Resources and Support

Educational materials and training.

It is recognized that sustainable agriculture, due to its holistic, diverse and distinctive na-
ture, explicitly interrelated environmental, so-cial and economic dimensions also
requires content and new forms of knowledge and learning (Iim Mucharam et al, 2020).
As formal agricultural knowledge and innovation sys-tems are still heavily focused on
agricultural production-oriented models, farmers who choose more sustainable paths
often rely on al-ternative learning networks and knowledge sources. Therefore a better
recognition of local farmers’ knowledge, and the combination of lo-cal and scientific
knowledge is needed to meet the goals of sustainability in agriculture (Shalaby et al.,
2022). In recent years, agricul-tural sustainability has been linked to the con-cept of
resilience, which awakens the capacity of agricultural systems to adapt and change to
survive in the long term. Learning to live with change and uncertainty, and combining differ-
ent types of knowledge, including that of farm-ers, appears to be important for building
resili-ence (Kiruba N & Saeid, 2022). The research literature gives rise to several
overlapping concepts that describe informal. Knowledge (local, practice-based,
traditional, smallholders, adat and others) as well as infor-mal learning models (self-
education, learning by doing, experimenting, observing, from one’s own or others’
experience). Others, in social in-teraction and others) in agriculture. We focus on two
types of interrelated core informal knowledge namely local and farmer. Local
knowledge involves something dynamic and complex from knowledge, practices and
skills, developed and maintained over time based on the experiences of local
communities in envi-ronmental and socio-economic realities (Lasaiba, 2023). Farmer
knowledge is a subset of local knowledge that makes it possible to farm under certain
local conditions. Because agriculture is so dependent on the local envi-ronment, local
farmer knowledge is essential which includes a deep understanding of spe-cific local
cultural sets and natural resources. The develop-ing character of agriculture and the
demands of the new society on it require knowledge and skills from farmers. Also the
motivations and values of farmers guide them in choosing sub-jects, sources and forms of
learning. This moti-vational grouping is divided into two axes, namely business and
ethics and social (Almadani, Ibrahim, Al-Amri, Fnais, & Abdelrahman, 2019). Business,
becomes very important when farmers learn to improve their market perfor-mance,
increase income, gain stability and economic growth. In all cases, one of the key
knowledge needs is marketing, particularly for small-scale farmers and those establishing
new marketing channels (eg, direct selling, pro-cessing, or market chains). Others are
technical know-how most prominent in cases that de-pend on advanced technology,
such as bioen-ergy production or farming under harsh condi-tions in the desert. To keep
up with the rapid advancements in science, technology, business management, and a host
of other disciplines that have an impact on agricultural operations, farmers need to
continue their education. Initiatives funded by NIFA broaden farmers’ understanding in
various fields and assist them in implementing profitable, ecologically responsible, and
quality-of-life practices. And it’s important to Educational to all farmers.Beginning and
seasoned farmers alike are essential to the development of rural wealth in the United
States. But in order to succeed, farmers must overcome particular obstacles and receive
education and training. Getting trained makes it easier for farmers to apply the newest
technological innovations and scientific discoveries to their everyday operations. By using
these technologies to improve their operations, they can achieve more efficiency and
potentially lead to:

•Reduced environmental damage

•Decreased foodborne illness

•Decrease in the amount of water and chemicals required for crops

•A rise in earnings

Ruminant perform specific body and head movements, and produce dis-tinctive sounds
when grazing and ruminating. Monitoring techniques recordand analyze these movements
and sounds to characterize ruminants’ feed-ing activities. Thus, monitoring techniques are
classified according to thetechnique used to record the movements and sound:1. Motion –
Feeding activities are estimated indirectly by sensing bodymovements and postures
(Brennan et al., 2021) and movements (Taniet al., 2013) through motion sensors. In other
cases, JM can be directlymeasured by sensing changes in pressure or length of a sensor
aroundthe nose (Nydegger et al., 2010; Rutter et al., 1997). All these devicesare wearable
sensors;2. Sound – JM can be analyzed indirectly by recording and analyzingthe sound
patterns produced during feeding activities (Chelotti et al.,2018, 2016; Milone et al., 2012;
Navon et al., 2013). Different types ofmicrophones are used in wearable sensors; and3.
Images – Imaging systems sense and monitor the body movementsand postures
associated with feeding activities (Hansen et al., 2018;Jingqiu et al., 2017). Cameras are
employed either in fixed positionsor as wearable devices.Wearable sensors are the most
widely used acquisition devices to cover largeareas of farms and fields.

