would help meet the unmet demand for local food products in restaurants, grocery stores, and other food businesses9. Most farmers currently do not have the time and capital to transport their produce to other islands but stand to benefit from accessing these additional markets.While food security is a stated goal of the project, it is unclear how increased access and affordability to low income consumers would be accomplished, other than through assumed improvements to local economic development and job creation. A specific plan for meeting the needs of low-income residents in the activities of the food hub would be a valuable improvement to the current planning process. The Lopez Farmer’s Market is an opportunity for farmers willing to participate weekly throughout the summer, as farmer participation has dwindled in recent years and there is interest in attracting more farmers to sell at the market. Finally, the close-knit Lopez community breeds the trust and interpersonal relationships that facilitate many non-monetary forms of exchange, whereby farmers can trade food products directly for other goods and services they may need from island residents, in mutually beneficial trades that create solidarity and sovereignty from financial institutions. It is challenging to establish a successful CSA distribution on Lopez, requiring farmers to think creatively about how to structure weekly shares in a way that provides products that many residents do not grow for themselves, and accounts for the shorter-term seasonal demand of summer visitors.Using data gathered from interviews and observations of current farmland operations on Lopez and referring back to Ostrom’s ten variables, it becomes clear that farmer self organization to sustain the local food system is very likely . Nevertheless, the propensity for farmers to self-organize does not guarantee that the more complex and overarching political and economic challenges will be resolved through grassroots self-organizing; farmers must integrate and collaborate with other circles of the polycentric governance structure in which they are nested to adopt necessary reforms. The ARC, for example, is a Citizen Advisory Committee tasked with advising the County Council on issues affecting the Agricultural environment comprised of 15 voting seats, at least 50% of which must be farmers.

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The food hub project is in progress and could be expedited with funding and community support

Ferry service costs $47 round trip from Anacortes to Lopez per vehicle and driver in the summer season

Posted on September 19, 2023 by hemp2022

Temporally, there is a substantial “lag time” in realizing positive climate impacts due to the 100-year residence time of atmospheric CO2;however, additional motivators for shifting towards an agroecological food system exist in the shorter-term including advancement of social, economic, health, and food justice goals. More complex representations of the food climate nexus exist showing cascading interactions between the food system, climate system, and potential adaptation/mitigation measures. The IPCC Land Use report includes a figure showing complex interlink ages between the climate system, food system, ecosystem , and socio-economic system, operating at multiple scales, from global to regional . Ultimately both complex and more simple diagrams are pointing towards opportunities for food systems actions to reduce and remove atmospheric GHG concentrations. However, doing so without compromising important social justice goals requires coordination and inclusive local food system planning. Debates in the agroecological food system research center around how best to achieve food systems and related social change and are discussed further in section 1.2.1 below. Emissions inventories quantify the greenhouse gas impact of food systems using various assumptions and “boundaries” between food and other sectors, such as transportation, buildings, and electricity generation. Estimates range from 8-9% of total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to “agriculture” in California and the United States , to 33% of total emissions attributable to the “global food system,” including fertilizer manufacture, food storage, and packaging . As Niles et al. state in a recent paper, “It is estimated that agriculture and associated land use change account for 24% of total global emissions , while the global food system may contribute up to 35% of global greenhouse gas emissions . As a result, food systems—not just agricultural production—should be a critical focus for GHG mitigation and adaptation strategies” . And yet, current research on climate change mitigation in the food sector focuses on the production element,rolling bench without fully exploring other system elements in terms of leverage points, synergies, and trade offs in mitigation and adaptation efforts.

It is important to consider a holistic accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial food system, including the manufacturing of nitrogen fertilizers and herbicide/pesticide chemicals; fuel for powering farm equipment; dietary preferences; and processing, packaging, and refrigeration processes, in order to optimize emissions reductions and carbon removal and maximize adaptation co-benefits of mitigating the climate crisis through transforming the food system . Critical food systems scholars and organizations aligning with the agroecology paradigm point out several dimensions of necessary action-research to build towards a climate friendly food system, including regenerative food production, minimizing corporate influence, preventing further consolidation of corporations, promoting re-localization of food systems activities, and rebuilding a policy climate with accountable elected officials acting in the best interest of society, environment and democracy . Relocalizing food systems is credited by scholars of agroecology as “an important factor in seeking solutions to the multiple crises” that cities are currently facing, including “environment, climate change, health, social inclusion and waste management” . Agroecology scholarship spans governance scales and nations, the urban and the rural, and is best understood through the lens of the food system , weaving together production and other system elements . The agroecological food system paradigm is framed by some scholar-activists as standing in direct contrast to the dominant industrial paradigm and the Law of Exploitation; it is “centered on the Earth and small-scale farmers, and especially women farmers… ecological food systems are local food systems. Sustainability and justice flow naturally from the Law of Return and from the localization of food production. The resources of the Earth… are managed as a ‘commons,’ or shared spaces for communities” . Other scholars such as Elinor Ostrom and David Bollier employ different philosophical and epistemological approaches to suggest management approaches grounded in cooperation and the commons. Ostrom famously posited eight principles for managing a commons, in direct response to Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons,” and she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009 for her efforts. Bollier’s book “Think Like a Commoner” frames an alternative political economy, a paradigm of “working, evolving models of self-provisioning and stewardship that combine the economic and the social, the collective and the personal. It is humanistic at its core but also richly political in implication, because to honor the commons can risk unpleasant encounters with the power of the Market/State duopoly” .

