ASIATODAY.ID, JAKARTA – The results of a study from the University of Michigan reveal the poor nature of agriculture using the urban farming system.
This is because vegetables and fruit grown using urban farming methods have a carbon footprint six times larger than conventional farming methods.
University of Michigan researchers have analyzed 73 conventional and urban farming practices in five countries.
It is estimated that 20-30 percent of urban residents worldwide engage in some form of urban farming, so these findings are highly relevant. However, this research also highlights interesting exceptions. Certain plants, such as tomatoes cultivated in open fields in urban areas, have a lower carbon intensity compared to tomatoes grown in conventional greenhouses.
Additionally, the carbon emissions gap between conventional farming and urban farming is also reported to be reduced for crops that are usually transported by air, such as asparagus. Therefore, in this case, researchers also see the potential of urban farming to reduce climate impacts.
“The exceptions revealed by our research suggest that urban farming practitioners can reduce climate impacts by cultivating crops that are typically grown in greenhouses or transported by air, in addition to making changes in site design and management,” said Jason Hawes, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan as well as the main author of the study as reported by Earth, Wednesday, January 31 2024.
This approach not only benefits the climate, but also society and the essence of sustainable urban living. Urban farming is not just about food production. It is a multifaceted practice that offers a myriad of local social, nutritional and environmental benefits.
“Urban farming offers a range of place-based social, nutritional and environmental benefits, making it an attractive feature of the sustainable cities of the future. This research highlights ways to ensure urban farming delivers benefits for the climate, as well as the communities and places it serves ,” Hawes said.
This research carefully compares the carbon footprint of low-tech urban farming sites with conventional farming. This comparison involves professionally managed urban farms for food production, individual gardens (small plots managed by a single gardener), and collective gardens (communal spaces managed by a group).
The researchers calculated the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the materials and activities at each location over their lifetime. Their findings were clear: urban farming emitted an average of 0.42 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per serving of product, in stark contrast to 0.07 kg of CO2e per serving from conventional methods.
“By assessing actual inputs and outputs at urban farming sites, we can determine the climate change impacts for each portion of produce,” said Benjamin Goldstein, assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability and one of the study’s lead authors.
Urban farming sites are typically characterized by three main elements: infrastructure such as raised beds, supplies (such as compost, fertilizer, and gasoline for machinery), and irrigation water. These components are the backbone of any urban farming practice, also contributing significantly to the overall carbon impact.
Researchers point to the limited operational lifespan of urban farming, often only a few years or a decade. This means that the greenhouse gases emitted to produce these materials are not used effectively.
“Urban farms usually only operate for a few years or a decade, so the greenhouse gases used to produce these materials are not used effectively. On the other hand, conventional farms are very efficient and difficult to compete with,” said Goldstein.
This inefficiency is in stark contrast to conventional farming which tends to be more efficient and difficult to compete with in terms of carbon footprint. In conventional farming, practices such as monocropping, aided by pesticides and fertilizers, produce larger harvests and, as a result, a smaller carbon footprint per unit of product when compared to urban farming. (ATN)
Check out other news and articles at Google News
Discussion about this post