Local Regenerative agriculture networks

The goal of regenerative farming systems (Rodale, 1983) is to increase soil quality
andbiodiversity in farmland while producing nourishing farm products profitably.
Unifyingprinciples consistent across regenerative farming systems include (1) abandoning
tillage(or actively rebuilding soil communities following a tillage event), (2) eliminating
spatio-temporal events of bare soil, (3) fostering plant diversity on the farm, and (4)
integratinglivestock and cropping operations on the land. Further characterization of a
regenerativesystem is problematic because of the myriad combinations of farming
practices thatcomprise a system targeting the regenerative goal. Other comparisons of
conventionalagriculture with alternative agriculture schemes do not compare in situ best
managementpractices developed by farmers, and frequently ignore a key driver to decision
making onfarming operations the examined systems’ relative net profit to the farmer (De
Ponti, Rijk& Van Ittersum, 2012).Some however, suggest there is a need to transition
past the maintenance of current conditions with neutral sustainability measures,
toward more restorative, or regenerative food systems practices that consider a non-
linear approach to resource use (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre 2021; Marchetti et al.
2020). Here, the farming praxis utilizing the term regen-erative agriculture (RA) is
examined for evaluations of inputs and processes and impacts on outputs. It is posited
that RA is an approach to farming that has potential to be non-extractive, renewable
and possess recycling mechanisms that position the practice within the circular
economy and begin to close nutrient loops (Bünemann et al. 2018; Merrick 2021; Mohan,
Amulya, and Modestra 2020; Pearson 2007). The definition of RA, however, remains
subjective (Giller et al. 2021). Recent published literature reviews have also attempted to
achieve a common under-standing by defining RA (Newton et al. 2020; Schreefel et al.
2020). A systematic review conducted by Newton et al (Newton et al. 2020) identified a list
of outcomes and processes associated with RA; the most common out-come was “to
improve soil health,” while the most common process was to “use no or low external
inputs; maximize on-farm inputs” (Newton et al. 2020, 5). While both Newton et al.
(2020) and Schreefel et al. (2020) identified RA as being centered around a no-to-low
external (off-farm) input model, there were no descriptions or explanations regarding the
types of inputs that are used in RA, nor explanations how a no-to-low external input
model is balanced with continued agricultural outputs (nutrient export). Regenerative
design is understood as enabling and facilitating evolution in a specific local. Context, both
unleashing and teaming up with the forces of nature and human ingenuity at the same
time. Humans then could not only reduce or at best stop damage ecosystems but find
ways of coexistence that improve, i.e. regenerate, ecosystem health as an integral part of
these complex systems. (Reed 2007). Altogether, regeneration is not about survival but
thriving of humans, all other life forms. And the planet’s life support systems in mutually
benefitting processes (Wahl 2016). A milestone has been the foundation of the non-profit
Regeneration International in June 2015 to “reverse global warming, end world hunger and
revive the local economy” through the global transition to a regenerative food and
agriculture system (Regeneration International 2020). Their current director is former
IFOAM president André Leu indicating personnel and thematic overlap of the organic and
regenerative movements30. Regeneration International is among the organizations. That
promote regenerative agriculture as a possible mean of not only slowing but reversing
climate. Change by extrapolating large carbon sequestration rates of several tons per
hectare and year from. Small plots to all global cropland (Leu 2018). Many other
organizations promoting regenerative . Agriculture emerged in the last few years and
existing organizations’ have adjusted their focus towards It, some will be encountered later
in the scope of the literature review.

