New Study: Apparently Home Gardening is Bad for the Environment

[Wildcat82]

I had always assumed home gardening was obviously good for the environment.

A new University of Michigan-led international study finds that fruits and vegetables grown in urban farms and gardens have a carbon footprint that is, on average, six times greater than conventionally grown produce.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/study ... rmed-food/

My first thought was that perhaps Big Ag or some climate lobby is helping to nudge the results of the study in one direction. Here's an opinion piece on the study. Some people fear the study might be used to restrict home food production.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/02/bra ... -own-food/

[karstopography]

I had always assumed home gardening was obviously good for the environment.

A new University of Michigan-led international study finds that fruits and vegetables grown in urban farms and gardens have a carbon footprint that is, on average, six times greater than conventionally grown produce.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/study ... rmed-food/

My first thought was that perhaps Big Ag or some climate lobby is helping to nudge the results of the study in one direction. Here's an opinion piece on the study. Some people fear the study might be used to restrict home food production.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/02/bra ... -own-food/

To borrow and modify another oft used phrase “they can have my garden fork when they pry it from my cold, dead hands”

[maxjohnson]

It's the C word again.

[worth1]

It all boils down to one thing.
Make people borrow money and stay in debt to the money lenders.
And that means not being self sufficient.
I'm afraid the future doesn't have much to hold for future generations but they won't know any better.

[karstopography]

If there’s any single and unifying theme being pushed by the climate action elites it is that the little guy just trying to live a life in the pursuit of happiness under a system that bestows relative freedom and liberty is enemy number one.

Them, the elites, will have their villas in Provence, their jets, their meetings in Davos, Aspen or wherever and all agree about the eminent threat that Joe Blow with his 50 square meters of tomatoes and squash pose to the entire planet.

Does anyone understand how ridiculous this all is?

[FatBeeFarm]

@karstopography I sure understand. Little guys don't drive climate change, corporate greed does. I suspect most of us were born at the right time for optimal freedom and happiness. Or maybe our parents were. I'm terrified of what climate change, AI, giant corporations, dictatorships and trilliionaires are bringing for my children and grandchildren. I'm just hoping to support a few bumblebees and grow a few cool tomatoes for the next few years before I shuffle off this mortal coil. 80% of the wildlife gone in my lifetime? I remember being an optimistic young Navy pilot fighting to make the world a safer place and a haven for democracy. How did I lose so badly? Eh, not the right place for this, sorry. I'm rooting for the bees though.

[zeuspaul]

To be fair they find the higher climate impacts are for urban farms, not home gardening. Not that I agree with their conclusions.

“Most of the climate impacts at urban farms are driven by the materials used to construct them — the infrastructure,” Goldstein said. “These farms typically only operate for a few years or a decade, so the greenhouse gases used to produce those materials are not used effectively. Conventional agriculture, on the other hand, is very efficient and hard to compete with.”

For example, conventional farms often grow a single crop with the help of pesticides and fertilizers, resulting in larger harvests and a reduced carbon footprint when compared to urban farms, he said.

https://record.umich.edu/articles/study ... rmed-food/

[worth1]

I used to go digging around in the old tire dumpsters at tire shops for a good free tire.
You can't even do that anymore and there were some darn good tires in there.
Darn kid working with me had to pay 600 dollars for one tire on credit.

[Wildcat82]

I used to go digging around in the old tire dumpsters at tire shops for a good free tire.
You can't even do that anymore and there were some darn good tires in there.
Darn kid working with me had to pay 600 dollars for one tire on credit.

Just yesterday I tried to buy a simple replacement tire for my cheapo fiberglass wheelbarrow. The replacement tire cost more than buying a new wheelbarrow.

