Solarpunk Farming

Ecologically sound farming and land stewardship can change individual, collective and planetary health

Studies from all over the world have shown crop yields increase when food crops are partially shaded with solar panels. Agrivoltaic yield increases are possible because of the microclimate created underneath the solar panels that conserves water and protects plants from excess sun, wind, hail and soil erosion. The temperatures are cooler, milder and all around more pleasant for plants.

Last year, we found that you could increase strawberry yield by 18 per cent under solar panels compared to strawberries in an open field. This agrivoltaic crop yield bump has been shown for dozens of other crops and solar panel combinations all over the world, including basil, broccoli, celery, corn, grapes, kale, lettuce, pasture grass, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes and more.

Our new study shows that the microclimate that benefits plants beneath agrivoltaics is maintained even when the solar is not generating any electricity.

We analyzed the lifespans of key agrivoltaic system components, experimentally measuring microclimate impacts of two agrivoltaic arrays. The results showed agrivoltaics still benefit crops even when unpowered.

RAWtools (War spelled backwards), a nonprofit (...) has destroyed and repurposed more than 6,000 guns, forging them into garden tools and art.

These Oregon farmers and ranchers are crusaders for regenerative agriculture, a way of farming that dates back centuries but has been making a comeback.

“Everything that we’re doing is trying to blend an old peasant way of farming that involves humans at the center but in relationship with the land, with plants and animals,” said Long, Troon’s director of agriculture.

Advocates say regenerative agriculture practices help them better withstand extreme weather, increase profits and even reverse the climate crisis, by putting carbon back in the ground.

Widespread adoption, however, would require a culture change for farm families and communities that have used traditional methods for generations. And, although the practices can save money in the long-run, initial investments can be hefty.

Recognizing that, the 2023 Oregon Legislature made significant investments in helping farmers and ranchers improve soil health and climate resilience, approving $10 million for a new Natural and Working Lands Fund.

They chose not to renew the funding in 2025, however, as they sought to trim the state budget.

And under the Trump administration, federal grants for soil health and agricultural climate projects have been cut or been put on hold, said Oregon Climate and Agriculture Network (OrCAN) Executive Director Megan Kemple.

“If you asked us two years ago at this time, we’d say Oregon’s in pretty good shape. We got two new policies with a significant amount of funding for soil health on Oregon’s farms and ranches,“ Kemple said. “And now, we just, it’s not that.”

While not the tallest frame, itt will be perfect for me!

Cherie Jzar, a North Carolina farmer, has become a lifeline for area residents as the Trump administration has delayed funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Many of her customers are seniors — who often live on fixed incomes and rely on SNAP. With the rising costs of food, she said, it has been difficult for the elders in the community to purchase produce or meats.

For months, she and her family have given free bags of produce to elderly residents in the Historic West End of Charlotte, a majority-Black community. They run Deep Roots CPS Farm, and have gifted people collard greens, kale, and radishes. Other times, they gave away fruits like strawberries and blueberries.

“Especially in times of crisis, you definitely need institutions like farms, led by people who care about the people that they’re providing produce to,” Jzar said.

Farming in the mountains and plains of Kurdistan has always been more than a way to feed families; it is a way of life, a form of resistance, a connection to land holding deep memory. Long before industrial agriculture and state borders divided the region, Kurdish women cultivated a system of care that nourished both people and nature. Today, following decades of colonization, war, and environmental destruction, communities of Southern Kurdistan are reclaiming that legacy through an agroecology movement that links food sovereignty with freedom, Azadî.

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/29903812

To many people, Brazil conjures up images of the endless Amazon River, lush tropical rainforest and breathtaking wildlife. In a country of its size, this picture can remain true while also containing a more complex and changing set of realities. For example, climate change, high water demand and human activity are also leading to increased desert-like conditions. One recent study found that in the past 30 years, there has been a 30% expansion in dryland habitat across Brazil. One of the most affected areas includes the state of Pará, a major part of the Amazon rainforest and home to Belém, which is hosting this year’s UN climate summit.

Water shortages

Brazil’s northeast region is particularly noted for its semi-arid landscape and water scarcity.

Pernambuco, a small state by Brazilian standards, extends from the eastern Atlantic coast into the region’s interior for around 450 miles. Water availability is a constant concern for many communities across the state, especially family farms which are significant contributors to the regional economy.

