Roman diet and trade: evidence from organic residues on pottery sherds recovered at the Roman town of Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester Hants.)

The analysis of organic residues from pottery sherds using Gas-Chromatography with mass-spectroscopy (GC-MS) has revealed information about the variety of foods eaten and domestic routine at Silchester between the second and fourth–sixth centuries A.D. Two results are discussed in detail: those of a second-century Gauloise-type amphora and a fourth-century SE Dorset black-burnished ware (BB1) cooking pot, which reveal the use of pine pitch on the inner surface of the amphora and the use of animal fats (ruminant adipose fats) and leafy vegetables in cooking at the Roman town of Silchester, Hants.

Extraction of polyphenols from processed black currant (Ribes nigrum L.) residues

The total phenol and anthocyanin contents of black currant pomace and black currant press residue (BPR) extracts, extracted with formic acid in methanol or with methanol/water/acetic acid, were studied. Anthocyanins and other phenols were identified by means of reversed phase HPLC, and differences between the two plant materials were monitored. In all BPR extracts, phenol levels, determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu method, were 8-9 times higher than in the pomace extracts. Acid hydrolysis liberated a much higher concentration of phenols from the pomace than from the black currant press residue. HPLC analysis revealed that delphinidin-3-O-glucoside, delphinidin-3-O-rutinoside, cyanidin-3-O-glucoside, and cyanidin-3-O-rutinoside were the major anthocyanins and constituted the main phenol class (approximate to 90%) in both types of black currant tissues tested. However, anthocyanins were present in considerably lower amounts in the pomace than in the BPR. In accordance with the total phenol content, the antioxidant activity determined by scavenging of 2,2'-azinobis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6- sulfonic acid) radical cation, the ABTS(center dot+) assay, showed that BPR extracts prepared by solvent extraction exhibited significantly higher (7-10 times) radical scavenging activity than the pomace extracts, and BPR anthocyanins contributed significantly (74 and 77%) to the observed high radical scavenging capacity of the corresponding extracts.

Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

This paper develops a framework for evaluating sustainability assessment methods by separately analyzing their normative, systemic and procedural dimensions as suggested by Wiek and Binder [Wiek, A, Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making – a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005, 25: 589-608.]. The framework is then used to characterize indicator-based sustainability assessment methods in agriculture. For a long time, sustainability assessment in agriculture has focused mostly on environmental and technical issues, thus neglecting the economic and, above all, the social aspects of sustainability, the multifunctionality of agriculture and the applicability of the results. In response to these shortcomings, several integrative sustainability assessment methods have been developed for the agricultural sector. This paper reviews seven of these that represent the diversity of tools developed in this area. The reviewed assessment methods can be categorized into three types: (i) top-down farm assessment methods; (ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some stakeholder participation; (iii) bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods with stakeholder participation throughout the process. The results readily show the trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. A clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites. However, this comes at the cost of system specificity. As the top-down methods often have low stakeholder involvement, the application and implementation of the results might be difficult. Our analysis suggests that to include the aspects mentioned above in agricultural sustainability assessment, the bottomup, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones.

Identifying barriers and opportunities for transitions towards more sustainable agriculture through system analysis: the case of Vereda La Hoya, Colombia

The paper presents the results of studies which investigated farmers’ reasoning and behaviour with regards to the mis‐use of personal protective equipment and pesticide among smallholders in Colombia. First, the research approach is described. In particular, the structured mental models approach and the integrative agent‐centred framework are presented. These approaches permit to understand the farmers’ reasoning and behaviour in a system perspective. Second, the results are summarized. The methods adopted allowed not only for identifying the factors, but also the social dynamics influencing farmers. Finally, suggestions for interventions are provided, which are not limited to a technical fix, but address the underlying social causes of the problem.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.