Growing Green Awards: Fifth-Generation Farmer Shares His Success Raising Pigs Sustainably and Antibiotic-Free
By Russ Kremer
The food we eat every day is intimately connected to our health and the health of the environment. Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) fifth annual Growing Green Awards celebrates the food producers, businesses, activists and bold thinkers who are making America’s food system healthier and more sustainable.
This year’s winners were selected from more than 200 nominees in the categories of food producer, business leader, food justice leader and young food leader by a panel of sustainable food and agriculture thought-leaders, including Michael Anthony, executive chef and partner at New York’s long-established and celebrated Gramercy Tavern; Gabe Brown, internationally-recognized soil health champion and 2012 Growing Green Award Food Producer winner; Marion Nestle, award-winning food policy author, professor and one of the nation’s most influential food thought-leaders; and Nell Newman, co-founder and president of Newman’s Own Organics.
This guest post originally appeared on OnEarth. It is one of four by the winners of NRDC’s fifth annual Growing Green Awards, which celebrate the farmers, business owners and bold thinkers who are making America’s food system healthier and more sustainable. See posts from all winners here.
I have a passion for pigs. It started back when I was five years-old, as I cared for the runt and orphaned pigs on our 220-acre family farm in Osage County, Missouri. From being the son of five generations of farmers to a student of animal husbandry, to the owner of my own farm, I’ve always had pigs on the brain. But I never expected the pigs I raised—and most importantly, how I raised them—to send me to the hospital, in a fight for my life.
Growing up in the 60s and 70s in the small rural town of Frankenstein, Missouri, I saw firsthand how essential independent family farms are to rural communities. Loyal residents put money back into the community, supporting farms and our main street businesses. Farmers thrived and cherished their work, and it was this love for farming that drove me back home to the family farm after studying at the University of Missouri.
Fresh from college, I set out with grand plans for our farm. The pork industry was changing, as farmers consolidated and concentrated their operations using modern technologies. These were the technologies and systems standard in the industry today: sub-therapeutic antibiotics and other additives in feed to speed growth performance, tightly confined gestation and farrowing crates, slatted floors, waste lagoons and deep indoor pits, and early weaning of pigs. It didn’t take long for me to convince my dad that we needed to expand the swine enterprise, following these conventional industry standards. So we built confinement hog buildings, increased our herd, and started the concentrated hog farming process.
Within a few years, I knew something was dangerously wrong. Crammed together in unhealthy conditions, our pigs got sick and died at every stage of production. I spent a large portion of my day treating sick pigs and carrying off dead ones that succumbed to a myriad of enteritis, respiratory, reproductive, and arthritic diseases. Tests revealed that these illnesses were caused by deadly superbugs—pathogens resistant to almost all antibiotics available to me, including numerous human antibiotics. It was clear that I was running out of options, but I didn’t fully see the consequences of my farming practices until 1989.
That spring, I was gored in the knee cap by a Yorkshire boar as I drove him toward a pen of breeding gilts. Farming injuries aren’t uncommon, so I put off going to the doctor for three weeks. By that time, my infected leg had swollen to nearly twice its normal size. I was diagnosed with an infection caused by streptococcus bacteria, and assured that penicillin would soon cure me. It didn’t. The penicillin had absolutely no effect on my infection, nor did subsequent treatments of streptomycin, erythromycin, amoxicillin, or tetracycline. If we didn’t find a cure soon, I was going to die.
Then it hit me—this antibiotic-resistant superbug had come from my pigs, which had gotten sick because of my own farming decisions. In part, I was responsible for this. I created this superbug. And now I was fighting to control the same superbug now taking over my body. I immediately consulted with my doctor and a serology test on my infection proved that the bacteria had indeed spread from my pigs. Finally, after being treated with the human form of cephalosporin, the lone antibiotic that could kill the bacteria on my farm, I was on the mend.
As I recovered from my near-death illness (that lasted two months), I was overwhelmed and haunted with remorse for participating in a system of farming that threatened the health of my consumers, the welfare of my animals, and the environment. Vowing to take a better path, I immediately began to create a new, sustainable farming operation.