Bollier goes on to use words and phrases such as “bottomup, do-it-yourself styles of emancipation,” “new forms of production,” “open and accountable forms of governance,” “healthy, appealing ways to live,” and “pragmatic yet idealistic” to describe the paradigm of the commons. Inherent in both agroecology and the commons literature is the goal of returning to producers and individuals the power to self-determine systems of production and governance. Agroecological scholars increasingly engage in articulations of a vision for food system transformation, ranging from a radical overthrow of the status quo to more gradual shifts to current practices . Agroecological research is described as “transdisciplinary, participatory, and change-oriented” , and agroecology is commonly defined as a “science, practice and movement” . However, there is debate among food system scholars around how change is enacted. Some argue that agroecology is the best way to “feed the world,” and in fact, small agroecological farmers are already producing the majority of food consumed by the growing human population on a small percentage of total agricultural lands . Others argue that the land requirements of feeding a growing population through agroecological, regenerative1, and/or organic farming practices would be so large that land use change would exacerbate rather than ameliorate negative climate impacts associated with food production. These “land sparing vs. land sharing” and “feed the world debates” co-exist with debates around how to enact local food system reforms. I engage primarily with the local food system reform; my findings and contributions do not speak directly to the larger global land use and world hunger debates. Rather than arguing for radical and immediate food system revolution, the three cases presented in this dissertation illuminate opportunities for the current food system to improve along dimensions of sustainability, climate resilience, and education, presenting social and ecological benefits of local food system shifts. The cases advance an argument justifying and valorizing the existence of small farms, more easily able to provide social, ecological, and educational benefits to communities than environmentally destructive industrial farms. These benefits are not guaranteed or inevitable, however, when food systems relocalize or small farms focus on regenerative practices; they require public investment, civic engagement, and participatory action-research to sustain, safeguard, and enable their existence. 1.2.2 Local food systems are inherently complex, social-ecological systems . Food systems researchers bring to the fore “questions such as food…nourishing bodies, soils as living organisms, urban gardens as life-sustaining infrastructure… while taking issues as money, location, skin colour, gender, and social status seriously… Food issues cannot be treated as purely socio-political, neither as mere ecological or agronomic… They are co-constructions of water, people, investment flows, soil organisms, and more.

Agroecology captures this co-construction” . This excerpt nicely unites the theoretical frames of agroecology and SES,dry rack cannabis which both endeavor to explain and characterize human-nature interactions. Building a local food system requires an understanding of interdisciplinary topics and collaboration with diverse stakeholders , implicating systems of education in developing personal as well as institutional capacity for working in interdisciplinary, highly collaborative, environmentally literate teams. The chapters that follow investigate food systems research questions in the contexts of the San Juan Islands in Washington State, and the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. While all chapters engage with food systems holistically, each chapter enters into the food systems research question from a different element of the system. The second chapter focuses on the production side, introducing a case study of small-scale sustainable farming at the community scale on Lopez Island. The third chapter presents a food access and distribution research project taking place in the East Bay, investigating pathways through which urban produced foods do make it into the hands of food insecure consumers. The fourth chapter uses the lens of education to present an evaluation of a food and climate change curriculum, illustrating how climate change education and food systems research can work together to achieve common goals . The conclusion synthesizes key findings from all three chapters, pointing out what bigger picture food system questions are answered as well as questions requiring further investigation in the arena of relocalizing climate-friendly food systems. Small farms and farm-based education are ideal prototypes to investigate and disseminate work in this direction. Key strands of literature running throughout the paper include the literature on agroecology and emerging research on its application to the urban context- urban agroecology . Chapter 2 engages with the agroecological paradigm for food systems reform in a rural context, and Chapter 3 turns over new questions in the urban East Bay context. The chapter draws on scholarship from a recent RUAF magazine titled “Urban Agroecology,” that proposes UAE “not as a goal, yet an entry point into, and part of, much wider discussions of desirable presents and futures… [it is] a stepping stone to collectively think and act upon food system knowledge production, access to healthy and culturally appropriate food, decent living conditions for food producers and the cultivation of living soils and biodiversity, all at once” . Agroecology and UAE have important implications for how food systems education should be conducted , which are implicit in the pedagogical foundations underpinning the food and climate curriculum in Chapter 4.

