@農자료창고

Chickens are coming home to roost in U.S. cities, near pens for goats and hives for bees. In urban yards and on once-vacant lots, planting beds brim with herb plants, pea vines, and the ubiquitous kale.

A new wave of urban agriculture is flourishing because it benefits consumers concerned about sustainably grown food as well as cities with land to spare. It started in 2008, fueled both by economic stress and concerns about nutrition, childhood obesity, and diabetes highlighted by First Lady Michelle Obama.

"There's been tremendous growth in the number of urban farms in cities dealing with an excess of land and not enough people living [there]," saidAnne Palmer of the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, and in "any city where land is somewhat undervalued."

That's one reason Baltimore and Detroit are hot spots. But beekeepers and community gardens are also proliferating in upscale neighborhoods, where there are long waiting lists of foodies and locavores for garden plots.

Madison, Wisconsin, which last year issued 197 poultry permits, has already issued 178 for this year (with the year half over).

Urban farming by definition keeps food production local. That reduces energy use and other costs of food transport, and brings more healthy, fresh foods to neighborhoods where they historically have been scarce—the so-called food deserts.

"Equal Access"

In Milwaukee, Will Allen founded the nonprofit Growing Power to provide "equal access to high-quality safe and affordable food to people in all communities." Allen, a former professional basketball player and farmer whose parents were sharecroppers, was awarded a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" in 2008 for his farming endeavors.

Growing Power grows produce and raises livestock at locations in and near Milwaukee, Madison, and Chicago. Its products are sold to local restaurants, at area farmers markets, and at the nonprofit's own café in one of Milwaukee's food deserts. The collective's other ventures include composting—to create the soil it uses—and aquaponics, which uses waste produced by farmed fish to produce nutrients for plants and then reuses the filtered water.

"We grow food," said Growing Power's Tami Hughes, "and we grow farmers."

Healthy Foods for Urbanites

In the nation's capital, the University of the District of Columbia has worked closely with the city government to encourage availability of healthy foods and sustainable food production—growing plants, composting plant waste, and growing more plants with that compost.

Sabine O'Hara, the dean of UDC's College of Agriculture, Urban Sustainability, and Environmental Science, says the school is now integrating its land-grant and academic programs more closely. (UDC is a land-grant university, a federally established category of colleges and universities created in the 1800s to teach "agriculture and the mechanic arts.")

UDC has a farm in Beltsville, Maryland, near the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Center, with 25 acres under cultivation and plots where, says O'Hara, "we show what can be grown and different growing methods."

Some food is donated to nonprofits for the city's hungry, but the university also has a contract with the Hay-Adams Hotel near the White House.

"We grow food that is high in quality and high in nutrient density," said O'Hara, who has a doctorate in environmental economics and a master's in agricultural economics.

UDC is also trying to bring healthy, fresh food to consumers who may not have had access to it. Two chefs on staff can provide recipes and samples of how to prepare the fresh offerings at the city's farmers markets. And UDC has received a grant from the District's Sustainable D.C. initiative to help finance a food truck, which O'Hara says would be another way to fertilize food deserts.

Another goal is creating jobs, perhaps in growing specialty crops for Washington's many ethnic communities—one of the concepts UDC is demonstrating at its Beltsville farm.

Cash Crops

While urban agriculture is often an individual, family, community, or nonprofit venture, Big City Farms in Baltimore is a business—and it hopes, eventually, to be a profitable one. Chief Executive Dave Bisson said the for-profit venture aims not just to educate the public about food issues, "but also to make a substantial dent in the supply, replacing supplies coming from other parts of the country or other countries."

It also hopes to eventually be 100 percent employee-owned, and to provide year-round, full-time employment for more than its current nine full-time workers.

Big City Farms is farming on a handful of lots as small as half an acre and is using a 40-foot shipping container fitted with sinks and refrigeration to clean and store produce. Its West Baltimore site is a "network farm" with the nonprofit Strength to Love II, which employs an additional three workers.

"Big City Farms supplies the expertise and pledges to purchase everything grown there and prepare it for market," said Bisson.

Hurdles to Clear

Impediments to urban agriculture include contaminated or compacted soil. Sometimes the answer is to import soil from elsewhere. Growers should research a site's history and test the soil, said Johns Hopkins's Palmer. Also, empty lots where growers have spent years building up the soil may suddenly be attractive for other uses. Goodbye, farm.

And those chickens? Although many cities—including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Dallas—allow them, ordinances vary on how far away from neighboring buildings they must be kept, or how often manure has to be cleaned.

But no roosters need intrude on urban sleep: They're necessary only for fertilizing eggs, not for laying them.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140518-urban-farming-produce-chickens-community-agriculture-food/

“Agroecology does not mean going back to the Stone Age; on the contrary, it is based on high-level scientific concepts,” says one of the interviewees in Crops of the Future – How agroecology can feed the world, the last film by the French researcher Marie-Monique Robin, who visited the country in late November and presented the film together with her last book (which carries the same name) before an audience of more than 500 people.

In contrast to the denunciation tone of her previous films—such as The World According to Monsanto (2008) and Our Daily Poison (2010)—Crops of the Future shows different agroecological experiences (in America, Asia, and Europe) which serve as examples that the industrialization process in agriculture—which is based on monoculture, the use of pesticides, and transgenic seeds (which have high social, ecologic, and health costs—could be reverted.

For instance, the movie shows the milpa method used by some farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico, which is based on sowing corn with beans (a leguminous plant that captures the air’s nitrogen and feeds the corn) and squash (whose leaves allow to keep the ground’s moisture). They complement each other.

멕시코의 밀파 농법

It is a very productive system. There is a study carried out by University of California, Berkeley—United States—, that states that when comparing the two different growing methods, the production of one hectare in a milpa is similar to that obtained in 1.7 hectares in which the crops are divided,” says Robin. Said argument denies one of the statements usually heard from the people concerned with this business: monoculture’s performance is superior to the one obtained with an agroecological method.

In short, agroecology is a system which seeks to complement vegetation and animals, and the ground is the key. “All farmers who practice agroecology said that when they had a problem with a plant (with weeds, parasites, or plagues) they did not treat the plant, but the soil, because it meant that it had some deficiency,” explains Robin, and she stresses that contrary to what is usually believed, “agroecology is much more complicated than the agribusiness system, and the results are great because they allow the farms’ autonomy. It is also more complicated than organic agriculture, because organic monocultures are possible, and that is not agroecology, because it is not just a matter of not using agrochemicals, it is much more than that. It is a knowhow, and experts and scientists to support the producers when finding a better way to use the ground are necessary.”