I started over and returned to the start, raising pigs the natural, old-fashioned way—free-roaming and without drugs on a 150-acre farm that I had purchased from my great aunt. It was a secluded, clean location with natural barriers of wooded hillsides and ridge tops. I built pig housing out of my own sustainably produced lumber, incorporating deep bedding, natural ventilation, and lots of area for the hogs to move around unrestricted. Rather than confining my hogs in crates, I built paddocks to rotationally graze pigs on meadows and woodlands. I purchased healthy, C-section derived breeding hogs and preserved my heirloom genetics through embryo transfer. Taking lessons from my grandfather’s generation, I designed a wholesome, natural feeding program: free of any antibiotics, meat byproducts, steroids, or any unnecessary chemicals or additives. The feed changed too. My pigs started eating farm-grown whole grains, natural fibers, and herbs, including, oat, flax, cinnamon, oregano, and probiotics and enzymes.
In short, my new system was sustainable, holistic, and diversified. I replaced sub-therapeutic antibiotics and other production crutches with humane production and handling, less animal concentration, proper nutrition, and a selected cross-breeding system using healthy, diversified heritage varieties.
The sustainable strategy worked. My pigs have been drug-free since 1989. After weaning, my pigs survive at a rate of nearly 99 percent. Our feed efficiency is at industry standards. I have virtually eliminated the $16,000 that I was previously wasting each year in veterinarian and animal treatment-related costs. But the greatest fulfillment for me is the sense that I did this simply because it is the right thing to do.
My objective remains to eliminate any fear or stress on my animals. My pigs are healthy and happy, and it’s a joy to be around them. I no longer fill my days with the tedious chores of treating pigs, cutting tails, and clipping needle teeth. And realizing the benefits myself, I was determined to prove that this type of sustainable farming was profitable for other pork producers, even as the industry sped in the other direction.
Throughout the 1990s, the pork industry continued on its fast track toward consolidation and vertical integration. Independent pork producers like me were increasingly considered residual suppliers to the large pork packers. They had production contracts with most of their suppliers, leaving independent producers vulnerable to market forces. This reality crashed down in 1998, when the bid for market hogs dipped to as low as 8 cents per pound of dress carcass weight—in other words, Depression-era prices. Lots of producers left the business. Some of us stuck around, determined to explore alternative marketing systems and ensure opportunities for the next generation.
I first discovered the sustainable food movement while traveling to Europe in 1999. In the United Kingdom, I watched as consumers asked who produced their food, where it was produced, and exactly how. Farmers that raised animals the right way were heralded by consumers as rock stars. In Italy, I witnessed the Slow Food Movement, and in Germany, I learned of new holistic and homeopathic remedies from a cooperative of 100 farmers who produced hogs without antibiotics. It became clear that, in order to remain competitive, small and mid-sized farmers in the U.S. needed these kinds of thoughtful and authentic relationships with their consumers.
Once my feet were back on American soil, I organized a farmer-owned pork cooperative called the Ozark Mountain Pork Cooperative. We recruited 52 farm families that shared the vision of raising and processing hogs in a humane, sustainable way, and created a small, community based processing plant in the Ozarks. Artisan processors joined us to produce our pork with integrity, treating all participants in the value chain with dignity.
To build our customer base, I drew inspiration from the farmer-consumer relationships I witnessed in Europe, and we started knocking on doors. I told our story and showed our high quality products to potential customers. Because of these efforts, we’ve been able to cultivate relationships with loyal, strategic customers including Whole Foods Market, Chipotle Mexican Grill, D’artagnan, La Quercia, Costco and Chef’s Warehouse.
Today, through our cooperative effort with brands Heritage Foods and Fork in the Road, we have built a profitable vertically coordinated production, marketing and distribution system. It truly is an equitable food system because everyone in our value chain can make a fair profit, from our customer partners to our farm families. Our consumers know that fair compensation is necessary to sustain a safe, consistent supply of sustainably and humanely raised meats, processed by community-based artisans. And the best part is that our system is trans-generational—there is profitability to encourage the next generation to carry on and strive for these superior sustainable production models. I honestly feel that we produce the healthiest, safest and best tasting pork that comes from humane, sustainable and environmentally friendly farm families.