The chapters, with their diverse research questions and publication outlets, push back against a food system that destroys human and environmental health alike, and seek out climate friendly alternatives through collaborative, participatory research projects. The research presented in chapters 2, 3, and 4 make the case for diverse values and benefits associated with relocalizing sustainable and equitable food systems centered around small diversified farms, in places where this type of food system transformation is sought. Rather than arguing for the complete overthrow of the current industrial food system, the primary contribution of these cases is to argue that shifts to current practices are both necessary and possible yet must be supported by appropriate and enabling governance structures. There are social, ecological, and educational benefits to adopting agroecological food system practices, but it is difficult to enact these practices holistically and systemically across food system elements in the current U.S. political economy. The cases offer lessons or “pilots” that are relevant to the operations of large-scale farms and industrial processes as well as small scale, agroecological operations: through adding plant diversity and minimizing soil disturbance, for example, numerous benefits can be achieved for farmers , for local ecology, and for global climate change. Therefore, findings implicate the policy and planning domain in terms of action needed to sustain and scale positive food system reform impacts, on a variety of levels and with attention to social justice implications. The findings also make important contributions to methods of climate change communication and education: effective CCE will manifest differently in different contexts and must allow for each audience to express the environmental concerns that are most pressing, immediate, and relevant in that context. Through considering food systems and climate systems holistically, opportunities for public health benefits, local environmental improvements, and educational growth can be realized. There is an added incentive on Lopez to adopt self sufficient and soil regenerating farming practices at the community scale due to its geographic isolation in combination with rocky, relatively poor soil quality. This “island incentive” is important to factor in when considering the widespread adoption of sustainable agriculture on Lopez; as the San Juan County Agricultural Strategic Action Plan reports, “islanders naturally place a high value on food security and may benefit from their isolation to preserve genetic diversity, for example, by establishing an organic seed industry” . As food supply chains in today’s globalized food system are increasingly threatened by natural and climate-exacerbated disasters, all communities will soon have increased incentives to invest in sustainable food production as a form of resilience, food security, and climate adaptation.

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Ferry service costs $47 round trip from Anacortes to Lopez per vehicle and driver in the summer season

Frequency of pesticide use is greatest during middle age

Posted on September 18, 2023 by hemp2022

Only one member of each household selected was eligible to enroll. Overall 1,038 potential participants were contacted by mail and/or telephone, after screening 817 were eligible, and 403 were enrolled and completed the interview on residential pesticides. After limiting to ages 50 and older, 359 PEG participants qualified for this analysis. Eligibility criteria for control recruitment in the CGEP study were the same as for PEG and we again relied on tax assessor’s parcel listings to randomly select residences. But for CGEP, population control subjects were recruited through home visits made by trained field staff, who determined eligibility and enrolled the controls at the door step. This was done in an effort to increase enrollment success and representativeness of the sample population compared to the general population in the three target counties. Recruitment of CGEP participants is ongoing, as of January 2011: 6891 homes were visited, 1355 individuals were found possibly eligible and 601 enrolled. At the time of analysis 314 interviews with data on home pesticide use were available for our analysis. Limiting to individuals age 50 and older, the sample used for our analysis contained 297 CGEP participants. All studies used telephone interviews to obtain data on pesticide exposure. Interviews for PEG and CGEP were conducted by trained staff at the University of California, Los Angeles. PEG interviews were conducted from November 2001 to November 2007 and CGEP interviews used for this analysis were conducted from March 2009 to December 2010. Interviews for SUPERB were conducted by trained staff at the University of California, Davis. The SUPERB study collected data in three tiers, but only data from the telephone interviews administered in the first year of Tier 1 will be used here. SUPERB Tier 1, year 1 interviews were conducted from October 2006 to May 2008. In all three studies we recorded product names, purposes of use, and frequency of indoor and outdoor pesticide use, professional pesticide applications, and applications of pet flea/tick treatments. The questionnaires used for all three studies asked comparable, if not the same questions for each of the above items of interest . Only SUPERB collected information on the area and rooms treated, the size of treated indoor and outdoor areas,drying racks and information on cleaning after and ventilation practices during and after indoor applications.