Rosario, a global example of urban agriculture

As well as presenting her last book and documentary, Robin visited Rosario, because an urban agriculture program is in development there, and she is thinking of including it in her next movie: “What is happening in this town is very interesting; there is a public department created by the city council to produce healthy food in the city’s gardens, and I see that as an example of what has to be done if we want to face all the challenges the agribusiness model presents, without mentioning the planned oil and gas shortages problem, because to make transgenic soy, many chemical products made with oil and gas are used; it is a very fragile system, highly dependent on other countries,” said the documentary maker during the presentation.

아르헨티나의 도시농업

In this regard, she explained that the next documentary she is working on will deal with, among other things, urban agriculture projects and how to relocate food production. To this end she chose Rosario and Toronto (in Canada), where there is a similar experience that emerged for different reasons to the Argentinean case. “Behind this there is a challenging to the development project of unlimited growth in which GDP (gross domestic product) means consuming more, something that uses up the resources which are almost finished… We have been to San Francisco to interview an expert who said that last year we consumed a planet and a half, and that if we continued in this path, in 2030 we will need five planets, which we will not have. What does this mean? A lot of violence, a lot of poverty, a lot of war, and 2030 is in 17 years time, it is tomorrow, it is urgent.”

Because of this, she repeated that to develop a system that relocated food production, either in the country or the city, a stronger public policy is necessary. And in search for answers, during her stay in the country, she interviewed Rosario’s mayor, Monica Fein, and the province’s governor, Antonio Bonfatti: “With the mayor we didn’t talk about transgenic soy, but about climatic change,” said Robin, and she added that “the governor, who is also a physician, recognized that the soy model causes diseases, he said before the camera that it is a matter of public health, and he recognized that monoculture, in the medium or long term, risks Argentina’s food sovereignty.”

Soy’s trap and the un-wanted future

It is calculated that in 2012, 170 million hectares of transgenic crops were sowed globally; half of them were soy, 32% corn, 14% cotton, and 5% canola. In smaller areas, transgenic varieties of alfalfa, papaya, pumpkin, poplar, carnation, and sugar beet were also sowed. As regards the new features, the main were tolerance to glyphosate herbicide (soy, corn, cotton, canola, alfalfa, and sugar beet), resistance to insects (corn, cotton, and poplar), and the combination of both characteristics (corn and cotton) according to data from ArgenBio, the Argentinean council for biotechnological information and research.

“People say we won’t be able t o feed ourselves without agrochemicals, but they forget that we are not feeding ourselves with them either; there are a million people in the world who suffer from starvation, and that is a huge failure of the agribusiness model, on which billions and billions of dollars were invested, and today one every six people does not eat enough,” claims Robin and she stresses that, to a local level, she is concerned with the agribusiness system, which she considers “is a disaster” for Argentina.

유전자변형 작물에 농약을 치는 모습

The use of transgenics was approved in the country in 1996 for soy resistant to glyphosate. Since then, the area sown with genetically modified (GM) crops has not ceased to grow, and already for 2012, according to information from ArgenBio, Argentina was third in the world, with almost 24 million hectares (13 percent of global surface) of GM varieties of soy, corn, and cotton.

“I understand that soy was introduced without knowing that transgenics were bad; with all the manipulation behind, it was very difficult to know that… but today we cannot say that we do not know that transgenics are a failure. Monsanto always said that thanks to transgenics we would use less pesticides, but that is a lie; already in 2005, the use of pesticides was 10 times higher, and today, a lot more; they don’t know how to get rid of resistant weeds, and soils are ruined,” states Robin, and she stresses: “Before, the money was needed, but now we have to think in the medium and long term; what is at stake today is Argentina’s food sovereignty…if we, European consumers, continue in this path of not wanting to eat meat fed with transgenics, what will you do with all the soy? Soil recovery is possible, but it will be difficult.”

A technician for change

During the Rosario presentation, which took place in the Centro Cultural Parque España, Robin gave the floor to different participants who were in the audience. This way, some representatives from the Malvinas camp, in Córdoba—who have been fighting the setting-up of a Monsanto plant in that city for months—could express themselves, and the documentary maker publicly supported them. People responsible for Rosario’s urban agriculture program also told their experience, and everybody was very surprised with the story of a soy producer who, a few years ago, decided to join an agroecological group called Pampa Orgánica and to turn his fields to a new production model that, as Robin says, recovers tradition but working with scientists.

“He is not the son-of-a-bitch soy producer who does not want to change; I know many who want to, but to do so they need a lot of help… A producer cannot make a drastic change because in the transition he goes bankrupt, because the fields are pretty bad; you need from five to seven years of transition to have life in the field again; I have seen that in my experience,” he said before the audience, asking for help to achieve change: “The problem is that there is no support in research, after ten years of asking for help, we only have some technicians from INTA who are beginning to conduct research, but many of its own accord.”

Interest in urban agriculture has grown as residents seek to revitalize cities and improve access to fresh produce. Investigators are figuring out how to maximize the benefits of gardening while minimizing the risks of contaminated urban soils.

Author Rebecca Kessler is all too familiar with the difficulties and uncertainties of cleaning up dirty urban soil, having embarked on a multiyear project to convert a paved parking lot at her Providence, Rhode Island, home into a beautiful and fruitful garden.

In 2012, 35% of U.S. households grew food, spending $3.3 billion in the process, up from 31% of households spending $2.5 billion in 2008. An estimated 1 million households participated in community gardens in 2008.

On a bright late-September afternoon, Mary Bleach showed visitors around the community garden near her apartment in Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood. The sunflowers were nodding their heads in acquiescence to fall, but rust-colored marigolds, pink cosmos, and fuchsia morning glories were still abloom, and a few lazy bees hit them up for nectar. Kale, collards, okra, callaloo (a relative of spinach), tomatoes, onions, herbs, eggplants, beans, peanut plants, and a squash vine with leaves bigger than Bleach’s head entangling 15 feet of chain-link fence—all were still soaking up the fall sun’s rays. Bleach said she lives out of the garden in summer, and she freezes enough to eat well into winter, too.

All this vegetable profusion would soon be gone. Winter was coming, yes, but also heavy machinery to scrape the land level and to haul away the ramshackle chain-link fence and the timbers dividing one plot from another. After more than 25 years, the garden at the corner of Lucerne and Balsam streets was slated for a makeover: handicapped-accessible concrete paths, sturdy fencing, new water service, and reestablished plots with granite dividers.

Boston University toxicologist Wendy Heiger-Bernays and three students had come to check out the site in preparation for a detailed soil contaminant study that would inform the renovation. If the garden’s soil were anything like other Boston soils, it would contain elevated levels of lead—in Dorchester yards, 1,500 ppm of lead is common.1 In the worst-case scenario, much of the garden’s soil would have to be removed and clean topsoil and compost trucked in.