[rxkeith]

i did not vote for whitmer, nor have i agreed with much of what she did during covid. i am not
up to date on any other stuff she has done recently, but she is probably pushing her liberal agenda.
while i do respect U of M, they have a good reputation in the academic world. they think they are
on the same par with ivy league schools, so are a little snooty you might say. i do believe they need
to leave environmental studies to michigan state university. msu has been informally called a cow college.
they are more agricultural. i will keep doing what i am doing, and ignore the academic experts.
i did not even use the rotor tiller last year. we kinda do our own thing in da U.P. anyway. that new study will
not be getting much mention i bet.



keith

[Cornelius_Gotchberg]

that new study will not be getting much mention i bet.



keith

It won't in these here parts!

The Gotch

[Moth1992]

I keep seeing news about the study regurgitating the same words but I havent been able to read the actual study. Its paywalled and it makes me nervous the lack of actual transparency about it.

[wykvlvr]

So what I have seen it says that home gardens make more carbon per food item or what ever they are using as a measure. What I haven't seen is if that smaller carbon footprint is ONLY for production or for production and distribution of food. Because it doesn't really matter how much smaller the carbon foot print for production is if they turn around and use 2 or 3 times more to get that food to the consumer. And I think this is where our home gardens excell. There is no carbon footprint for me to walk into my back yard and pick dinner.

[bower]

First of all, we have to remember it's just ONE study. One study does not a science make.
I know it's a problem when media takes a single study and turns it into the gospel. Well it's not.

There was a bit more detail given in the article about the study at Phys.org.
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-food-urba ... print.html
All the carbon footprint they're talking about is the build of urban gardens or home gardens having a big footprint (materials) while of course a big farm is just running big machines over big empty patches of ground. But the take away here is that urban farms or garden builds that last 20 years are paying down the footprint of the build.
The study itself assumes that the urban farm or garden is only going to last a few years or at most a decade. Which I think is wrong, and a big source of error plain as day. Obviously if you make this assumption, the building costs are going to add up to some multiple of "no build at all". A good garden build should last 20 years, I think. ??
Also, I have to wonder are they reckoning the footprint of building a tractor, combine, or other large machines for the "farm" footprint? Cause I think that would add up pretty quick compared to a few raised beds.

"The researchers identified three best practices crucial to making low-tech urban agriculture more carbon-competitive with conventional agriculture:

Extend infrastructure lifetimes. Extend the lifetime of UA materials and structures such as raised beds, composting infrastructure and sheds. A raised bed used for five years will have approximately four times the environmental impact, per serving of food, as a raised bed used for 20 years.

Use urban wastes as UA inputs. Conserve carbon by engaging in "urban symbiosis," which includes giving a second life to used materials, such as construction debris and demolition waste, that are unsuitable for new construction but potentially useful for UA. The most well-known symbiotic relationship between cities and UA is composting. The category also includes using rainwater and recycled gray water for irrigation.

Generate high levels of social benefits. In a survey conducted for the study, UA farmers and gardeners overwhelmingly reported improved mental health, diet and social networks. While increasing these "nonfood outputs" of UA does not reduce its carbon footprint, "growing spaces which maximize social benefits can outcompete conventional agriculture when UA benefits are considered holistically," according to the study authors. "

Something to think about when designing the next hanging gardens of Babylon.

@Moth1992 I found a link to the article, no paywall. Haven't read it yet but here it is.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3

[zeuspaul]

It seems to be about the infrastructure of UA (Urban Agriculture). Raised beds are part of the problem??

My raised beds are made from native rock found on my property. What's the carbon footprint of native rock? Some of my gardens had some initial prep work done with a tractor (conventional agriculture also uses tractors but more than just initial prep). After that it is hand tools. My container garden has plastic containers and some wire cages. I do compost but do so without a structure. My garden shed is my garage. So big AG is so much better than me with their continuous use of tractors and planes flying over their crops, huge garden sheds and their use of trucks to deliver their products but me and my plastic containers are the problem? At least they admit Taken as a whole, there remain serious knowledge gaps with respect to the environmental performance of low-tech UA. Perhaps that should have been the headline.