Prior to the SUPERB interview, participants were given a list with pictures of current pesticide products in order to facilitate the recall of product names and brands. Most data collected for SUPERB pertained specifically to insecticide usage in the last year. SUPERB also contained a small subset of questions pertaining to indoor and outdoor pesticide use frequency from ages 18–50, for this age period it was possible for participants to report use of any type of pesticide. PEG and SUPERB recorded self-reported information on pesticide storage and personal protection methods used during application. The emphasis of PEG and CGEP was less on recent but more on lifetime residential pesticide usage. Thus, product names, purposes of use, and frequency of use of specific pesticides were collected for four periods of the participant’s lifetime: young adult , adult , middle age , and senior . It is important to note that not all participants had reached the age of 65 at the time of interview, therefore questions regarding the 65 and older period often had a smaller sample size than the three younger age periods. PEG and CGEP participants did not receive additional materials to aid with their recall of product names and brands. We relied only on the product names recalled by participants and the purpose of using the reported pesticide. If a participant could not remember data was recorded as missing. Relying on pesticide product information and years of use reported by PEG/CGEP participants, we utilized the California Department of Pesticide Registry online database to identify the pesticide products’ active ingredients [19]. The CDPR database contains information on pesticide formulations sold in California as far back as 1945. This extensive database allowed us to identify active ingredients for pesticides that participants reported using throughout their lifetime in a time specific manner. When participants did not provide sufficient information to accurately identify the correct product, active ingredient information was treated as missing. When the product was identifiable, among active ingredients, the one with the highest concentration was considered the main active ingredient. A chemical class was then assigned to the corresponding main active ingredient of a particular product. Chemical class information was primarily identified from CDPR and the Pesticide Action Network Pesticide Database . For analysis, we assigned active ingredients to one of the following chemical classes: pyrethroids, organophosphates, nitrogen containing lactones, carbamate, halogenated, metals/inorganic compounds, organochlorine, and botanicals .

In some cases a product’s chemical composition changed over time, thus we assumed subjects were exposed to all possible active ingredients in a product during the reported years of usage. Depending on the composition of the product, some were assigned more than one main ingredient and chemical class. We used data from all three studies to evaluate pesticide use throughout a person’s lifetime. We generated frequencies and percentages to describe the prevalence of various pesticide usage and exposure related behaviors. Most variables were multinomial rather than normally distributed. We also compared pesticide use within age groups by education and race. In many instances breaking our study population into smaller subgroups for comparison purposes created small cell sizes, necessitating the use of Fisher’s exact test. Another goal was to compare pesticide use during younger and older adulthood. In order to pool data from all three studies, it was necessary to reorganize the data, defining younger adulthood and older adulthood in each study in a slightly different manner prior to pooling; i.e., as <45 vs. ≥45 for CGEP and PEG and <50 and ≥50 years of age in SUPERB. Because our data on use of pesticides during younger and older adulthood was dichotomous we employed the Phi coefficient to compare pesticide usage across age groups. Data analysis was conducted using SAS 9.2 . Overall 89% of participants from all three study populations used indoor and/or outdoor pesticides at some point during their lifetimes, 72% of participants from all three studies reported ever using pesticides outdoors and 74% ever using pesticides indoors at any point during their lifetime. Our data on ever use frequency are comparable to previous studies that investigated residential pesticide use. In an older study by Savage et al. for the EPA region IX, which contains California and other western states, 62% of all participants reported ever using pesticides in the yard, 28% reported using pesticides in the garden, and 83% of households reported ever using pesticides inside their home within 12 months of being interviewed. A more recent study conducted by Colt et al. in Los Angeles, Detroit, Iowa, and Seattle reported that 94% of subjects had ever used insecticides in or around their current or former residences during a 30 year period prior to interview. In our study we found that 18% of individuals had used indoor pesticides only during their lifetime, 16% had used outdoor pesticides only,cannabis drying and 56% had used both. We speculate that many factors may contribute to this pattern of use, such as type of dwelling and urban versus suburban or rural address.