And those old timber plot dividers? They were pressure-treated lumber of a vintage that was preserved using chromated copper arsenate—although when they were installed, they were considered a safe alternative to creosote-soaked railroad ties, another common landscaping material. In a 2009 study of three other Boston community gardens, Heiger-Bernays and colleagues showed that arsenic can leach from pressure-treated lumber into garden soil, and that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can leach from old railroad ties.2

Heiger-Bernays and her students eyeballed the garden’s perimeter. The adjacent houses were Boston’s signature triple-deckers, probably around a century old and layered in old lead-based paint. Long ago, similar houses stood where the garden now grew. Lead-based paint, asbestos, coal ash, and automotive oil from them could still haunt the garden soil. The lot had stood weedy and trash-strewn for years before Bleach and other neighbors reclaimed it in the 1980s.

The students bagged soil samples near the timbers, along the fenceline adjacent to the houses, and in plots throughout the garden. They would take these samples back to Heiger-Bernays’s lab for analysis.

Over the years the garden has been tested for lead and some clean soil brought in. Recently, the city has brought in truckloads of municipal compost almost every year. This black gold not only supplies nutrients to crops, but also dilutes contaminants and binds them to soil particles, reducing the risk of human exposure.3,4

Over the past decade, the garden’s owner, Boston Natural Areas Network, has systematically renovated select community gardens to further improve and remediate soil as well as to enhance the gardens’ beauty, accessibility, and permanence with high-quality infrastructure. It’s an effort to make growing food in what Heiger-Bernays calls “non-pristine” city soils as safe as possible, so that the many delights of gardening can flourish in the heart of the concrete jungle. “It’s about trying to really maximize those benefits while recognizing and minimizing the risks,” says Heiger-Bernays.

Boston is not alone in its efforts. In cities around the globe, gardeners and farmers are digging into backyards and vacant lots, replacing blighted eyesores with lush, productive vegetation. But as in Boston, these other urban soils are often heavily contaminated, prompting questions about potential health consequences of this supposedly wholesome activity. And while alternative growing methods such as rooftop gardens and hydroponics duck soil contamination issues, they tend to be more expensive and are unlikely to replace gardening in the ground any time soon, sources say.

In the United States, no regulations specifically govern contaminants in soils used for food production, and testing for them can be prohibitively expensive. Experts disagree on the severity of the problem, jurisdictional standards conflict, and advice about how to remedy or work around urban soils has been fragmented and all too often confusing. But recent interest in urban agriculture as a way to green cities, grow jobs, and help quench urban food deserts is bringing new urgency to the research—and a few new solutions.

Often a site’s history provides a clue to what contaminants may linger in the soil. Former parking lots and car washes often carry metals, PAHs, petroleum products, solvents, or surfactants. Demolished commercial or industrial buildings may leave behind asbestos, PCBs, petroleum and oil, or lead-based paint chips, dust, or debris. High-traffic roadways have a legacy of lead and PAHs from vehicle exhaust. Former parks and lands adjacent to railroad rights-of-way can bear pesticide residues. 

Measuring Soil Health

City gardens were not unusual during early U.S. history, but after World War II they largely disappeared. A gardening revival took root amid the urban decay of the middle and late twentieth century. Although data capturing the trend are elusive, food gardening in general is increasing.2 In 2012, 35% of U.S. households grew food, spending $3.3 billion in the process, up from 31% of households spending $2.5 billion in 2008, according to the National Gardening Association.5,6 One million households participated in community gardens in 2008, according to the association’s most recent estimate.7

An awareness that urban gardeners may be digging into some pretty nasty soil emerged along with the community garden movement in the late 1970s.8,9 A 1983 study identified elevated levels of lead, cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc in Baltimore inner-city garden soils.10 While some common contaminants occur naturally in soil, the levels “were just so high compared to soils found in agricultural areas that it became very clear that these were problematic soils,” says Howard Mielke, a research professor at Tulane University School of Medicine who led the study.

Other studies followed, finding heavily contaminated urban yards and gardens across the United States.1,11,12 Contaminants tend to concentrate in low-income neighborhoods with large minority populations—although rural areas are not immune.12,13,14

Lead from old vehicle exhaust, paint, and past industrial activities is the most widely documented pollutant in urban soils. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 23% of privately owned U.S. homes built before 1980 have soil lead levels exceeding 400 ppm—the current hazard standard for bare soil in children’s play areas—and that 8% exceed 2,000 ppm.15 PAHs, emitted when carbon-containing materials such as wood and gasoline are incompletely burned, are also quite common.

Often a site’s history provides a clue to the contaminants that linger in the soil. Former parking lots and car washes often carry metals, PAHs, petroleum products, solvents, or surfactants. Demolished commercial or industrial buildings may leave behind asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum products, or lead-based paint chips, dust, or debris. High-traffic roadways have a legacy of lead and PAHs from vehicle exhaust. Former parks and lands adjacent to railroad rights-of-way can bear pesticide residues.4

Gardeners themselves sometimes introduce potentially dangerous chemicals. Heiger-Bernays is looking into accounts of rising pesticide use in some Boston community gardens, including the use of restricted chemicals, in spite of rules prohibiting them. Biochar—partially burned organic matter, such as charcoal—is another potentially problematic additive. It’s an ancient soil amendment now being touted as a way to combat climate change by sequestering carbon underground.16 Yet it’s chock-full of PAHs, Heiger-Bernays points out, some of which may remain more bioavailable than others.17

Mielke and his colleagues recently created a detailed map of soil lead and children’s blood lead concentrations across the city of New Orleans, highlighting a strong association between the two.13 Mielke says similar studies could and should be done nationally for a host of contaminants. “It’s amazing how little mapping is taking place,” he says. “If we had a map of every city, we’d have a vision of what needs to be done.”

Unlike the gardeners at the corner of Lucerne and Balsam, most people wondering what might be lurking in their soil don’t have a team of environmental scientists standing by to help. Affordable soil testing is often limited to laboratories affiliated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative Extension System, which measure nutrients, acidity, organic content, and occasionally lead or other metals—but rarely other potential contaminants.18 If they do, the costs add up quickly. For example, Pennsylvania State University’s College of Agricultural Sciences charges $65 to test one sample for cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, chromium, and zinc. Add arsenic, mercury, molybdenum, and selenium, and the price rises to $160. PCBs cost another $80.19 PAHs are not on Penn State’s menu, but elsewhere testing for the 16 PAHs regulated by the EPA costs $250, says Ganga Hettiarachchi, an environmental chemist at Kansas State University.