Receiving NRDC’s Growing Green Food Producer Award is a tremendous honor. I share this with the many farmers who have had the courage to buck the trend of conventional production by transforming their operations and build a better path forward. I also share this honor with the many consumers who support sustainable farming with their wallets and flex their citizen muscles to push for government protections that prevent reckless use of antibiotics on the farm. With this award, I continue to share my life’s purpose to educate, demonstrate and evangelize the need for sustainable food systems that public health first. There’s no greater joy than to give life to these new models of hope.
Visit EcoWatch’s SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE page for more related news on this topic.
Google's New Timelapse Shows 37 Years of Climate Change Anywhere on Earth, Including Your Neighborhood
Google Earth's latest feature allows you to watch the climate change in four dimensions.
The new feature, called Timelapse, is the biggest update to Google Earth since 2017. It is also, as far as its developers know, the largest video taken of Earth on Earth. The feature compiles 24 million satellite photos taken between 1984 and 2020 to show how human activity has transformed the planet over the past 37 years.
"Visual evidence can cut to the core of the debate in a way that words cannot and communicate complex issues to everyone," Google Earth Director Rebecca Moore wrote in a blog post Thursday.
Moore herself has been directly impacted by the climate crisis. She was one of many Californians evacuated because of wildfires last year. However, the new feature allows people to witness more remote changes, such as the melting of ice caps.
"With Timelapse in Google Earth, we have a clearer picture of our changing planet right at our fingertips — one that shows not just problems but also solutions, as well as mesmerizingly beautiful natural phenomena that unfold over decades," she wrote.
Some climate impacts that viewers can witness include the melting of 12 miles of Alaska's Columbia Glacier between 1984 and 2020, Fortune reported. They can also watch the disintegration of the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica. The changes are not limited to the impacts of global warming, however.
Moore said the developers had identified five themes, and Google Earth offers a guided tour for each of them. They are:
- Forest change, such as deforestation in Bolivia for soybean farming
- Urban growth, such as the quintupling of Las Vegas sprawl
- Warming temperatures, such as melting glaciers and ice sheets
- Sources of energy, such as the impacts of coal mining on Wyoming's landscape
- Fragile beauty, such as the flow of Bolivia's Mamoré River
However, the feature also allows you to see smaller-scale change. You can enter any location into the search bar, including your local neighborhood, CNN explained. The feature does not offer the detail of Street View, Gizmodo noted. It is intended to show large changes over time, rather than smaller details like the construction of a road or home.
The images for Timelapse were made possible through collaboration with NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey's Landsat satellites and the European Union's Copernicus program and Sentinel satellites. Carnegie Mellon University's CREATE Lab helped develop the technology.
To use Timelapse, you can either visit g.co/Timelapse directly or click on the Ship's Wheel icon in Google Earth, then select Timelapse. Moore said the feature would be updated annually with new images of Earth's alterations.
"We hope that this perspective of the planet will ground debates, encourage discovery and shift perspectives about some of our most pressing global issues," she wrote.
- Scientists Use Google Earth and Crowdsourcing to Map Uncharted ... ›
- Google Doodle Celebrates Earth Day by Highlighting Six Unique ... ›
- 5 Fascinating Google Earth Time-Lapse Images Show 32 Years of ... ›
By Asher Rosinger
Imagine seeing a news report about lead contamination in drinking water in a community that looks like yours. It might make you think twice about whether to drink your tap water or serve it to your kids – especially if you also have experienced tap water problems in the past.
In a new study, my colleagues Anisha Patel, Francesca Weaks and I estimate that approximately 61.4 million people in the U.S. did not drink their tap water as of 2017-2018. Our research, which was released in preprint format on April 8, 2021, and has not yet been peer reviewed, found that this number has grown sharply in the past several years.
Other research has shown that about 2 million Americans don't have access to clean water. Taking that into account, our findings suggest that about 59 million people have tap water access from either their municipality or private wells or cisterns, but don't drink it. While some may have contaminated water, others may be avoiding water that's actually safe.
Water insecurity is an underrecognized but growing problem in the U.S. Tap water distrust is part of the problem. And it's critical to understand what drives it, because people who don't trust their tap water shift to more expensive and often less healthy options, like bottled water or sugary drinks.