Funding and incentive programs

Livestock sector provides multiple human security benefits for all members of society at all
scales of production from backyard and small-farm holders and produces to large holdings
(industrial farms) and the value chains they support including health and nutrition, income,
employment opportunities, empowerment possibilities for women and youth, and
contributions to the national gross domestic product (GDP). Animal products contribute to
food security and constitute a rich source of proteins and micronutrients (FAO 2019a;LLRI
2019). Globally, 1.3 billion people are involved in livestock value chains, with the majority of
rural livelihoods strongly dependent on animal rearing. Livestock system carry out
important socio- economic functions in low-and middle -income countries (LMICSs), as
the agriculture sector continues to be the main source of income for rural populations,
making it crucial to encomic sustainability and growth in LMICs. The important of livestock
holdings to rural families, especially in LMICs, cannot to be underestimated. They are
capital assets that can be monetized in case of emergency (ILRI 2019) and are thus
instruments to access savings insurance. United States department of Agriculture USDA) is
the chief entity responsible for ensuring an ample and affordable supply of food for the
country by promoting agricultural production, innovating rural development, and
preserving natural resources (USDA 2013). Through farm bill programs, the U.S.
government seeks to accomplish these goals in context of growing demands for
agricultural good. NRCS has recently implemented strategies to increase participation of
SDFRs in the agricultural industry. Despite of their efforts, the increasing participation of
these groups has been rather slow.. Therefore, the significance of the current work. The
research began by asking what are the SDFR perspectives and experiences regarding
access to USDA-NRCS in Mississippi. As follow-up questions we asked whether the
regulations constitute a barrier to accessing NRCS funding or, although programs exist, are
there problems at the implementation level than can be addressed in order to enhance the
participation of SDFR in conservation programs? Derived from the policy analysis and
focus groups, three areas of concern emerged as relevant in the NRCS work with SDFR: 1)
sustainability; 2) organizational culture; and 3) communication. Recommended for action
are in organized in three areas: 1) Sustainability: build upon “pride and accomplishment”
that comes from farming, to reinforce conservation efforts among minority and limited
resource producers; 2) Organizational Culture: increase transparency of funding allocation
criteria; increase awareness about the need to augment diversity in funding allocation
committees; strengthen current outreach efforts in consortium with agricultural
organizations; 3) Communication: improve communication strategies from NRCS towards
SDFR; implement strategies of outreach that includes technical and administrative training
to leaders and communities. ( Gina et al.2018.) The program will develop requests for
proposals and award grants on projects that address challenges within, but not limited, to
the following research areas: dairy and beef cattle nutrition, rumen microbiome, dairy and
beef cattle genetics, sensing and data technology for enteric methane measurement and
prediction, and socioeconomic analysis of enteric methane mitigation practices. The
program is struc-tured as a consortium with closed participation and a flat governance
collaboration model. The Greener Cattle Initiative program will continue incorporating
participants from the food and agriculture industry, commodity groups, and nonprofit
organizations who share common objectives and contribute in-kind and matching funds to
the program, up to a total of 10 organizations. Research findings will be communicated
broadly, after a waiting period for exclusive access to program participants, to create
shared knowledge on enteric methane mitigation. The Greener Cattle Initia-tive is expected
to award up to $5 million in research grant funding in a 5-year period, which will contribute
to advancing the voluntary greenhouse gas reduction goals established by both the United
States and global dairy sectors (Juan et al.2022). Farmers participate in the CIP on a
voluntary basis and its implementation involves four components such as land use
consolidation, provision of extension services to farmers, distribution of agricultural inputs
and improvement of postharvest handling and storage technologies (Kathiresan 2011).
The aim of land use consolidation was to stop the land fragmentation caused by the high
population pressure on the farmlands and to mitigate the causes of hunger and poverty
by increasing the staple crop production and introducing irrigation and mechanization
facilities. In con-solidated lands, farmers grow speci c food crops in a syn-chronized
fashion. The CIP focuses on eight priority staple crops, that include maize, wheat, rice,
Irish potato, beans, cassava, banana and soybean. The crop rotation system is based on
crop suitability in a speci c agro-ecological zone and its contribution to the overall food
security (Mboniga-ba-Muhinda and Dusengemungu 2014). Considering the agricultural
inputs, the distribution of improved seeds and chemical fertilizers was facilitated by the
MINAGRI through the RAB. Improved seeds of maize, wheat, cassava, beans and Irish
potato and the chemical fertilizers for maize, wheat, rice and Irish potatoes were
imported and distributed to farmers through agricultural service providers. The
MINAGRI subsidized the cost of fertilizers at 50% and the farmers buy the fertilizers from
agro-dealers by presenting the vouchers distributed by the CIP (Kathiresan 2011). On the
agricultural extension services, the use of agricultural inputs, soil and water conservation
measures and better cropping practices are carried out by agronomists who collaborate
with agricultural service providers at the Sector and the District level. Each extension
agent controls about 500 ha of consolidated lands (Kathiresan 2011). Considering the
post-harvest technologies, the CIP aimed at addressing the market challenges and
minimizing the postharvest loss by improving the handling and the storage of the staple
commodities through the construction of public drying areas and food storage houses
where the lands have been con-solidated. Moreover, nancial resources were mobilized in
order to address the post-harvest inef ciencies in the supply chain (Mbonigaba-Muhinda
and Dusengemungu 2014). Farmers’ participation in agricultural program is an Im-portant
factor in rural development as it plays a major role in poverty alleviation (Dercon et al.
2009), improvement of decision-making capacity (Yang et al. 2008), use of chemicals
(Salameh et al. 2004), farm productivity improve-ment (Atreya 2007) and acquisition of
new knowledge in agriculture (Karbasioun et al. 2008). Numerous studies indicated the
factors hindering the farmers’ participation in agricultural program. These factors include
the farmers’ so-cio-economic characteristics (Iqbal 2007), their real needs, the lack of
time, uncomfortable feeling of their participation in agricultural education process, and
the lack of trust to-wards agricultural extension agents (Lioutas et al. 2010). In addition,
the factors negatively affecting female farmers’ willingness to participate in agricultural
extension program include the lack of trust towards the bodies offering the pro-grams, the
perception that all members of the rural society can’t easily access the programs and
underestimating the capacity of agricultural education programs to deliver the new
knowledge (Charatsari et al. 2013a).