Unfortunately our three studies did not collect any or comparable information about such factors. We also examined frequency of pesticide use by race and education in each of the four age periods, young adult , adult , middle age , and senior . We found that there was no statistically significant difference of outdoor pesticide frequency of use by race. For indoor pesticide frequency of use, the only statistically significant finding was that nonwhites, ages 16–24, appeared to use indoor pesticides more frequently than whites ages 16–24. When examining frequency of outdoor pesticide use by education the only statistically significant difference in use during lifetime was seen after age 65 , such that individuals with <12 years of education appeared to use outdoor pesticides more frequently. Individuals with <12 years of education used indoor pesticides significantly more frequently throughout most of their adult lives In PEG and CGEP, lifetime frequency of pesticide use, both indoors and outdoors, increased with increasing age .We speculate that increased use of pesticides during middle age may be a reflection of changes in lifestyle during middle age. For example, individuals in middle age may be more likely to own their homes, whereas young adults may still live with family or rent an apartment. A homeowner may be more likely to apply residential pesticides in his/her home compared to an apartment tenant who does not have or take care of yards and gardens and may rely on a landlord to eliminate pests. Relying on information from all three studies we found that 50% of participants had ever used outdoor pesticides during younger adulthood and 63% had ever used outdoor pesticides during older adulthood . More than half of all participants had ever applied pesticides indoors during both younger and older adulthood . Outdoor and indoor pesticide use during younger adulthood was positively correlated with pesticide use during older adulthood . Our findings suggest that people are likely to use pesticides throughout their lifetimes, albeit at relatively low frequency. While the overall frequency of pesticide use was low, as people age there seems to be an increase in use. Our results also show that use of pesticides at younger ages may be related to use of pesticides at older ages. However, further studies are necessary to examine whether general attitudes toward pesticide use, which may be influenced by occupation or education, influence an individual to adopt and continue residential pesticide use throughout lifetime. Additionally it appears that at certain ages, race and education may also influence frequency of pesticide use. Higher use frequencies among older adults are important since pesticides may act more strongly as neurotoxins due to the nervous system’s inability to properly handle and repair damage from toxins during this stage of life. Future risk assessment for pesticides may need to take into account a possible increased vulnerability for older adulthood exposures as well as considering the accumulation of effects from even low-level exposures over a person’s lifetime. According to reports in our PEG and CGEP studies, organophosphates, halogenated pesticides, botanicals, and organochlorines were used more often outdoors, while pyrethroids, carbamates, and aromatic, nitrogen containing lactones were the most common active ingredients in pesticides used indoors. Metal/inorganic pesticides were used both in- and outdoors in similar proportion . However it is important to acknowledge that chemical classes found in consumer use pesticides have changed over the years due to the introduction of new chemicals and regulations limiting use of certain chemicals. For example pyrethroids have only become more common in the past twenty-five to thirty years, while regulations restricted the use of many organochlorines especially for residential and indoor uses. Therefore many individuals in our sample would likely not have used pyrethroids as young adults but also would have decreased their residential use of organochlorines and organophosphates as older adults.Both indoors and outdoors, pesticides were most commonly applied as sprays when participants were asked to report method ever used or method used in the last year . Ever usage of bait and granule varies greatly between indoor and outdoor pesticides; however use of bait and granule is more similar for indoor and outdoor use if we consider their use only in the last year. Participants also reported other application methods for indoor pests, e.g., foggers, gel, and stakes, and for outdoor application, e.g., powder, candles, foam, strips, and traps . Some of the differences in methods used over lifetime versus used in the past year may be due to the fact that PEG and CGEP collected data on any type of pesticide over lifetime, while in SUPERB use in the last year focused specifically on insecticide use. Relatively few participants reported the use of foggers in all three studies. In the case of PEG and CGEP it is possible that participants may have reported foggers as sprays. In SUPERB foggers were clearly separated from sprays. Foggers are a major source of potential insecticide exposure to residential users as they release far more chemical into the environment than the other methods of application mentioned here.

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Frequency of pesticide use is greatest during middle age

We chose these counties to serve collectively as a reasonable approximation of the statewide market

Posted on September 15, 2023 by hemp2022

By July 2018, only 49% listed prices for 1 ounce of flower and 89% listed prices for 500 milligrams of oil.The decrease in prevalence of 1-ounce packages might be associated with the introduction of regulations in January 2018 requiring that all cannabis be pre-packaged and pre-labeled, such that after January 2018, retailers might incur extra inventory risk by prepackaging cannabis in 1-ounce packages.The increase in prevalence of 500-milligram oil packages, on the other hand, might be best explained by the opening and expansion of the adult-use market.Vape pens, which are comparatively easy to use and do not require additional paraphernalia or prior experience with cannabis , may have greater appeal to “cannabis novices” than dried flower.In the interest of space, we do not list individual sample sizes for each price average in each round of data collection.During the first two weeks of October 2016, we collected prices, retailer locations and other information from each of 542 cannabis retailers on Weed maps in seven counties around California.We call this initial group of 542 retailers the “seven-county sample.” The seven counties cover a wide range of geographic and economic conditions in California.According to the U.S.Census Bureau , their basic demographics as of 2016 were in the aggregate similar to the demographics of California as a whole.The seven counties are shown in table 1.Summary statistics provided in table 1 support the notion that the demographic and economic characteristics of the sample are similar to those of California as a whole.Within the sample, the collective population is 42% Latino, 33% non-Latino white, 16% Asian and 8% black and the per capita income is about $30,600.Collectively, as of 2016, the seven counties included approximately half of the state’s population.In January 2017, March 2017 and August 2017, we collected three new rounds of prices from the seven county sample.In each of these three rounds,drying racks we collected prices from all of the retailers in the original October 2016 group that still listed price data on Weed maps or Leafly.