I'm a human biologist and have studied water and health for the past decade in places as diverse as Lowland Bolivia and northern Kenya. Now I run the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University. To understand water issues, I talk to people and use large datasets to see whether a problem is unique or widespread, and stable or growing.
An Epidemic of Distrust
According to our research, there's a growing epidemic of tap water distrust and disuse in the U.S. In a 2020 study, anthropologist Sera Young and I found that tap water avoidance was declining before the Flint water crisis that began in 2014. In 2015-2016, however, it started to increase again for children.
Our new study found that in 2017-2018, the number of Americans who didn't drink tap water increased at an alarmingly high rate, particularly for Black and Hispanic adults and children. Since 2013-2014 – just before the Flint water crisis began – the prevalence of adults who do not drink their tap water has increased by 40%. Among children, not consuming tap has risen by 63%.
To calculate this change, we used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative survey that releases data in two-year cycles. Sampling weights that use demographic characteristics ensure that the people being sampled are representative of the broader U.S. population.
Racial Disparities in Tap Water Consumption
Communities of color have long experienced environmental injustice across the U.S. Black, Hispanic and Native American residents are more likely to live in environmentally disadvantaged neighborhoods, with exposure to water that violates quality standards.
Our findings reflect these experiences. We calculated that Black and Hispanic children and adults are two to three times more likely to report not drinking their tap water than members of white households. In 2017-2018, roughly 3 out of 10 Black adults and children and nearly 4 of 10 Hispanic adults and children didn't drink their tap water. Approximately 2 of 10 Asian Americans didn't drink from their tap, while only 1 of 10 white Americans didn't drink their tap water.
When children don't drink any water on a given day, research shows that they consume twice as many calories from sugary drinks as children who drink water. Higher sugary drink consumption increases risk of cavities, obesity and cardiometabolic diseases. Drinking tap water provides fluoride, which lowers the risk of cavities. Relying on water alternatives is also much more expensive than drinking tap water.
A4: Choosing to drink fluoridated tap water over sugar-sweetened beverages to quench thirst is vital to protecting… https://t.co/3tm8wuWjeZ— Oral Health Watch (@Oral Health Watch)1600795750.0
What Erodes Trust
News reports – particularly high-visibility events like advisories to boil water – lead people to distrust their tap water even after the problem is fixed. For example, a 2019 study showed that water quality violations across the U.S. between 2006 and 2015 led to increases in bottled water purchases in affected counties as a way to avoid tap water, and purchase rates remained elevated after the violation.
The Flint water crisis drew national attention to water insecurity, even though state and federal regulators were slow to respond to residents' complaints there. Soon afterward, lead contamination was found in the water supply of Newark, New Jersey; the city is currently replacing all lead service lines under a legal settlement. Elsewhere, media outlets and advocacy groups have reported finding tap water samples contaminated with industrial chemicals, lead, arsenic and other contaminants.
Many other factors can cause people to distrust their water supply, including smell, taste and appearance, as well as lower income levels. Location is also an issue: Older U.S. cities with aging infrastructure are more prone to water shutoffs and water quality problems.
It's important not to blame people for distrusting what comes out of their tap, because those fears are rooted in history. In my view, addressing water insecurity requires a two-part strategy: ensuring that everyone has access to clean water, and increasing trust so people who have safe water will use it.
As part of his proposed infrastructure plan, President Joe Biden is asking Congress for $111 billion to improve water delivery systems, replace lead pipelines and tackle other contaminants. The plan also proposes improvements for small water systems and underserved communities.
These are critical steps to rebuild trust. Yet, in my view, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should also provide better public education about water quality testing and targeted interventions for vulnerable populations, such as children and underserved communities. Initiatives to simplify and improve water quality reports can help people understand what's in their water and what they can do if they think something is wrong with it.
Who delivers those messages is important. In areas like Flint, where former government officials have been indicted on charges including negligence and perjury in connection with the water crisis, the government's word alone won't rebuild trust. Instead, community members can fill this critical role.
Another priority is the 13%-15% of Americans who rely on private well water, which is not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These households are responsible for their own water quality testing. Public funding would help them test it regularly and address any problems.
Public distrust of tap water in the U.S. reflects decades of policies that have reduced access to reliable, safe drinking water in communities of color. Fixing water lines is important, but so is giving people confidence to turn on the tap.