“One of the main problems people are facing here is the growing frequency of droughts and the irregularity of rainfall. As a result, producing food has become extremely difficult,” said Carlos Magno, a coordinator at Centro Sabiá, a non-profit organisation in the area.

“We’re also experiencing stronger heatwaves, which have been causing the death of many trees and affecting the local environment even more,” Magno added.

He went on to describe how family farming in the region is almost entirely dependent on rain to grow food. There are no irrigation systems or wells to support communities so when the rains fail, it means less food on the table.Addressing these concerns is a key objective of an ongoing project supported by the Adaptation Fund’s Climate Innovation Accelerator (AFCIA), administered by the UN Development Programme and carried out by Centro Sabiá.

A woman collects rainwater harvested for use on smaller agroforestry plots. (Image: Centro Sabiá)

Transforming lives

Centro Sabiá has an intimate knowledge of how family farming operates in the region. It spent time consulting with communities to better understand their concerns, and hearing their ideas on how to combat water scarcity.

The project is implementing simple, yet affordable, climate solutions which are improving the livelihoods of local people. One intervention being explored is to recycle wastewater to help with the growth of new agroforestry plots. The water – taken from washing or cleaning – is filtered and then redirected for use on plots that combine crop farming with tree planting. The technique is designed to improve soil health, cut pollution and improve biodiversity.

“The water that used to pollute the soil now nourishes crops and trees,” added Magno. “When people realise that their available water is limited, but they can reuse it to grow food, it changes everything.”

On the project, 130 families, totalling over 31,000 people, introduced greywater reuse across 30 new agroforestry plots. The systems are low-cost and simple to implement within a farm’s existing infrastructure. They can be used for years with the initial access to technical support, and, as a result, are now treating millions of litres of water each year.

The impacts in Pernambuco have been immediate. Each family is estimated to be saving US$350 a year on water, and earning over US$300 a month from selling agroforestry products.

Making farming greener

Agroforestry has been identified as a sustainable alternative to industrial farming.

According to some scientists, the Amazon rainforest is able to recycle up to 5 litres of water per square metre a day. By contrast, land used for pasture is only able to recycle 1.5 litres. This helps to explain why some previously biodiverse areas that have been converted for cattle ranching and farming are now becoming drier.

Agroforestry seeks to redress the balance by including trees in the agricultural process, bringing more moisture – and carbon – back into the soil. The response to these techniques from people across Pernambuco has so far been overwhelmingly positive.

“Nature is doing really well for us,” reported Cilene, a local participant in the project. In a recent interview with the Adaptation Fund, she explained how in the past, “we bought things with pesticides. Now with this project we are learning to have better, healthier food.”

“Compared to how we were living before, we see better results and sustainable benefits,” she added.

Francisca Ferraz de Aquino Silva, a farmer in Calumbi, agrees. “This project was a real turning point in my life,” she said.

“After the technology arrived, I realised it was possible to make better use of water, without waste, and to produce food while improving the soil. It was a new opportunity in my life,” she told Centro Sabiá.

“Agroforestry reduces the need for heavy labour. You work without much effort, it brings economic return, and nature works in your favour…I saw that it was possible to live in semi-arid conditions with dignity and prosperity – planting biodiversity and working with agroforestry systems,” she added.

One of the greywater reuse systems installed during the project. (Image:Centro Sabiá)

What this means for COP30

As heads of state discuss the state of the planet in Belém, they only need look around at the surrounding rainforest to see how vital a role it plays.

Human development and extreme weather are putting significant pressure on nature and people’s livelihoods. If these drier conditions persist, the rainforest could be turned into savannah, which some scientists believe will create further dry weather and drought.

But the lessons from Belém’s southerly neighbour over in Pernambuco could provide an answer.

“Policymakers and delegates attending COP30 have a lot to learn from the project,” commented Magno. “It was built with civil society. It was carried out with the contribution of organisations and people who work every day with local communities.”

“By the end of the [climate] conference, the decisions and commitments must truly guarantee that adaptation resources reach the communities that are struggling every day to adapt to climate change,” he continued.

“It is crucial for funds from international climate agreements and adaptation policies to reach the local level, where they are needed the most.”