In order to continue tracking as many of the original 542 retailers as possible, we attempted to follow businesses that moved to new locations or that temporarily closed and then re-opened.We coded retailers by county, city and phone number.When a retailer’s listing disappeared, we searched for other listings under the same name or phone number.When we found the same retailer or a branch of the same retail chain elsewhere in the same county, we kept the retailer in the data set.If a retailer disappeared and then reappeared in a later round of data collection, we kept it in the data set.If a retailer removed its online price list, or moved its only location outside the original seven counties, we removed it from the data set for that data collection round.Between January 2017 and August 2017, we observed significant attrition from the initial group of 542 retailers in the October 2016 seven-county sample.By August 2017, 389 of the original 542 retailers remained in the data set.As shown in tables 2 and 3, average prices for these retailers changed little during this 11-month period.We call this “attrition” because the data collection method was consistent over this time period.In our 2018 rounds of data collection, we impose the additional condition that retailers must be licensed, thus changing the data collection method.Thus, for 2018 data collection rounds, the percentage of retailers dropping out of the data set from the original October 2016 sample of 542 retailers should not be thought of as “attrition.” Some retailers may have removed their online price lists from both Weed maps and Leafly but continued to operate.Attrition from the initial 542 retailers thus should not be interpreted solely as a measure of how many cannabis retailers left the legal cannabis segment.In January 2018, mandatory licensing laws went into effect, thus rendering illegal under state law any cannabis retailer without a temporary license from the Bureau of Cannabis Control.We verified licensing status by cross-referencing all Weed maps and Leafly listings in California with the publicly available lists of temporary licenses granted by the Bureau of Cannabis Control.If both a Weed maps and a Leafly listing were found, we used the Weed maps data and dropped the Leafly data.

In computing averages for our last three data collection rounds , we calculated “legally marketed” minimum and maximum price averages at California cannabis retailers that listed prices on Weed maps and that had obtained temporary licenses to sell cannabis in compliance with state regulations at the time of each data collection round.For comparative purposes, we also collected a sample of about 90 unlicensed retailers in 20 counties from Weed maps or Leafly, distributed similarly to the licensed retailers.We chose these retailers from within a set of 20 representative counties, approximately in proportion to the relative populations of those counties.We selected retailers for this “20-county unlicensed sample” arbitrarily from the first page of search results on Weed maps for retailers in each of the 20 counties, but we did not use mathematical randomization to select the counties or the listings we chose within counties.These data may not be fully representative of legal cannabis price ranges for several reasons.First, as discussed above, not all legal retailers use Weed maps or Leafly, and prices may not be representative of all prices.The price data we collected also may not fully represent the range of products in the market, which may have varied in different rounds of data collection.As is suggested by the changing prevalence of 1-ounce flower packages and 500-milligram oil cartridge packages, product assortments may have changed within each of these categories.This problem plagues price data in many different industries, but changes in product assortments and price listings may have been especially rapid in the emerging cannabis market.The differences in price ranges we report here should not be interpreted as measures of price dispersion, because we are not observing maximum and minimum prices for exactly the same products at different retailers and thus are not comparing “apples to apples,” as is traditionally required to measure price dispersion.However, concrete differences in product attributes — such as potency or grow type for minimum-priced or maximum-priced cannabis — may also vary between retailers, and may correlate with price differences , even if price differences between agricultural products do not necessarily correlate with sensory characteristics.For instance, the minimum price for one-eighth ounce of flower at a particular retailer might represent a price for outdoor-grown cannabis with a THC concentration of 15%, whereas the minimum price for one-eighth ounce of flower at another retailer might represent a price for indoor-grown cannabis with a THC concentration of 20%.

By analogy, if one were to collect minimum and maximum prices for all wine at retailers around California, the minimum-maximum range could not be used to measure price dispersion in a traditional sense; in order to measure dispersion, one would have to compare, for instance,cannabis drying the price of the same Kendall-Jackson Chardonnay at different stores.For our research, comparing prices for identical products across retailers would not have been feasible, given the Weed maps format and our data collection methods.Our approach here, in reporting cannabis price ranges, is to make no assumptions about quality and assume that minimum and maximum prices are simply prices for different types of products.It would be interesting, in future work, to explore dispersion by collecting and comparing data on standard product types across retailers.Beyond requiring product standardization, an analysis of cannabis price dispersion with respect to geographic areas would also likely require a larger data set than ours.Hollenbeck and Uetake comment that regulatory barriers to entry can facilitate the exercise of monopolistic behavior by retailers.Dispersion measures, as proxies for competition, might help illuminate regulatory impacts.As more tax and sales data are released by government agencies, it might soon become possible for researchers to collect data sets of sufficient size and precision for dispersion to be measured.Table 2 shows average minimum and maximum prices over the course of the 21-month data collection period for the three product types that we studied, along with the number of observations in each period.In the last four rounds of data collection , we generally observe only relatively slight differences in both average prices and upward or downward movements among the three retailer groups.Both statewide and within the seven-county sample, average minimum and maximum prices for one-eighth ounce of flower and for 1 ounce of flower differed by 2.5% or less, but averages differed by up to 8.8% for 500-milligram cartridges.In table 3, we report prices over the 21-month period for the non-attrited sample of the original retail store locations whose prices we collected in October 2016.These retailers may not be representative of overall state averages, particularly after the substantial attrition from the original group of retailers that we observed beginning in November 2017.However, this set of observations avoids potentially confounding factors introduced by the changing sample composition over time.Table 3 shows substantial attrition from the original seven-county sample of 542 retailers that listed prices on Weed maps in October 2016.By July 2018, 21 months after the first round of price collection, only 74 non-attrited retailers from the original sample remained active on Weed maps or Leafly.Local police crackdowns and municipal bans in some counties surely contributed to this 86% attrition rate, which should not be interpreted as representative of statewide attrition from Weed maps or evidence of the general rate of business closures.What is more interesting, perhaps, is the basic observation that only 270 licensed cannabis retailers were listed on Weed maps in all of California in July 2018, whereas in November 2017, near the end of the unregulated market, about 2,500 California cannabis businesses operated without the need for a license.