Yet testing a single sample is rarely sufficient because contaminants occur patchily, says Hettiarachchi, who is studying garden soil contaminants in seven cities and food crops’ absorption of them under various conditions. For instance, lead is often concentrated near foundations of old houses and surface runoff pathways in residential yards, but hot spots can turn up anywhere an old painted board was discarded, say, or a long-gone fruit tree was sprayed with lead-arsenate pesticides.1,20

Furthermore, a recent Brown University study showed that lead contamination can spread farther and penetrate deeper than expected. Soil data from Rhode Island yards showed that lead-based paint spread more than 400 feet from nearby water towers, and often penetrated more than 12 inches below the soil surface.14 “The heterogeneity of contaminant distribution is one of the biggest challenges,” says Hettiarachchi. “You cannot actually afford to run so many samples.”

Gardeners often wind up testing for lead only, if anything, which Heiger-Bernays says can serve as a sentinel signaling the presence of other contaminants. She recommends gardeners target their testing to areas most likely to be contaminated, such as near foundations or old painted structures, and they can keep costs down by combining several samples taken throughout a key planting area into a single sample for testing. Or, she says, skip the testing and just proceed as though the soil were contaminated.18

Testing a single soil sample rarely tells the whole story of contamination in a yard or garden plot. For instance, lead is often concentrated near foundations of old houses and surface runoff pathways in residential yards, but hot spots can turn up anywhere.

Exposures and Health Impacts

Exposure to pollutants while gardening comes mainly from accidentally ingesting soil or inhaling contaminated dust, either while gardening or after tracking it home on clothing, shoes, and tools, according to interim guidelines for safe urban gardening from the EPA.4 The risk is greatest for small children, who not only are most vulnerable to toxicants but also gleefully put dirty fingers directly into their mouths.

Produce itself tends to be relatively safe, provided it wasn’t grown in heavily contaminated soil and is washed before eating.4 Most food crops tend not to absorb contaminants, and what little they do absorb generally stays in the roots.4,21 (One notable exception is rice, which absorbs arsenic unusually well.22) Certain contaminants, like zinc, kill plants before they reach concentrations dangerous to people, says Rufus Chaney, a research agronomist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

As urban agriculture flourishes and diversifies, however, at least one new exposure pathway has come to light: Health officials recently reported elevated lead levels in the edible portion of eggs from chickens raised in New York City community gardens.23 These chickens had been kept in areas with maximum soil lead concentrations of 600 ppm. The eggs were not likely to pose a health risk, the authors say, although eggs from chickens living on higher-lead soils possibly could. But overall, Chaney says, concerns focus on the ingestion of soil, not food.

Experts interviewed for this story could not recall a single case where illness had been traced directly to contaminated garden soil—a connection that in any case would be very difficult to prove. Yet for lead and other contaminants, garden soil may join other sources of exposure that add up for kids already at high risk, says Heiger-Bernays. “We know that urban centers like … Dorchester have these really recalcitrant elevated blood lead [levels] in some of the kids,” she says. “We figure that by adjusting some of the soil lead, we’ll be decreasing their overall exposure, because the lead in the soils ends up as lead in the dust in the home.”

Elevated blood lead levels in children are strongly linked with cognitive, motor, behavioral, and physical problems, including an increased risk of poor school performance and criminal behavior.24,25,26,27 A parallel body of research, much by Mielke and colleagues, shows a strong relationship between elevated soil lead and elevated blood lead in children.13,28,29,30,31,32 And while a 1998 pooled analysis of 12 studies found that lead-contaminated floor dust was a greater contributor to children’s blood lead levels than lead-contaminated soil, it nevertheless predicted a geometric mean blood lead level of 3.5 µg/dL in children living in homes with soil lead levels of 500 ppm when floor dust lead levels were very low.33 By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently considers 5 µg/dL the threshold for “elevated” blood lead, while pointing out that “no safe blood lead level in children has been identified.”34

But experts debate just how concerned gardeners should be about lead. The current EPA hazard standard of 400 ppm for bare soil in children’s play areas is generally viewed as the green light for gardening freely in unremediated soil.35 This standard is based on the EPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model, which assesses the risk of elevated blood lead in a young child exposed to environmental lead from multiple sources. This model assumes that 30% of the lead in soil and dust ingested by children under age 7 is bioavailable—that is, it is absorbed into their bloodstream.36 But the IEUBK defines elevated blood lead as 10 µg/dL, twice the CDC’s threshold.

Individual states including Massachusetts, Minnesota, and California have established lower soil lead standards to protect children, and many European nations regulate soil lead at 100 ppm.37 (On average, the values that the EPA and other U.S. authorities use to regulate lead, cadmium, arsenic, nickel, chromium, mercury, copper, and zinc in soil are 10 times higher than elsewhere.37) “Four hundred [ppm] doesn’t cut it,” Heiger-Bernays says.

In a new document intended as a practical guide to safe urban gardening, she advises against gardening directly in soil with more than 200 ppm lead, and even recommends adding clean amendments to soil with more than 100 ppm lead.18 She arrived at those low action levels by balancing what she says is a strictly risk-based lead concentration of 2–50 ppm with consideration for what gardeners can realistically achieve. Even so, the levels are low enough to be “almost heretic” and are sure to get her lambasted by regulators, she says.

But Chaney says the EPA standard of 400 ppm is sufficiently protective for gardening. He points to his own unpublished research indicating that less than 5–10% of the lead in urban garden soil is bioavailable, compared with the 30% assumed by the IEUBK model.38 By contrast, the lead in unamended soil at contaminated mining sites can average an estimated 90% bioaccessibility.39

Garden soils may be safer than other urban soils because they receive regular additions of phosphorus through compost and other amendments, which speeds up the formation of pyromorphate, an insoluble compound of lead, say Hettiarachchi and Chaney. 40,41,42,43 In a forthcoming paper, Hettiarachchi and colleagues found that adding compost to soil reduced the estimated bioavailability of lead by 20–30%, compared with unamended soil.3 Chaney also points out that humans take up far less lead when they ingest it within a few hours of a meal than when they ingest it on an empty stomach.44,45

A considerable amount of research has gone into developing a cheap and easy test for lead bioavailability as part of a quest for a sure-fire way to improve soil safety by amending it, rather than replacing it.42 Yet for now such tests remain under development and confined to research laboratories, so there’s no way for a gardener to know for sure whether his or her high-lead soil might actually be fairly safe.

for gardeners, exposure to pollutants comes mainly from accidentally ingesting soil or inhaling contaminated dust, either while gardening or after tracking it home on clothing, shoes, and tools. Produce itself is relatively safe, provided it hasn’t been grown in highly contaminated soil and that it’s washed before eating. Typical garden fare tends not to absorb contaminants, and what little is absorbed doesn’t travel far.