• Witches’ Broom, a devastating fungal disease, has spread for the first time from Southeast Asia to Latin America, arriving in French Guiana in 2023 and has now infiltrated northern Brazil.
• Cassava is a vital crop for food security in South America and Africa, and a critical cash crop in Southeast Asia, where the fungal disease is spreading rapidly. More than 500 million people worldwide rely on cassava for their dietary needs.
• The pathogen has already caused massive cassava losses in Southeast Asia, with infection rates in some fields near 90%, and now it threatens food security in Latin America. Climate change is helping the fungus thrive and spread, as wetter conditions create an ideal environment for infection.
• Brazil has launched emergency measures, including funding research and farmer training, but scientists warn that without swift containment, cassava production across the tropics could face severe declines.

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/29013651

I posted this as a comment somewhere else, but people here might find it useful, so here it is.

Not only will an avocado seed not grow true, the seedling tree is not guaranteed to produce fruit at all, and the flowering of avocado is temperature-dependent, so if you (e.g.) plant a Hass avocado in the lowland tropical rainforest, the nights probably won't get cold enough to trigger proper flowering.

"The stigma of an avocado flower will normally have ceased to be receptive to pollen when it starts to release its own pollen. However, as a result of the mass flowering ... under ideal temperatures (maximum 25°C, minimum 20°C) there is theoretically some overlap from other flowers providing a small window of opportunity for what is termed close-pollination."

"But under cooler conditions (maximum 20°C, minimum 10°C), flower opening can be both delayed and extended. Type B flowers may be delayed so much that the female stage may not be detected, with the flower appearing to open only as a functional male. Also, the male phase of type A flowers may be so delayed that they remain open over-night and into the next morning."

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/spring/growing-avocados-flowering-pollination-and-fruit-set?page=0%2C1

Equatorial lowlands would most likely not experience the cold conditions mentioned above, and with multiple flowering avocado trees in close proximity to each other, close-pollination could provide an adequate avocado yield. However, high temperatures can also interfere with flowering, pollination, and fruit set:

"Under a tropical temperature regime of 33°C day and 23°C night the trees of the cultivars Fuerte and Hass had fewer flowers and a shorter flowering period than under temperature conditions of 25°C day and 15°C night."

"In the Fuerte cultivar daytime temperatures above 30°C or below 20°C were found to disrupt flowering ... High temperatures appeared to stimulate vegetative growth at the expense of reproductive development and flowers and developing fruit were shed from the plant."

"The problem was particularly marked amongst Mexican and Guatemalan type cultivars; less so in West Indian types."

https://www.avocadosource.com/WAC1/WAC1_p042.pdf

"West Indian cultivars flower well in tropical climates, but often flower poorly in the subtropical climate of Southern California. On the other hand, Guatemalan and Guatemalan x Mexican hybrids flower poorly in tropical climates, but flower profusely in California."

"Flowering in ‘Hass’ and the other subtropical avocado cultivars is induced by a period of low temperature. ‘Hass’ did not flower when kept at temperatures of 30/25, 25/20 or 20/5 [degrees] C (day/night), but did flower when exposed to 3-4 months of 15/10, 18/15, 20/15 and 23/18 [degrees] C (day night). Under the two last temperature regimes the flowering was delayed and sparse"

https://ucanr.edu/sites/alternativefruits/files/166371.pdf

Here one can see the differences in yield when avocado trees flower within or outside of the optimal temperature range:

https://www.avocadosource.com/WAC1/WAC1_p045.pdf

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/29116335

A draft report commissioned by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy, or DOE, misleadingly claims that increasing levels of carbon dioxide could be beneficial for agriculture. In fact, mainstream climate experts have found that rising CO2 levels, by causing climate change, are harmful to agriculture overall – and likely to cause food prices to increase.

archived (Wayback Machine)

Hi all

I need to apply this product to my citrus ASAP but the directions state I must not apply during flowering. My citrus is in full flower and I was wondering what will be the consequence and what would be the earliest stage at the end of flowering that i should apply it?

Thanks very much.

The study and a couple of its main points:

• Billions in pledged finance has not made it to the ground level of Africa’s Great Green Wall.

• Only two of 36 assessed reforestation plots demonstrate significant greening since planting.

The 2025 corn harvest is making headlines as the largest in US history. You’d think that would be good news. But instead of buoyed incomes, farmers face negative profits and taxpayers face billions in emergency federal outlays. The reason is simple: We’re planting more corn than the market can absorb, year after year.

