Discover the world's scientific knowledge

In molecular biology, sharing data - via archiving sequences - is typical and most people realize that sharing data is a good thing, with the benefits of access to other people's data providing scope for greater scientific outputs than everyone holding onto their own data. In ecology we are slowly moving towards the expectation that papers publishing results should also publish the data (in e.g. Dryad). Bill Gates, at a meeting in Washington said, "no matter how smart you are, and how much you think you can get the most out of your data, there are always other smarter people out there who can get more out of it".

Following this logic, there is a G8-sponsored move called GODAN - G8 Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition - that is aiming to promote organisations and countries opening their data for global consumption. This may be sequence data, environmental data (e.g. soils, weather), social data and data on nutritional status. For me, this makes sense, the more data one has the better (especially from different times, places and management: closing yield gaps requires optimising Gene x Environment x Management interactions and therefore you need ExM data at fine spatial resolution).

However, some people have suggested that this is a dangerous initiative as those who are best positioned to exploit open data, especially for developing world solutions, are developed world institutions who have the power and resources to mine the data. Some of these will inevitably be "big ag". Thus the G8 initiative can be seen as potentially "neo-colonialist" in promoting an innovation landscape that may be most likely to be exploited by developed world institutions (even if in partnership with developing world ones".

So, my question to you is: do the benefits of sharing data outweigh the risks?

I am writing a paper about adopting alternative sustainable foods in Ethiopia but this food sustainability cannot easily be practiced due to cultural, religious, and individual perceptions of food. Do you know any other influential elements? How can they be avoided?

Is sustainable intensification useful to help in solving the problems of food?

This is a study how to uplift the morals of the farmers towards a sustainable agriculture that lead to address issues on food sc

I am considering a study on the entrepreneurial outlook of organic farmers in the Philippines relating to their culture and heritage and their vision towards a healthy and safe food supply.

Food waste is a hot topic at the moment. I'm looking for design solutions and studies of their effectiveness. Specifically for food waste occurring in households, so related to storing (e.g. packaging), preparing, and 'left-over management'.

The logic of “sustainable intensification” (SI) is that if demand for food is growing (and we can’t just “switch demand growth” off) then we need to grow more. If we want to do it without expanding the land area that is under agriculture (either because it is too valuable to use – such as tropical forests – or it is too marginal) then we need to grow more per unit area. Growing more per unit area is one definition of “intensification” (however you do it: with more technology, labour or inputs). However, any yield growth should be sustainable and not have negative impacts on environment or livelihoods, as well as being sustainable economically.

There has been a lot of debate about this concept (it is a concept, or an argument, rather than a hypothesis: the hypothesis is whether SI really possible, but that often comes down to how you define sustainable). For example, it has been said that it is a technocratic definition that implies the answers are in industrialised agriculture; that it is a contradiction in terms; and that it “reifies” demand, implying demand-side measures (such as reducing waste and over-consumption) have no place; and that it begs the question “what are you growing more or?”. Many authors, myself included, have emphasised that these criticisms are not inherent in the concept (e.g. Garnett et al 2013) and that as much thought needed to be put on the “sustainable” part as the “intensification” part. Nonetheless, the debate remains highly polarised.

So my question, RG friends, is to what extent is SI a useful framing? I have been asked to write a book chapter on SI and am interested in views articulating why people like or dislike the term. For information, I tend to use “sustainable food systems” in my discussions with stakeholders simply to avoid getting caught in ideologically-dependent framing discussions about whether SI is a contradiction of terms and whether proponents of it must, by definition, be “pro big biz farming”.

Aquaculture

I'm doing a research about permaculture and the impact on a sustainable agriculture and food system. I couldn't find that much literature.

Thanks.

Food production out-puts from cities can be significant and since urbanization is on the rise worldwide I would like to learn more specifically what is/are the impact/s of growing food in cities.