Cleaning the Soil

The most thorough solution to cleaning up a garden is to remove the contaminated soil, then lay down a special fabric barrier topped with clean soil.4 But that’s a huge undertaking that can cost thousands of dollars, even for a small yard, putting it out of reach for most gardeners.46

Simply installing the barrier fabric and new soil on top of the old is a more feasible option. So is building raised beds filled with clean soil—especially for root crops—and covering any exposed contaminated soil with mulch or grass. Less problematic soils can be amended by mixing in plenty of compost to dilute contaminants and bind them to soil particles. Gardeners can further reduce their exposure by peeling root crops, removing the outer leaves of leafy crops, washing their produce and hands before eating, and leaving dirty garden gear outside.4

Although it can be tricky, ideally gardeners should also test incoming compost or soil because there’s little guarantee it will be much better than the old soil, says Heiger-Bernays. She and her students have found that few authorities either enforce rules governing what goes into compost or test the final product, although some voluntary standards do exist, such as the U.S. Composting Council’s Seal of Testing Assurance.47

Furthermore, contaminated compost is not as rare as a gardener might hope. For example, in 2011 Heiger-Bernays documented a spike in lead levels in Boston’s municipal compost to around 350 ppm. As a result, the city temporarily stopped delivering its cherished compost to Boston gardens. The cause of the spike was never confirmed, although sources speculate that old painted wood may have been tossed into the compost stream, or leaf blowers may have kicked up old paint particles around house foundations. (Boston’s new composting contractor, City Soil, appears to have resolved the problem.) Boston compost also had high levels of PAHs when the city added street sweepings to its mix, a practice it has since abandoned, says Heiger-Bernays. And since 2000, plant-killing compost has surfaced in more than a dozen states after the introduction of pyridine and pyrimidine carboxylic acids, persistent herbicides that do not break down during the composting process.48,49

To top it off, there is also some evidence that fresh, clean soil can pick up contamination from the garden site. For example, raised beds may become contaminated with high-lead soil blown in from the surrounding garden.50

Boston is a gardening hub, with around 175 community gardens in which some 3,500 families grow produce worth $1.5 million each year.51 The city spends around $300,000 annually to build new community gardens or renovate old ones. This figure is matched by private and foundation support through organizations such as Boston Natural Areas Network. Given that commitment, the city’s recent embrace of commercial farming as a way to bring employment, affordable produce, and an economic boost to the inner city seemed a natural step. New zoning regulations to make space for farms within city limits are slated for signing by the outgoing mayor, Thomas M. Menino, in December 2013.52

A provision in the new regulations specifically addressing soil contamination sets Boston apart from most other cities bitten by the urban ag bug.53 “Due to Boston’s industrial history and its archaeology and the oldness of the houses, there was always a burden of heavy metal concentrations in the soil. So we felt it was necessary that people farm wisely to protect not only themselves but anyone else from the toxic metals,” says Thomas Plant, director of special projects at the Boston Public Health Commission, which developed the soil contamination provision.

One vocal councilman wanted the city to require a professional environmental site assessment with extensive soil testing and replacement of all contaminated soil on city-owned lots used for farming. This costly requirement “would kill urban agriculture in the city of Boston,” says Plant. The final regulations give would-be farmers the more practical option of simply assuming the soil is polluted, covering it with barrier fabric, and trucking in clean soil to grow in. Most farmers are expected to take that route.

Soon after their September visit to the garden at Lucerne and Balsam, Heiger-Bernays’s students finished testing the soil samples. They were pleased to find that lead maxed out at 220 ppm, even near the old houses. Samples taken from a pile of the new city compost had low lead, too, at 120 ppm. Levels of arsenic and other metals were also low or nondetectable throughout the garden.

“That was a really nice surprise,” says Heiger-Bernays, who has identified lead levels up to 3,000 ppm in other community gardens bordered by lead-painted homes. She chalked up the healthy soil to Bleach and her fellow gardeners diligently applying compost, year after year. Further testing and research into the site’s history will tell more, but for now it seemed the renovators would need only to replace the soil at select spots and add more compost to keep the garden at Lucerne and Balsam safe for growing by any measure.

Garden soils may be safer than other urban soils because they receive regular additions of phosphorus through compost and other amendments, which speeds up the formation of pyromorphate, an insoluble compound of lead. By contrast, the lead in unamended soil at contaminated mining sites can be 90% bioaccessible.

References

1. Hynes PH, et al. Dorchester lead-safe yard project: a pilot program to demonstrate low-cost, on-site techniques to reduce exposure to lead-contaminated soil. J Urban Health 78(1):199–211 (2001); http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.1.199.

2. Heiger-Bernays W, et al. Characterization and low-cost remediation of soils contaminated by timbers in community gardens. Int J Soil Sediment Water 2(3):5 (2009); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146259/.

3. Attanayake CP, et al. Field evaluations on soil plant transfer of lead from an urban garden soil. J Environ Qual; doi:10.2134/jeq2013.07.0273 [online 25 November 2013]. Available:https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/first-look.

4. EPA. Brownfields and Urban Agriculture: Interim Guidelines for Safe Gardening Practices. Chicago, IL:Region 5 Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Summer 2011). Available: http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/urbanag/p​df/bf_urban_ag.pdf [accessed 18 November 2013].

5. NGA. Garden Market Research: 2013 National Gardening Survey. Williston, VT:National Gardening Association (2013) Available: http://www.gardenresearch.com/index.php?​q=show&id=2369.

6. NGA. 2009 National Gardening Survey. South Burlington, VT:National Gardening Association (2009).

7. The Impact of Home and Community Gardening In America. South Burlington, VT: National Gardening Association (2009). Available: http://goo.gl/aD70Me [accessed 18 November 2013].

8. Chaney RL, et al. The potential for heavy metal exposure from urban gardens and soils. In: Preer JR, ed. Symposium on Heavy Metals in Urban Gardens: Proceedings. Washington, DC:University of the District of Columbia Extension Service (1984). Available:http://indytilth.org/Links/Chaney_Exposu​re.pdf [accessed 18 November 2013].

9. Spittler TM, Feder WA. A study of soil contamination and plant lead uptake in Boston urban gardens. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 10(9):1195–1210 (1979); http://goo.gl/MxizPr.

10. Mielke HW, et al. Lead concentrations in inner-city soils as a factor in the child lead problem. Am J Public Health 73(12):1366–1369 (1983);http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.73.12.1366.

11. Mielke HW, et al. PAHs and metals in the soils of inner-city and suburban New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 18(3):243–247 (2004);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2003.11.011.

12. Wu J, et al. Spatial analysis of bioavailable soil lead concentrations in Los Angeles, California. Environ Res 110(4):309–317 (2010);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2010.02.004.