Given current demand, I estimate corn producers could have broken even, instead of losing money as they are today, had they planted about 11 million fewer acres. The associated reduction in synthetic nitrogen fertilizer would have avoided a tremendous amount of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions—17,000 metric tons of this lesser-known but powerful heat-trapping pollutant, or about what 1.1 million cars emit in a year. It also would have kept 170,000 metric tons of nitrate from making the water in many rural wells unsafe to drink.

High input costs and weak export markets—both distorted by tariffs—get the blame for the weak farm economy, but the bigger problem is structural. Back in the spring, when farmers put seed in the ground, they already knew they were headed for a big surplus.

Behind the headlines, two things are terribly wrong in farm country that most people don’t know about: First, farmers rarely make a profit on corn. Most years, their revenues don’t cover their production costs, and taxpayers make up the difference.

Second, most corn production exacts a heavy environmental toll. Many people know that the dominant production methods harm pollinators (like bees) and other beneficial organisms, contaminate drinking water, and make lakes, rivers, and downstream coastal waters hazardous. But corn also releases a staggering amount of N₂O, largely from synthetic nitrogen fertilizer applied to fields.

These are consequences of chronic overproduction. And agricultural economists point to one straightforward solution: plant less corn on fewer acres.

Every farm counts

We’ve already lost far too many farming families, and each one that disappears is a loss for rural communities and our food system. This year’s farm economy is pushing many growers to the brink, with mounting debt and collapsing prices threatening a wave of bankruptcies in the months ahead.

Policy should aim to keep every single farm family thriving—and grow their numbers. That means making farm economics work, not through endless subsidies or externalized environmental costs, but through a fair and functional market.

How does too much corn cause too little profit for farmers?

The answer is simple: supply and demand. Livestock, ethanol, and products like sweeteners and oils all require a large but relatively stable amount of corn. When farmers collectively plant more than that demand, oversupply drives down the price. (While not my focus here, the ethanol and livestock sectors also exhibit substantial market distortions and environmental costs.)

Based on recently released USDA numbers, I estimate that the large amount of surplus corn drove 2025 farm revenues down to about $159.50 per acre below the break-even point. In other words, corn prices would need to rise 22% just to cover farmers’ costs. (See my calculations below.)

This means production overshot demand by roughly 2.0 billion bushels—about the output of 11 million acres. Had those acres not been planted, prices would have been higher and average corn production revenues would have covered costs.

Surplus acres, surplus pollution

Planting less corn wouldn’t just mean fair pay for farmers and avoided taxpayer bailouts—it would also save billions in environmental damage.

Looking only at the pollution from synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use, I estimate that planting corn on those 11 million acres emitted about 17,000 metric tons of N₂O (4.7 MtCO₂e), moving us farther away from climate goals and likely causing around $940 million in damages. This is a conservative estimate; recent research suggests that soil microbes in US row crop fields convert synthetic nitrogen fertilizer into N₂O at a rate three times higher than standard factors suggest.

In terms of water pollution, this excess corn leached about 170,000 metric tons of nitrate into water supplies, making drinking water unsafe and harming aquatic ecosystems.

And remember: That’s the pollution just from the surplus acres of corn. It doesn’t count the damage from the other more than 80 million acres planted nationwide.

Why don’t farmers just plant less?

Partly because they can’t—because of something agricultural economists call “the treadmill of production.” Unlike Apple, which carefully forecasts demand and produces iPhones to match, farmers act individually. Suppliers and grain buyers—feedlots, ethanol refineries, exporters—are few and powerful, while farmers are many and disconnected. This imbalance means farmers can’t collectively reduce supply to stabilize prices.

Another reason is—you guessed it—subsidies. As I said above, farmers knew they were planting too much and wouldn’t break even again this year. Yet instead of being able to coordinate supply with demand—or having the government help them do so, as once was the case before agribusiness interests reshaped the system—today’s farm policy leaves them little choice but to plant as much as possible. Programs like crop insurance, price loss coverage, and marketing loans guarantee that taxpayers will shoulder the losses, creating incentives that perpetuate chronic overproduction of corn while disadvantaging alternative markets.

That’s why cooperatives and coordinated supply management matter (not that either is a silver bullet). As a member-owned cooperative, for example, Organic Valley has kept thousands of family dairy farms afloat by projecting demand and coordinating supply so that prices cover the true cost of production.