Asher Rosinger is an assistant professor of biobehavioral health, anthropology, and demography and director of the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Penn State University.
Disclosure statement: Asher Rosinger receives funding from the National Science Foundation on an unrelated project. This work was supported by the Ann Atherton Hertzler Early Career Professorship funds, and the Penn State Population Research Institute (NICHD P2CHD041025). The funders had no role in the research or interpretation of results.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- Life-Saving Drinking Water Disinfectants Have a 'Dark Side ... ›
- Tap Water Safety: There's Good News and Bad News - EcoWatch ›
- How Healthy Is America's Public Health Infrastructure? - EcoWatch ›
- 170 Million Americans Drink Radioactive Tap Water - EcoWatch ›
- Report: 64% of Bottled Water Is Tap Water, Costs 2000x More ... ›
A new report promoting urgent climate action in Australia has stirred debate for claiming that global temperatures will rise past 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next decade.
Australia's Climate Council released the report on Thursday. The council is an independent organization of climate scientists and experts on health, renewable energy and policy who work to inform the Australian public on the climate crisis. But their latest claim is causing controversy.
"Multiple lines of evidence show that limiting global warming to 1.5°C above the preindustrial level, without significant overshoot and subsequent drawdown, is now out of reach due to past inaction," Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Prof. Christopher Field of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment wrote in the foreword. "The science is telling us that global average temperature rise will likely exceed 1.5°C during the 2030s, and that long-term stabilization at warming at or below 1.5°C will be extremely challenging."
The report is titled "Aim high, go fast: Why emissions need to plummet this decade," and as the name suggests, it is ultimately concerned with urging more robust climate action on the part of the Australian government. The report calls for the country to reduce emissions by 75 percent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035 in order to achieve the long-term goals of the Paris agreement, which means limiting warming to well below two degrees Celsius.
"The world achieving net zero by 2050 is at least a decade too late and carries a strong risk of irreversible global climate disruption at levels inconsistent with maintaining well-functioning human societies," the authors wrote.
The report further argues that global temperatures are likely to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius in the 2030s based on existing temperature increases; locked-in warming from emissions that have already occurred; evidence from past climate changes and the percentage of the carbon budget that has already been used.
The report isn't a call to give up on the Paris agreement. It is possible that global temperatures could swell past 1.5 degrees Celsius but still be reduced by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even if temperatures do exceed 1.5 degrees, every degree of warming that can be prevented makes a difference.
"Basically we can still hold temperature rise to well below 2C and do that without overshoot and drawdown," Will Steffen, lead report author from the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, told Australia's ABC News. "Every tenth of a degree actually does matter — 1.8C is better than 1.9C, and is much better than 2C."
However, some outside scientists question both the accuracy and effectiveness of the report's claim. Both Adjunct Professor Bill Hare from Murdoch University and Dr. Carl-Freidrich Schleussner from Humboldt University told ABC News they have been trying to contact the Climate Council about its 1.5 overshoot claim for months. They said that it went against other major reports, including the UN Environment Program Gap Report and the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on 1.5˚C.
"The big challenge their report reinforces is the need for urgent action to get on that 1.5C pathway, [so] it's very paradoxical to me that they've chosen to attack that target," Dr. Hare told ABC News.
However, Scientist Andy Pitman from the Center of Excellence for Climate Extremes at the University of New South Wales told The Guardian that the report's assessment was correct.
"It's simply not possible to limit warming to 1.5C now," he said. "There's too much inertia in the system and even if you stopped greenhouse gas emissions today, you would still reach 1.5C [of heating]."
However, one aspect everyone agreed on involved the importance of lowering emissions as soon as possible.
"[There is] absolute fundamental agreement on the task at hand, which is to get emissions to plummet," Simon Bradshaw, report author and Climate Council head of research, told The Guardian.
French winemakers are facing devastating grape loss from the worst frost in decades, preceded by unusually warm temperatures, highlighting the dangers to the sector posed by climate change.
"An important share of the harvest has been lost. It's too early to give a percentage estimate, but in any case it's a tragedy for the winegrowers who have been hit," said Christophe Chateau, director of communications at the Bordeaux Wine Council, told CNN.
