Co-Benefits of Largescale Organic farming On huMan health (BLOOM): Protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled evaluation of the Andhra Pradesh Community-managed Natural Farming programme in India.

The BLOOM study (co-Benefits of Largescale Organic farming On huMan health) aims to determine if a government-implemented agroecology programme reduces pesticide exposure and improves dietary diversity in agricultural households. To achieve this aim, a community-based, cluster-randomised controlled evaluation of the Andhra Pradesh Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) programme will be conducted in 80 clusters (40 intervention and 40 control) across four districts of Andhra Pradesh state in south India. Approximately 34 households per cluster will be randomly selected for screening and enrolment into the evaluation at baseline. The two primary outcomes, measured 12 months post-baseline assessment, are urinary pesticide metabolites in a 15% random subsample of participants and dietary diversity in all participants. Both primary outcomes will be measured in (1) adult men ≥18 years old, (2) adult women ≥18 years old, and (3) children <38 months old at enrolment. Secondary outcomes measured in the same households include crop yields, household income, adult anthropometry, anaemia, glycaemia, kidney function, musculoskeletal pain, clinical symptoms, depressive symptoms, women's empowerment, and child growth and development. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis with an a priori secondary analysis to estimate the per-protocol effect of APCNF on the outcomes. The BLOOM study will provide robust evidence of the impact of a large-scale, transformational government-implemented agroecology programme on pesticide exposure and dietary diversity in agricultural households. It will also provide the first evidence of the nutritional, developmental, and health co-benefits of adopting agroecology, inclusive of malnourishment as well as common chronic diseases. Trial registration: Study registration: ISRCTN 11819073 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11819073). Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2021/08/035434.

Resource requirements for ecosystem conservation: A combined industrial and natural ecology approach to quantifying natural capital use in nature.

Socioeconomic demand for natural capital is causing catastrophic losses of biodiversity and ecosystem functionality, most notably in regions where socioeconomic-and eco-systems compete for natural capital, e.g., energy (animal or plant matter). However, a poor quantitative understanding of what natural capital is needed to support biodiversity in ecosystems, while at the same time satisfy human development needs-those associated with human development within socioeconomic systems-undermines our ability to sustainably manage global stocks of natural capital. Here we describe a novel concept and accompanying methodology (relating the adult body mass of terrestrial species to their requirements for land area, water, and energy) to quantify the natural capital needed to support terrestrial species within ecosystems, analogous to how natural capital use by humans is quantified in a socioeconomic context. We apply this methodology to quantify the amount of natural capital needed to support species observed using a specific surveyed site in Scotland. We find that the site can support a larger assemblage of species than those observed using the site; a primary aim of the rewilding project taking place there. This method conceptualises, for the first time, a comprehensive "dual-system" approach: modelling natural capital use in socioeconomic-and eco-systems simultaneously. It can facilitate the management of natural capital at the global scale, and in both the conservation and creation (e.g., rewilding) of biodiversity within managed ecosystems, representing an advancement in determining what socioeconomic trade-offs are needed to achieve contemporary conservation targets alongside ongoing human development.

Impact of large-scale, government legislated and funded organic farming training on pesticide use in Andhra Pradesh, India: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The use of pesticides in agriculture has been associated with the destruction of biodiversity and damage to human health. A marked reduction in pesticide use is urgently required globally, but whether this can be achieved rapidly and at scale is unclear. We aimed to assess whether government-legislated and funded organic farming training in Andhra Pradesh, India, reduced pesticide use by farmers and sales of pesticides by pesticide retailers. METHODS: We did a cross-sectional survey between Aug 11 and Nov 26, 2020, among farmers and pesticide retailers in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh (India). We assessed the impact of the Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming (APCNF) programme, which aims to transition 100% of the agricultural land of Andhra Pradesh (population approximately 49 million, 6 million of whom are farmers) to organic farming practices by 2030. We did cross-sectional phone interview surveys of farmers and face-to-face surveys of pesticide retailers. We used multivariable Poisson regression models to estimate relative risks (RRs) and logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs). FINDINGS: 962 farmers were invited to participate, of whom 894 (93%) consented (709 conventional farmers and 149 APCNF farmers). 47 pesticide retailers were invited to participate, of whom 38 (81%) consented. APCNF farmers had practised APCNF for a median of 2 years (IQR 1-3). APCNF farmers were less likely to use pesticides than conventional farmers (adjusted RR 0·65 [95% CI 0·57-0·75]), although pesticide use remained high among both APCNF and conventional farmers (73 [49%] of 148 APCNF farmers vs 695 [99%] of 700 conventional farmers; p<0·0001). APCNF farmers had lower pesticide expenditures than conventional farmers (median US$0 [IQR 0-170] for APCNF farmers vs $175 [91-281] for conventional farmers; p=0·0001). Increased frequency of meeting with agricultural extension workers was associated with reduced pesticide use among ACPNF farmers. Seven (18%) of 38 retailers reported a decrease in sales of pesticides in the past 4 years; no difference in the odds of reporting a decrease in pesticide sales in the past 4 years was identified between APCNF retailers and conventional retailers (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·58-1·57]). INTERPRETATION: Despite a major government drive for organic agriculture, about half of APCNF farmers continued to use pesticides and no impact on pesticide sales at local retailers was observed. A combination of policy instruments (eg, bans on highly hazardous pesticides), not solely training for farmers, might be needed to eliminate pesticide use in agriculture. FUNDING: Scottish Funding Council and UK Research and Innovation.

The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming.

How we manage farming and food systems to meet rising demand is pivotal to the future of biodiversity. Extensive field data suggest impacts on wild populations would be greatly reduced through boosting yields on existing farmland so as to spare remaining natural habitats. High-yield farming raises other concerns because expressed per unit area it can generate high levels of externalities such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and nutrient losses. However, such metrics underestimate the overall impacts of lower-yield systems, so here we develop a framework that instead compares externality and land costs per unit production. Applying this to diverse datasets describing the externalities of four major farm sectors reveals that, rather than involving trade-offs, the externality and land costs of alternative production systems can co-vary positively: per unit production, land-efficient systems often produce lower externalities. For GHG emissions these associations become more strongly positive once forgone sequestration is included. Our conclusions are limited: remarkably few studies report externalities alongside yields; many important externalities and farming systems are inadequately measured; and realising the environmental benefits of high-yield systems typically requires additional measures to limit farmland expansion. Yet our results nevertheless suggest that trade-offs among key cost metrics are not as ubiquitous as sometimes perceived.

The sustainability of changes in agricultural technology: The carbon, economic and labour implications of mechanisation and synthetic fertiliser use.

New agricultural technologies bring multiple impacts which are hard to predict. Two changes taking place in Indian agriculture are a transition from bullocks to tractors and an associated replacement of manure with synthetic fertilisers. This paper uses primary data to model social, environmental and economic impacts of these transitions in South India. It compares ploughing by bullocks or tractors and the provision of nitrogen from manure or synthetic urea for irrigated rice from the greenhouse gas (GHG), economic and labour perspective. Tractors plough nine times faster than bullocks, use substantially less labour, with no significant difference in GHG emissions. Tractors are twice as costly as bullocks yet remain more popular to hire. The GHG emissions from manure-N paddy are 30 % higher than for urea-N, largely due to the organic matter in manure driving methane emissions. Labour use is significantly higher for manure, and the gender balance is more equal. Manure is substantially more expensive as a source of nutrients compared to synthetic nutrients, yet remains popular when available. This paper demonstrates the need to take a broad approach to analysing the sustainability impacts of new technologies, as trade-offs between different metrics are common.