13. Mielke HW, et al. Environmental and health disparities in residential communities of New Orleans: the need for soil lead intervention to advance primary prevention. Environ Internat 51:73–81 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.013.

14. Thompson MR, et al. Practice-based evidence informs environmental health policy and regulation: a case study of residential lead-soil contamination in Rhode Island. Sci Total Environ (468–469):514–522 (2014); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.094.

15. EPA. Distribution of Soil Lead in the Nation’s Housing Stock. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (May 1996). Available: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/fil​es/documents/Distribution_of_Soil_Lead.p​df [accessed 18 November 2013].

16. Tenenbaum DJ. Biochar: carbon mitigation from the ground up. Environ Health Perspect 117(2):A70–A73 (2009); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649247/

17. Hale SE, et al. Quantifying the total and bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins in biochars. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2830–2838 (2012);http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203984k.

18. Barrett P, et al. Best Management Practices for Soil Use in Urban and Non-pristine Gardens Minimizing Health Risks While Maximizing Health Benefits. Boston, MA:Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health. Pre-publication (2013).

19. Agricultural Analytical Services Lab [website]. University Park, PA:College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University (fees effective 1 July 2012). Available:http://www.aasl.psu.edu/EnvirSoilTests.H​TM [accessed 18 November 2013].

20. Wolz S, et al. Residential arsenic and lead levels in an agricultural community with a history of lead arsenate use. Environ Res 93(3):293–300 (2003);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0013-9351(03)00064-1.

21. Finster ME, et al. Lead levels of edibles grown in contaminated residential soils: a field survey. Sci Total Environ 320(2–3):245–257 (2004);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.08.009.

22. Zhao F-J, et al. Arsenic as a food chain contaminant: mechanisms of plant uptake and metabolism and mitigation strategies. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:535–559 (2010);http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112152.

23. Spliethoff HM, et al. Lead in New York City community garden chicken eggs: influential factors and health implications [accepted for publication]. Environ Geochem Health; doi:10.1007/s10653-013-9586-z.

24. Binns HJ, et al. Interpreting and managing blood lead levels of less than 10 µg/dL in children and reducing childhood exposure to lead: recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. Pediatrics 120(5):e1285–e1298 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1770.

25. Zahran S, et al. Children’s blood lead and standardized test performance response as indicators of neurotoxicity in metropolitan New Orleans elementary schools. NeuroToxicology 30(6):888–897 (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2009.07.017.

26. Nevin R. Understanding international crime trends: the legacy of preschool lead exposure. Environ Res 104(3):315–336 (2007);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2007.02.008.

27. Mielke HW, Zahran S. The urban rise and fall of air lead (Pb) and the latent surge and retreat of societal violence. Environ Internat 43:48–55 (2012);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.03.005.

28. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (2006) Final Report: Volume I of II. Research Triangle Park, NC:National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (October 2006). Available:http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordispl​ay.cfm?deid=158823#Download [accessed 18 November 2013].

29. Mielke HW, et al. Associations between soil lead and childhood blood lead in urban New Orleans and rural Lafourche Parish of Louisiana. Environ Health Perspect 105(9):950−954 (1997); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470368/.

30. Mielke HW, Reagan PL. Soil is an important pathway of human lead exposure. Environ Health Perspect 106(suppl 1):217–229 (1998);http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533263/.

31. Zahran S, et al. Linking source and effect: resuspended soil lead, air lead, and children’s blood lead levels in Detroit, Michigan. Environ Sci Technol 47(6):2839–2845 (2013);http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303854c.

32. Laidlaw MAS, et al. Seasonality and children’s blood lead levels: developing a predictive model using climatic variables and blood lead data from Indianapolis, Indiana, Syracuse, New York, and New Orleans, Louisiana (USA). Environ Health Perspect 113(6):793–800 (2005); http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7759.

33. Lanphear BP, et al. The contribution of lead-contaminated house dust and residential soil to children’s blood lead levels: a pooled analysis of 12 epidemiologic studies. Environ Res 79(1):51–68 (1998); http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3859.

34. CDC. CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in “Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call for Primary Prevention.” Atlanta, GA:U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (updated 7 June 2012). Available: http://goo.gl/jKOO35 [accessed 18 November 2013].

35. EPA. Lead: Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead: Final Rule. 40 CFR Part 745 Fed Reg 66(4):1206–1240 (2001); http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2001/January/Day-05/t84.pdf.

36. EPA. Short Sheet: Overview of the IEUBK Model for Lead in Children. EPA #PB 99-9635-8. Washington, DC:Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (August 2002). Available: http://epa.gov/superfund/lead/products/f​actsht5.pdf [accessed 18 November 2013].

37. Jennings AA. Analysis of worldwide regulatory guidance values for the most commonly regulated elemental surface soil contamination. J Environ Manage 118:72–95 (2013);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.032.

38. Zia MH, et al. In vitro and in vivo approaches for the measurement of oral bioavailability of lead (Pb) in contaminated soils: a review. Environ Pollut 159(10):2320–7 (2011);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.04.043.

39. EPA. Estimation of Relative Bioavailability of Lead in Soil and Soil-Like Materials Using In Vivo and In Vitro Methods. Washington, DC:Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (May 2007). Available:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/bioavailability/lead_tsd_main.pdf [accessed 18 November 2013].

40. Hettiarachchi GM, Pierzynski GM. Soil lead bioavailability and in situ remediation of lead-contaminated soils: a review. Environ Prog 23(1):78–93 (2004);http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.10004.

41. Yang J, et al. Lead immobilization using phosphoric acid in a smelter-contaminated urban soil. Environ Sci Technol 35(17):3553–3559 (2001); http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es001770d.

42. Ryan JA, et al. Reducing children’s risk from lead in soil: a field experiment in Joplin, Mo., demonstrates alternatives to traditional cleanups. Environ Sci Technol 38(1):18A–24A (2004); http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es040337r.

43. Scheckel KG, et al. Amending soils with phosphate as means to mitigate soil lead hazard: a critical review of the state of the science. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B: Crit Rev 16(6):337–380 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2013.825216.

44. James HM, et al. Effects of meals and meal times on uptake of lead from the gastrointestinal tract in humans. Hum Exp Toxicol 4(4):401–407 (1985);http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096032718500400406.

45. Maddaloni M, et al. Bioavailability of soilborne lead in adults, by stable isotope dilution. Environ Health Perspect 106(suppl 6):1589–1594 (1998);http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533442/.

46. Dixon SL, et al. The effectiveness of low-cost soil treatments to reduce soil and dust lead hazards: the Boston lead safe yards low cost lead in soil treatment, demonstration and evaluation. Environ Res 102(1):113–124 (2006);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2006.01.006.