Smart farm policy has a role too, as it once did with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA). By paying farmers to cut acres, the AAA reduced oversupply, raised farm incomes, and provided critical relief during the depths of the Great Depression. Ironically, today’s farm bill—the AAA’s descendant—flips that logic. Instead of stabilizing markets, its subsidized crop insurance, direct payments, and other subsidies, together with ethanol mandates under the Renewable Fuel Standard, now fuel the very overproduction the law was meant to stop.

Of course, food is different from iPhones—because it nourishes people. But here’s the irony: Most US corn doesn’t actually feed people. About a third is burned as ethanol and much of the rest is fed to livestock and processed into sweeteners and oils. If Apple made iPhones the way we grow corn, it would be flooding stores with devices no one asked for, then selling them at a loss while taxpayers covered the difference.

This is the simple supply story. The real story is even more devastating. Once the United States locked itself into chronic corn surpluses, markets and policy evolved to soak up the excess. Ethanol emerged as a policy-enabled outlet and livestock systems intensified and consolidated to capitalize on low-cost feed. Advertising campaigns like “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner” and “Got Milk?” are efforts to manufacture demand for mountains of surplus meat and dairy raised on unnaturally cheap grain.

A smarter path forward

The solution is as simple as it is difficult: stop overproducing. If we planted fewer acres of corn, farmers could earn a fair return without taxpayer bailouts, while pollution would drop dramatically. Real change will take time, but it starts with understanding the problem and uniting behind farmer-led solutions that restore both land and livelihoods.

Yes, feeding a growing global population is a real concern. But we’re far from that problem today. Right now, our crisis is overproduction—making society and the environment sick while driving skilled farmers out of business.

This isn’t radical. It’s how every healthy sector of the economy works. No car company produces unlimited vehicles just because it can. It projects demand, sets supply, and prices accordingly. Agriculture deserves the same rationality and fairness.

Because at the end of the day, every single farm matters. And if we want more farm families—not fewer—we need policy that makes that vision real.

Showing my work

Here’s the math for estimating oversupply and its consequences for farm income and the environment.

Step 1: Farmers’ bottom line. According to the USDA’s 2024 Costs and Returns data, it costs an average of $887.63 per acre to grow corn when you include full economic costs (not just out-of-pocket expenses). In 2024, average gross revenue was only $757.48 per acre, leaving farmers with a loss of ~$130 per acre. To estimate the net profit for 2025, we have to use the 2024 costs estimates until the USDA releases the new numbers in January. Costs are expected to rise (especially fertilizer) this year, so this will be a conservative estimate. On the revenue side, for 2025, the USDA’s September WASDE report projects yields of 186.7 bushels/acre at a price of $3.90/bushel, which equals ~$728 per acre. That’s a predicted shortfall in 2025 of ~$160 per acre.

Step 2: What price would farmers need? To break even, farmers would need that extra $160/acre in revenue. Spread across 186.7 bushels/acre, that means prices would have to rise by $0.85/bushel, or ~22% (from $3.90 to $4.75/bushel).

Step 3: How much would supply have to shrink? Prices rise when supply drops, but by how much depends on demand elasticity. For corn, -0.548 is a reasonable average based on published estimates (like this and this). (This means a 10% rise in price cuts demand by ~5.5%.) Using that elasticity, to get a 22% price increase, supply would need to shrink by roughly 12%. On a national corn crop of 16.8B bushels, that works out to about 2.0B bushels of excess supply, or the output of ~11M acres.

Step 4: N2O emissions from the excess corn. Corn farmers apply an average of 151.8 lb of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer per acre on the ~95% of corn acres that receive fertilizer. Multiply by 11M acres and that’s about 1.6B lb of nitrogen (N) applied to acres we didn’t need.

Field emissions: In the United States, ~1.3% of synthetic N applied is released directly as nitrous oxide (N₂O-N), which equals ~20M lb N₂O-N. That 1.3% comes from higher rates in wetter fields (1.6% on ~74% of corn acres) and lower rates in drier fields (0.5% on ~26% of acres) but is often considered too low.Water emissions: The IPCC estimates that 24% of applied N leaches into water (~370M lb N). Of that, the IPCC estimates 1.1% is released as N₂O-N, adding ~4.1M lb.Total N₂O-N (from field and water): 20M + 4.1M equals ~24M lb.Total N2O: Converted to N₂O itself, that’s ~38M lb, or ~17,000 metric tons N₂O. When converted to CO₂-equivalent using the IPCC’s global warming potential (273), that’s ~4.7 MtCO₂e.With the EPA’s social cost of N₂O at $54,000 per tonne, those climate damages add up to roughly $940M.