This observation suggests, at least, that many medicinal cannabis retailers that had been operating legally in 2017 had not yet obtained licenses and entered the new legal market as of mid-2018.Figures 1, 2 and 3 show average minimum and maximum prices for one-eighth ounce of flower, 1 ounce of flower and 500-milligram oil cartridges for each round of data collection, both for legally marketed cannabis and for the 20-county unlicensed sample.In the 2016 and 2017 price data, before mandatory licensing, regulation and taxation, we observe relative stability in California cannabis price ranges for all three product types.In 2018, after licensing, regulation and taxation, we observe three patterns.First, we observe falling prices for all products between February and May 2018, which may be related to retailers’ need to liquidate untested inventory that would become illegal as of July 2018.Second, we observe generally rising prices between May and July 2018, which may be related to the introduction of mandatory testing rules.However, because of the limitations and uncertain representativeness of the Weed maps sample, as well as changes to our sampling methods in different rounds, we do not have a basis for inferring a causal relationship between testing rules or other regulatory events and our minimum and maximum price averages.Third, we observe rising maximum prices for 500-milligram oil cartridges over our last four data collection rounds.At all retailers statewide that listed prices on Weed maps or Leafly, we observed a 33% increase in maximum prices from November 2017 to July 2018.Table 2 shows that the latter pattern can be observed, with some variation, in prices both in the original seven counties and in all of California.We do not know to what extent the maximum price increases for cartridges might be attributed to the introduction of new, higher-end products with differentiated sensory or functional attributes as the market has evolved; to differentiated packaging attributes; to price increases generated by increased high-end demand; to supply-side factors; or to other market effects.In general, the price patterns we observe demonstrate little evidence of seasonality, even though wholesale cannabis prices are known to vary seasonally because of the annual outdoor harvest and consequent increase in outdoor cannabis supply in the fall and winter months.We collected eight rounds of price data from the legal California retail cannabis market during a 21-month period of regulatory transition, as cannabis was being decriminalized, legalized and regulated in stages.Given the differences between the data sets we collected and the unknowns about Weed maps that we have discussed above, readers should be especially cautious in interpreting the movements we observe as “trends.”

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on We chose these counties to serve collectively as a reasonable approximation of the statewide market

What are the best practices for harvesting, drying, and curing cannabis to ensure product quality and potency?

Posted on September 14, 2023 by hemp2022

Harvesting, drying, and curing are critical stages in the cannabis cultivation process that greatly impact the quality and potency of the final product. Here are best practices for each of these stages:

Harvesting:

  1. Timing: Harvest cannabis grow system at the optimal stage of maturity. Most strains are ready for harvest when the majority of trichomes have turned cloudy or amber, and the pistils (hairs) have darkened and curled.
  2. Hand Trimming: Hand-trim the buds to remove excess leaves and stems. This improves the overall appearance and smokability of the final product.
  3. Avoid Contamination: Wear clean gloves and use clean tools to prevent contamination with mold, mildew, or pests during the harvest process.
  4. Selective Harvesting: Harvest in stages, starting with the colas (top buds) and allowing lower buds more time to mature if needed.
  5. Harvest in Low-Light Conditions: Harvest in a dark or low-light environment to minimize light-induced degradation of cannabinoids.

Drying:

  1. Dark and Well-Ventilated Space: Hang the trimmed buds in a dark, well-ventilated room with controlled temperature and humidity. Aim for temperatures around 60-70°F (15-21°C) and humidity between 45-55%.
  2. Drying Racks: Use drying racks or lines to ensure proper air circulation around the buds. Avoid overcrowding, which can lead to mold and uneven drying.
  3. Humidity Monitoring: Regularly monitor humidity levels and make adjustments if necessary. A dehumidifier or humidifier may be needed to maintain optimal conditions.
  4. Slow Drying: Aim for a slow and gradual drying process, typically taking 7-14 days. This preserves terpenes and cannabinoids while preventing harshness in the final product.
  5. Bud Integrity: Handle buds gently to prevent damage and loss of trichomes during the drying process.
  6. Bud Burping: “Burp” the containers by opening them for a few minutes daily during the drying process to release excess moisture and prevent mold growth.