47. USCC. Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) [website]. Bethesda, MD:U.S. Composting Council (2010). Available: http://compostingcouncil.org/seal-of-tes​ting-assurance/ [accessed 18 November 2013].

48. Michel FC, Doohan D. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet: Clopyralid and Other Pesticides in Composts. AEX-714-03. Columbus, OH:Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University (undated). Available: http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0714.ht​ml [accessed 18 November 2013].

49. USCC. USCC Position: Persistent Herbicides. Bethesda, MD:U.S. Composting Council (2013). Available: http://goo.gl/3F6uLl [accessed 18 November 2013].

50. Clark HF, et al. Urban gardens: lead exposure, recontamination mechanisms, and implications for remediation design. Environ Res 107(3):312–319 (2008);http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.03.003.

51. City of Boston. Open Space Plan 2008–2014. Section 5: Inventory of Lands of Conservation and Recreation Interest (Open Space Inventory). Boston, MA:City of Boston (2008). Available: http://goo.gl/CqXz5M [accessed 18 November 2013].

52. City of Boston. Article 89: Urban Agriculture and Soil Safety Guidelines for Commercial Urban Farming. Draft. Boston, MA:City of Boston (22 August 2013). Available:http://goo.gl/5Ng3yN [accessed 18 November 2013].

53. City of Boston. Article 89-7: Soil Safety Guidelines for Commercial Urban Farming. Boston, MA:City of Boston. Available: http://goo.gl/zZzm3w [accessed 18 November 2013].

드디어 <서울을 갈다>가 출간되었습니다.

마지막에 큰 편집 실수로 인해 이해식 청장의 칼럼이 빠지는 불상사가 생겨, 전량 회수 이후 보충작업을 거쳐 재출간되었지요. 아마 그 전에 책을 구입한 분이시라면 희귀본을 소장하게 되었습니다.

대담을 정리하고 구성하면서 가장 크게 목표로 삼은 건, 누구나 쉽게 술술 읽을 수 있도록 하자는 것이었습니다.

그래서인지 손에 잡으면 앉은 자리에서 바로 끝까지 읽을 수 있기도 하더군요. 분량도 200쪽이 넘지 않는 간략함 때문에 더욱 그런 것 같습니다만...

이 책은 서점이나 인터넷 서점 등에서 구입하실 수 있습니다. 여기로 바로 가보셔도 되구요.

 http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ISBN=8975276589

---------

도시농업이 열풍이다. 주말농장, 시민텃밭. 적절한 공간을 마련하지 못한 살마들은 옥상에 베란다에서 작물을 키운다. 게다가 도시 양봉을 하는 사람들까지 등장했다. 

수원과 용인의 경계지역에 있는 흥덕 나눔텃밭을 다녀왔다.

이곳은 아래와 같은 내력을 지닌 곳이다.

그 내용인즉, 토지주택공사에서 전국 곳곳의 땅을 소유하고 있으면서 개발사업을 벌이는데 요즘 부동산 경기가 좋지 않아 땅을 놀리게 되면서 그 땅을 그냥 놀리느니 사회공헌사업의 일환으로 요즘 주목받고 있는 '도시농업'의 공간으로 활용한다는 것이다.

이곳 흥덕지구는 전체 5000평의 규모로, 텃밭보급소에서 의뢰를 받아 텃밭을 조성하여 운영하고 있다.

그래서 여느 주말농장과 달리 매우 본이 되도록 운영되고 있는 중이다.

나눔텃밭의 전체 모습. 교육장은 물론 생태뒷간도 있고, 토종 종자를 재배하는 곳에 논과 둠벙까지 조성되어 있다. 또 장애인텃밭과 텃밭정원의 모습도 주목할 만하다. 아무튼 엄청 아기자기하고 알차다.

물론 올해 막 개간하여 농사를 짓기 시작한 곳이라 흙의 상태가 좋지는 않다. 

그런데 비료와 농약을 쓰지 않고 퇴비만 활용하며 농사짓고 있으니 2~3년 뒤에는 정말 좋은 흙으로 변해 있을 것이라고 장담할 수 있다.

입구로 들어서자마자 허수아비가 사람들을 반긴다.

여느 텃밭에서 보기 힘든 논의 모습. 여기에 심은 벼는 모두 다섯 가지로, 토종 벼를 가져다 심었다고 한다. 

그래서 벼 이삭이나 벼의 줄기가 일반적인 논과는 다르다. 

사람들이 오며 가며, 그리고 텃밭 회원들이 논을 보면서 모두 이런 말을 한다고 한다. 

"아니, 이런 곳에서도 논농사가 되네?" "여기 무슨 시골 같네."

그들이 마음속에 느끼는 바는 더 설명하지 않아도 될 것이다. 아마 가슴 속에 자연과 환경, 그리고 농업을 담아서 돌아갈 것이다. 그래서 도시농업이야말로 가장 좋은 환경운동이면서 농촌의 든든한 지지자들을 기르는 장이 될 수 있다.

토종 벼의 하나인 북흑조. 몇몇 줄기는 이미 수확하여 거꾸로 매달아 놓았다. 

요즘 외국에서 뜨고 있는 퍼머컬쳐의 방식으로 조성한 텃밭. 

한국에서는 이런 형태가 텃밭정원이라는 이름으로 알려지기 시작하고 있다. 

<텃밭정원>이라는 책들도 얼마 전에 출간되었으니 참고하면 좋다.

텃밭이라는 공간에서 단지 먹을거리만 생산하는 것이 아니라 심미적, 정서적으로도 즐긴다는 것이 텃밭정원의 핵심이다.

이것이 장애인용으로 조성한 텃밭. 그런데 올해 처음 시도한 것이라 미흡한 부분이 많다고 한다.

일단 높이가 너무 낮아서 휠체어 등을 탄 장애인이 농사짓기에 힘들다고 한다. 그래서 내년에는 높이를 더 높일 예정이라고 한다.

그냥 농사만 짓는 것이 아니라 다양한 프로그램과 교육이 이루어지고 있다.

도시농업이 활성화되고 그 힘을 잃지 않기 위해서는 땅과 기반시설 같은 하드웨어는 물론 이러한 교육활동이란 소프트웨어가 갖추어져야 한다. 둘 중 하나만 왕성하면 언젠가 기울어 망하기 십상이다.

그런 측면에서 이곳은 두 가지의 균형을 잘 잡으면서 나아가고 있다.

역시 텃밭보급소의 다년간의 경험과 노하우가 잘 집대성되어 있는 곳이다.

흥덕 나눔텃밭이라는 이름은 이곳을 통해 '나눔'이 이루어지기 때문이다. 즉 지역 공동체가 이 공간을 통해서 서로 소통하고 어울리는 장이 열리고 있다. 