Step 5: Nitrate pollution. The 370M lb of N lost to water as nitrate (NO3-N) (~170,000 metric tons) is a staggering load of nitrate flowing into rivers, lakes, and drinking water.

archived (Wayback Machine)

• Malaysia is preparing to amend its Protection of New Plant Varieties Act to join the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) by 2026.
• UPOV membership is a key criterion for Malaysia to join a trans-Pacific free trade agreement, to access a broader international trade market.
• Some farmers’ groups and NGOs oppose any amendment to the law, arguing that it would undermine farmers’ rights to freely save, keep and sell seeds, and that it would jeopardize agro-biodiversity. Without the law amendment bill being made public, the law’s potential impacts on farmers remain unclear.
• This is one of two proposed changes to Malaysian laws that would affect seeds and the farmers who use them.
• This is Part 1 of a two-part series. Part 2, forthcoming, will report more on Malaysia’s seed quality bill.

archived (Wayback Machine)

More than 130,000 acres of solar farms across 500 sites in the United States were grazed by livestock in 2024, according to the American Solar Grazing Association. Sheep on solar farms do not typically interfere with solar infrastructure, and they’re small enough to easily get under most panel arrays. The panels offer shelter from storms and shade during heatwaves. There are, however, some “knowledge gaps” in the world of solar grazing, according to a 2025 study, which considers how the practice may affect local native biodiversity and parasite exposure.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/27699255

• Malawian households with fruit trees on their farms consumed more vegetables, and each additional tree species increased fruit consumption by 5% over a 10-year study period.
• Trees improve nutrition through direct consumption of fruits, ecosystem services that boost other crop production and potential income from sales, and they provide cooking fuel.
• Despite trees’ benefits, fruit and vegetable intake dropped 42% and 25%, respectively, due to rising food prices, currency devaluation and climate change.
• Researchers recommend including food-producing trees in Africa’s reforestation programs and shifting agricultural policies from focusing solely on staple grains to supporting diverse, nutritious crops.

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/27715941

Abstract

A sufficient intake of fruits can alleviate micronutrient deficiencies and reduces the risks of a number of associated diseases. In many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, however, the production and consumption of fruits are inadequate on average and in particular so in specific seasons. To better incorporate fruits into local food systems while addressing the challenge of seasonal availability, World Agroforestry (ICRAF) has developed a methodology based on “fruit tree portfolios” that selects socio-ecologically suitable and nutritionally important fruit tree species for farm production, to meet local consumption needs. We here present this approach and illustrate it with data from a case study involving Western and Eastern Kenya. The approach uses mixed methods to capture on-farm fruit tree diversity and seasonality at a household level (n = 600 in our case study), the months of household’s food security and insecurity (n = 600) and food consumption patterns at an individual level, to identify dietary gaps (n = 294 women and child pairs in our example). In our case study, 31 fruit tree species were reported on farms in our Western Kenya sample (9 of which were indigenous) and 51 (27 indigenous) in Eastern Kenya. In addition, the median number of food-insecure months per household was four (ranging from 0 to 9 months) in Eastern Kenya and three (0 to 12 months) in Western Kenya. Finally, using 24-h recalls the proportion of women that had consumed a fruit the day before the interview was around 55% in Western Kenya and 80% in Eastern Kenya, with consumption averaging 93 and 131 g, respectively. Using these parameters for each site and fruit tree phenology and food composition data sets, we derived context-specific recommendations that involve promoting 11 fruit tree species to address micronutrient gaps.

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/28002750

• Land restoration in Burkina Faso’s Centre-Ouest and Kadiogo regions is women’s work.
• Here, women have made fertilizer trees their indispensable allies in reviving farmland.
• Thanks to these nitrogen-fixing and shade-providing trees, they’re bringing degraded soils back to life.
• In Cassou and Bazoulé communes in Centre-Ouest, local women are breathing new life into an ancestral technique that boosts productivity and enriches biodiversity.

Maan Tagnan has planted several varieties of fertilizer trees in her field, including Albizia stipulata, Ferruginea and white acacia (Faidherbia albida). The acacia, known locally as zaanga, is revered by agroforesters, Zouré says. “It’s an off-season tree that sheds its leaves during the rainy season and provides shade in the dry season, making it essential for maintaining soil fertility in agroforestry systems,” he says.

archived (Wayback Machine)