Curing:

  1. Sealed Containers: After drying, transfer the buds to airtight containers, like glass jars. Fill the containers about 2/3 full to allow for air circulation.
  2. Temperature and Humidity: Maintain a curing environment with temperatures around 60-70°F (15-21°C) and humidity levels between 55-65%. Use hygrometers to monitor conditions.
  3. Regular Burping: Open the containers for a few minutes daily during the first week of curing to release excess moisture and prevent mold. Gradually reduce burping frequency over time.
  4. Long-Term Curing: For the best flavor and aroma, cure cannabis for at least 2-4 weeks, though some strains benefit from longer curing periods (several months).
  5. Monitoring: Continuously monitor the buds for signs of mold or mildew. Remove any affected material promptly.
  6. Storage: Store cured cannabis in a cool, dark place,marijuana grow system away from direct light and heat. UV-resistant glass jars are ideal for long-term storage.
  7. Quality Control: Regularly sample the cured product to assess aroma, flavor, and potency, allowing you to fine-tune curing times and conditions.
  8. Packaging: Use moisture-resistant packaging for the final product to maintain quality.

Consistently following these best practices for harvesting, drying, and curing cannabis will help ensure that your product retains its quality, potency, and desirable characteristics for the best possible consumer experience.

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What are the best practices for harvesting, drying, and curing cannabis to ensure product quality and potency?

Can you explain the importance of lighting systems in indoor cannabis cultivation, and what are the options available?

Posted on September 13, 2023 by hemp2022

Lighting systems are a critical component of indoor cannabis cultivation, as they play a pivotal role in simulating natural sunlight,clone rack promoting plant growth, and ultimately maximizing yields and quality. The choice of lighting system has a significant impact on your cultivation operation’s success. Here’s an explanation of the importance of lighting in indoor cannabis cultivation and the options available:

Importance of Lighting in Indoor Cannabis Cultivation:

  1. Photosynthesis: Cannabis plants require light for photosynthesis, the process by which they convert light energy into chemical energy (sugars) to fuel growth. Proper lighting is crucial for healthy and vigorous plant development.
  2. Control and Consistency: Indoor growers have the advantage of controlling the light cycle, allowing for consistent and predictable growth patterns. This control is essential for flowering and vegetative phases.
  3. Yield and Quality: The type and quality of light directly impact yield and cannabinoid/terpene content. By selecting the right lighting system, you can optimize both quantity and quality.
  4. Energy Efficiency: Modern lighting systems are designed to be energy-efficient, reducing operational costs over time compared to traditional lighting methods.

Options for Lighting Systems in Indoor Cannabis Cultivation:

  1. High-Intensity Discharge (HID) Lights:
    • Metal Halide (MH) Lamps: MH lamps are used during the vegetative stage of growth because they emit a bluish spectrum of light, which is ideal for promoting vegetative growth.
    • High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) Lamps: HPS lamps are used during the flowering stage due to their reddish-orange spectrum, which encourages bud development and flowering.
    • Pros: HID lights are known for their high light output, making them suitable for larger cultivation areas. They have a long track record in the industry.
    • Cons: They consume more energy and generate more heat compared to some other options, requiring additional ventilation and cooling.
  2. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs):
    • Full-Spectrum LEDs: These fixtures provide a balanced spectrum of light that can be adjusted to cater to both vegetative and flowering stages.
    • Pros: LEDs are energy-efficient, generate less heat, and have a longer lifespan. They also allow for precise spectrum control, which can optimize plant growth and cannabinoid production.
    • Cons: Upfront costs for quality LED systems can be higher, although the energy savings over time can offset this expense.
  3. Fluorescent Lights:
    • T5 Fluorescent Lamps: These are suitable for seedlings, clones, and the early vegetative stage. They produce less heat and are energy-efficient.
    • Pros: Fluorescent lights are affordable, low in heat output, and can be placed close to plants without causing heat stress.
    • Cons: They have limited penetration and are less suitable for flowering stages or larger cultivation areas.
  4. Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH) Lights:
    • CMH lights offer a spectrum that falls between MH and HPS lamps, making them suitable for both vegetative and flowering stages.
    • Pros: CMH lights are energy-efficient,cloning tray produce a balanced spectrum, and have a longer lifespan than traditional HID lights.
    • Cons: They can be more expensive than MH or HPS setups.
  5. Induction Lights:
    • Induction lights are energy-efficient and have a long lifespan. They provide a wide spectrum suitable for both vegetative and flowering stages.
    • Pros: Low heat output, long lifespan, and energy-efficient.
    • Cons: Limited availability and higher upfront costs.

The choice of lighting system should be based on your specific goals, budget, and the size of your cultivation facility. It’s important to consider factors such as energy efficiency, spectrum control, heat management, and the overall cost of ownership. Additionally, some growers use a combination of lighting types to provide the best spectrum throughout the plant’s life cycle. Regular monitoring and adjustment of lighting conditions are also necessary to optimize plant growth and cannabinoid production.

Posted in hemp grow | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Can you explain the importance of lighting systems in indoor cannabis cultivation, and what are the options available?