Climate change, caused by the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels, has pushed winegrowing seasons earlier, putting crops at higher risk of cold — and wildfires supercharged by climate change also threaten American vignerons and farmworkers as well.
"I think it's good for people to understand that this is nature, climate change is real, and to be conscious of the effort that goes into making wine and the heartbreak that is the loss of a crop," Jeremy Seysses of Domaine Dujac in Burgundy's Côte de Nuits told Wine Enthusiast.
As reported by Wine Enthusiast:
Last week, images of candlelit French vineyards flooded social media. Across the country, winemakers installed bougies, or large wax-filled metal pots, among the vines to prevent cold air from settling in during an especially late frost.
With temperatures in early April as low as 22°F, and following an unseasonably warm March, this year's frost damage may be the worst in history for French winegrowers. Every corner of France reports considerable losses, from Champagne to Provence, and Côtes de Gascogne to Alsace. As a result, there will likely be very little French wine from the 2021 vintage reaching U.S. shores.
For a deeper dive:
- Climate Crisis Could Destroy Most Vineyards - EcoWatch ›
- Sustainable Wine Is Less Damaging to the Environment, But How ... ›
- In Europe, Climate Change Brings New Crops and Ideas - EcoWatch ›
- California Winery Cuts Carbon Emissions With Lighter Bottles ... ›
Climate change could make it harder to find a good cup of coffee, new research finds. A changing climate might shrink suitable areas for specialty coffee production without adaptation, making coffee taste blander and impacting the livelihoods of small farms in the Global South.
Published in Scientific Reports on Wednesday, the study focused on regions in Ethiopia, Africa's largest coffee-producing nation. Although studies have previously documented the impact of climate change on coffee production, what's less understood is how varying climates could change the flavors of specialty coffee, the researchers wrote.
The team aimed to fill this gap. Their results provide a glimpse into how future climate change could impact local regions and economies that rely on coffee cultivation, underscoring the value of local adaptation measures.
Researchers analyzed how 19 different climate factors, such as mean temperatures and rainfall levels, would affect the cultivation of five distinct specialty coffee types in the future, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) reported. Although researchers found that areas suitable for growing "average quality coffee" may actually increase over time with climate change, regions where specialty coffee is grown will shrink — a pending problem in light of the global demand for high-quality coffee.
"This is an issue not just for coffee lovers, but for local agricultural value creation," Abel Chemura, the study's lead author, told the PIK.
Coffee profiles rely on specific climate patterns for their unique flavors, levels of acidity and fragrances. But in a warmer climate, the coffee cherry — the fruit picked from a coffee plant — matures faster than the bean inside, making for a lower quality cup of coffee, the PIK reported.
For example, the sought-after Yirgacheffe variety of coffee, which is cultivated in southwestern Ethiopia, could lose more than 40 percent of its suitable growth area by the end of the century, PIK reported. This could impact small farms and threaten Ethiopia's economy, the researchers noted.
"If one or more coffee regions lose their specialty status due to climate change this has potentially grave ramifications for the smallholder farmers in the region," Christoph Gornott, co-author of the study, told the PIK. "If they were forced to switch to growing conventional, less palatable and bitter coffee types, they would all of the sudden compete with industrial production systems elsewhere that are more efficient." In a country where coffee exports account for nearly a third of all agricultural exports, "this could prove fatal," Gornott added.
Climate change impacts on coffee production are not unique to Ethiopia. In Columbia's mountainous coffee-growing regions, temperatures are warming by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit every decade, according to Yale Environment 360. Extreme levels of precipitation, which are becoming more common, also impact production, as they spread insect and fungal diseases.
"In earlier times, the climate was perfect for coffee," one small farmer in Columbia told Yale Environment 360. "In the period of flowering, there was summer. During harvest, there was winter. But from 2008 onward, this changed and we now don't know when it will be summer, when the coffee will blossom."
But researchers say there are glimmers of hope, emphasizing the importance of local adaptation measures that are designed for particular climates and communities. For example, in regions where temperature is an important factor for specialty coffee cultivation, the researchers suggest improved agroforestry systems that could maintain canopy temperatures, a promising step toward sustaining the "availability and taste of one of the world's most beloved beverages and, more importantly, on economic opportunities in local communities of the Global South," Gornott concluded.