How UA compares with conventional agriculture depends on the crops grown, growing systems and local climate3. It is unclear what forms of UA are environmentally friendly, because case studies of individual cities typically only assess one form of UA4,5,6. Environmental footprints of UA remain scarce, and most that have been published so far have prioritized high-tech, energy-intensive forms of UA1 (for example, vertical farms and rooftop greenhouses) in lieu of open-air, soil-based forms (referred to here as ‘low-tech UA’), which comprise the bulk of food-growing spaces in cities7,8. A recent systematic review found that only a third of environmental assessments have assessed low-tech UA1.

Furthermore, although existing research suggests that low-tech UA may produce total greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGs) per serving of vegetables similar to conventional agriculture1,3, these findings are undermined by numerous shortcomings. Sample sizes are often small1. Studies with large sample sizes only consider the amounts and types of resource used and not environmental impacts (for example, GHGs)9,10,11. When impacts are considered, studies report them per kilogram of total harvest and not per crop or food group1. Lastly, low data representativeness is common. For example, some studies incorrectly assume that the only difference between UA and conventional agriculture is transport distance12,13. Taken as a whole, there remain serious knowledge gaps with respect to the environmental performance of low-tech UA.

<snips>

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3

[Moth1992]

Thanks @bower !

Well the sample size of what they call urban agriculture is not great, and the results are barely statistically significant.

Additionally, its interesting to see that the main carbon footprint they are allocating to urban agriculture is because of economies of scale. Small farming spaces that grow organically need more infrastructure per crop and produce less food per crop.

Its hard for me to believe that the infrastructure footprint is still enough to offset the freight and out of season greenhouse growing of supermarket food. But its again a matter of scale.

Also by measuring the carbon footprint per portion of food and comparing them they are treating urban agriculture and conventional agriculture as alternative options. And that to me is not sensible. We know we cant produce at the same scale in an urban environment. Individual gardeners grow food not for quantity but for quality.

If they measured the carbon footprint per units of taste instead of per units of mass production im sure we would have a different result.

[JRinPA]

Units of taste, nice.
Studies will say whatever they want them to.
The big $$$ that will fund a study to try to show that home gardening is bad really won't care what your soylent green tastes like.
They don't want you working in the garden, they want you driving an amazon van and paying $75 for a week of lunches.

[bower]

Yeah @Moth1992 there are some big sloppy brushstrokes based on samples of 9 collective gardens and 7 urban farms. All the talk that is about averages is not too meaningful. They had gardens that were carbon equivalent or better than conventional farms, in their sample. And they said they could all be as good as the conventional farm footprint if they used waste material from construction for the build.
The short lifespan of infrastructure (up to 10 years) they cited is due to developers moving in on open areas and bulldozing it to build a hotel or such. While it does make sense to get better land security for urban agriculture, as they suggested, it makes no sense to apply the same lifespan to home gardens, which made up most of the actual sample. (at least I think it's harder to get permits to bulldoze homes, in general). Either way, they attributed this short lifespan to existing gardens, so it's not a real data point for the data set.

They had some stunning emissions reported for compost, which really surprised me. Composting can be anaerobic if it's not turned or structured properly, and they seemed to be saying most of the composting was not properly done. But I didn't manage to get the actual data sheet to see how that data was collected or what the statement was based on. Did the citizen scientist volunteers actually measure emissions from the gardens' compost piles? IDK .
They did not estimate a neutralizing value for carbon sequestered by adding all that compost to the soil - which is ludicrous really, although they excused due to difficulty of measuring or estimating that. It can be estimated, just as well as other things were estimated IMO. So that's not good enough if you're in the business of figuring the carbon footprint, and comparing gardens that use mainly or entirely compost to conventional agriculture which is using entirely chemical ferts and sequestering no carbon at all.
But as I said before, every study has its limits and flaws, and we have to expect that. Tk goodness for access to the full text though!

[GoDawgs]

More blather generated by data from a way too small sample. They can all take my raised beds and shove 'em sideways.

[worth1]

What a complete and total waste of money that is from donations.
Same BS most of these single minded people come up with.
We need more polymaths in the world not university generated monomaths.