Certificate operation

There is an opinion in the literature that HVE has taken over this function (Delmas and
Gergaud, 2021). Factors related to the adoption of this CS have been studied, among
others, at the demographic level and have shown that the actions taken to decarbonize
production are related to the winegrower’s age, being an independent winegrower, farm
size, the number of workers hired, vine’s age, being certified HVE, being certified organic,
practicing irrigation, receiving subsidies and perceived resources – those phenomena
influenced the decision to implement the practices required in HVE certification,
although to a different extent (Payen et al., 2022). Additionally, certification provides
assurance to the indi-vidual private importer that its requirements have been met. These
requirements are to some extent dictated by the pref-erences and tastes of the final
consumer in the importing country/bloc. Escalating standards for food products, with all
their auditing and certification requirements, present a growing logistical and financial
burden for developing countries seek-ing access to external markets. For example, since
January 2005 all products destined for use as food, or for incorpora-tion into food products,
imported into the European Union have had to be traceable back to their producer or farm
of origin to conform with EC Regulation 178/2002 (Levy 2004). Certification for the private
good is much more varied in nature and extent than that covering public good issues, and
as such is more difficult to standardise. Increasingly, it is organised on an industry basis to
ensure proof of good prac-tice in the sourcing, processing, packaging and transport of
agricultural commodities (see, for example, Eurepgap 2004). Additionally, most large
multinational companies involved in international trade in agricultural commodities set
their own standards and procedures. Some supplier/producer groups do the same to
satisfy end users that their products are ‘safe’ (for example, Safe Quality Food [SQF] 1000
for primary producers and SQF 2000 for the food industry [SQF Institute 2004])