공동으로 농사짓는 곳의 농산물이나 사람들이 농사지은 수확물 중의 일부를 기부하고, 운영진은 그걸 모아 지역의 소외된 계층이나 필요한 사람들에게 나누어주는 일을 한다. 이를 통해서 공동체의 일원들이 서로 얼굴이라도 한 번 더 보고, 말이라도 한 번 나눌 수 있게 되는 것이다. 즉 공동체의 복원과 활성화가 텃밭이라는 공간을 통해서 자연스럽게 이루어지는 것이다. 

생판 모르는 사람들만 사는 동네에 홀로 지낸다는 생각과 한 번이라도 말을 나누고 인사를 한 사람들과 함께 산다고 생각하는 것은 천지차이이다. 아무래도 언행에 더 조심하고 신경 쓸 수밖에 없다. 공동체가 지나치게 폐쇄적이 되면서 잘못된 방향으로 나아가면 그곳보다 무서운 곳이 없지만, 잘 운영이 되면 그곳보다 즐거운 곳이 없다. 

흥덕 나눔텃밭, 앞으로도 덕을 일으켜 흥하시길! 

원래 대한전선이 있던 부지를 구에서 접수한 뒤 개발이 되기 전 도시 텃밭으로 활용하는 공간이 되었다.

도시에서 이런 땅을 구하는 일이 얼마나 어려울지는 더 말하지 않아도 누구나 쉽게 알 것이다.

처음 이 땅을 보았을 때 황량하기 그지 없더니, 몇 년 사람의 손길이 가서 농사를 짓자 지금은 이런 공간으로 바뀌었다.

금천구청에서 내려다보니 주변과 확연히 비교가 된다. 

어느새 생명이 자라며 숨쉬는 공간이 되었다.

그런데 이 공간이 이제 사라질 위험에 처했다.

예정대로 개발사업이 시작될 운명이라고 한다.

금천 도시농업네트워크 관계자들이 텃밭을 살려달라는 서명운동을 벌이고 있다니 잘 해결되면 좋겠다. 

물론 쉽지 않은 일이겠지만.

토지 소유자가 적어도 5년 동안 농사를 짓는다면 지방자치단체에서 3600평 미만의 토지에 대한 재산세를 낮춰주어서 지역사회 텃밭과 소농을 촉진하는 새로운 법안.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-urban-agriculture-law-20131003,0,3253879.story

“For all intents and purposes, there is no government here,” said Willerer, 43, checking the greens and other crops he is growing on an acre off Rosa Parks Boulevard, across from an abandoned house with broken windows. “If something were to happen we have to handle that ourselves.”

Converting some of that land to farming could clean up blight and grow jobs, regional officials say. With sufficient consumer demand and the emergence of a local food-processing industry, 4,700 jobs and $20 million in business taxes could be generated, according to a 2009 study.

 

“It will help,” said Mike DiBernardo, an economic development specialist with Michigan’s agriculture department. “We have so much blighted land that we can create opportunities for entrepreneurs, and we can give people in the community something to be excited about.”

If the Bloomberg article is anything to go by, they already have. 

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/urban-agriculture-its-not-just-lettuce-its-job-creation

A few years ago, the idea of a large-scale commercial urban farms capable of providing locally-produced food seemed impossible. But in 2011, the world's first commercial rooftop urban farm opened in Montreal, Canada, and now, aiming to expand its direct-to consumer business model, Lufa Farms is launching a second, larger operation this week in Laval, just north of the city.

Located on top of building that also houses a furniture retailer and other commercial tenants, the new greenhouse measures 43,000 square feet. Currently, the company harvests 1,000 to 1,500 pounds of food daily and delivers more than 2,500 baskets of produce per week to drop-off points all over the metropolitan area year-round, with the new farm boosting overall production to an extra 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of food per day. Basic baskets start at $30 per week.

Built in conjunction with the developer Groupe Montoni and Dutch greenhouse manufacturer KUBO, this latest greenhouse is made to be structurally lighter than the first, employing a "positive pressure" system which allows it to keep out insects and produce 30 percent more food per square meter than Lufa Farms' previous greenhouse, and with less energy inputs. In this second operation, the focus will be on tomatoes and eggplants -- veggies that are in high demand and require more particular conditions.

Similar to the first greenhouse, the second development uses a hydroponic system to produce vegetables, grown using coconut fiber bags, a lightweight substrate and nutrient-rich fluid, and is irrigated with water that is captured, filtered and recirculated for re-use. The greenhouse is heated with a natural gas system at night, in addition with shade curtains for heat retention, but its location on top of a heated building means that it needs only half of the energy per square foot to grow food compared to a conventional farm on the ground, and without the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Consistent with Lufa Farms' focus on specialized agricultural technologies, everyday technical operations, climate control and irrigation will be regulated by custom-developed iPad applications. (Images below are of Lufa Farms' first greenhouse on Montreal island.)

Founder Mohamed Hage spoke with TreeHugger about Lufa Farms' vision of sustainable urban farming where the cost of food and the technology required to grow it will be lowered and more easily implemented:

We’re at a stage now where we have two farms and we’re comfortable with the technology... and we are ready to roll out this concept. We are big believers that this will be the way cities will be designed. As we go from seven billion to nine billion, more people to feed with less land, less water, less resources, this is a solution that addresses all of that. You’re taking ignored spaces, you’re improving the building’s efficiency, you’re growing with less land, less energy, you have practically no transportation and no packaging, and no loss because you’re only harvesting what you need for the day, so it’s a very minimalist way of growing food.

In addition to growing more than 40 varieties of vegetables, Hage says that Lufa Farms has also partnered with 50 other local food growers to provide over 100 products ranging from breads, cheeses, flour and jams:

We decided to become a portal or an online farmer's market for everything that is locally and sustainably produced, from organic farmers to artisanal food-makers.

Hage explains that the goal is to help create self-sustaining cities that can feed themselves. According to their calculations, a city of 1.6 million like Montreal could be agriculturally self-sufficient if the roofs of 20 malls were converted over to growing food.

With future plans to supply local restaurants and to expand globally in cities like Boston, the Lufa Farms model is an intensive operation that seems quite different from the soil-based agriculture we are used to. But it could be the beginning of an urban farming renaissance: with the increasing cost of transporting food from far-flung places, and the required technology improving daily, producing locally-grown food in this fashion may very well be one viable way cities will be able to feed themselves sustainably and affordably.

For more information, you can visit Lufa Farms' website and Facebook page, or check out their TED talk.

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/second-lufa-farms-rooftop-urban-farm-opens-laval-quebec-canada.html