The COP21 Recipe Challenge

Today marks the beginning of the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) negotiations taking place in Paris. (If you don't know what that means, you best get to know!) These discussions will review the current mitigation and adaptation strategies being undertaken to prevent the global temperature exceeding the 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Climate change is real, and is happening right now. (Hopefully you've learned that already from reading this blog!!) There are many contributing factors that are causing this global warming, with some being addressed in these vital negotiations, such as fossil fuel consumption, land use and deforestation. Yet, the environmental impacts of the food production industry are being largely ignored and left out of the debates, despite contributing massively to global greenhouse gas emissions, land management and adversely effecting human health.

http://cleanclipart.com/clipart-2836/

But, why? I suppose telling people what they can and can't eat has the potential to cause an uproar, and leave governments in the political turmoil... However, this quite frankly doesn't cut the mustard. We need to widen the climate debate surrounding dietary choices, and educate ourselves as to which choices are more environmentally sound.

So, where do we turn? Organic? Vegetarian? Vegan? Low carbon? Paleo? Flexitarian? Ahhh! The choices are overwhelming, and none of them are perfect. (I will be exploring and analysing them each in more depth later on...) However, for now, if we all reduced the use of meat and dairy, distance travelled and products which are out of season in our recipes, we are bound to see positive effects!

So, join me for the next week, where I will be posting my interpretation of environmentally friendly recipes for you all to see! If you have any suggestions, alterations or recipes of your own, don't be afraid to share in the comments section. Let's crack down on climate change together from our own homes!

Livestock Production: Part 3 – A Modeller’s Perspective

It’s never easy explaining to anybody what you do at university, regardless of what you study. When I studied Mathematics for my bachelor's degree, people would always ask what that entailed, and would then proceed to get incredibly confused or uninterested when I tried to explain. This has lessened since studying Environmental Modelling, probably because the environment is something that almost all of us can identify with, or at least respect its importance (except maybe Donald Trump and the Tories). However, I still get asked the same question all the time: “what actually is environmental modelling?”

Source: http://memecrunch.com/

A model, in general, is a simulation of a real-life system for the purpose of understanding that system better. For example, you can use models to forecast future behaviour (without having to wait for time to unfold), and develop projections based on changes in the system (without having to tamper with the real-life system). However, to do this first requires assumptions about our system (parameters), boundary and initial conditions, and an understanding of the model and inter-connected relationships within it. Then, we can construct a model using field observation, laboratory experiments, mathematical equations, statistics, logic, and computation to best predict the system in the simplest way necessary.

In an environmental modelling context, these systems are highly variable. The whole Earth as a system is used for many different models, such as weather forecasting, fluctuations in sea surface temperatures and climate change. Alternatively, some models can focus on specific localised regions, like ecological models/population dynamics, hydrological systems, etc. We can even use models to simulate livestock systems!

But, why should we do that? Well, instead of using trial and error on the parameters of the model to increase productivity or predict environmental damage, models allow us to use computers, which is more cost-effective, faster and can avoid unnecessary environmental damage. However, predicting systems is incredibly difficult, which can sometimes make environmental models fairly unreliable. To avoid them going pear-shaped, we need to highlight the most vital parameters in our model and portray them as accurately as possible.

Source: http://www.cliparthut.com/

Here are some examples of livestock production models:

Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM)

This model, produced by the FAO, does exactly what it says on the tin: assesses the environmental impacts of global livestock production, which include greenhouse gas emissions, land use, land degradation and forestry, feed, water use and species interaction, as well as determine possible adaptation and mitigation strategies on a regional and global scale.

The main elements of the model are as follows:

• Systematic, global coverage of meat and milk from cattle, sheep, goat and buffalo, meat and eggs from chicken, and meat from pigs.
• Spatial distribution models of livestock, climate data and feed yields to identify driving factors, environmental consequences and mitigation strategies
• Approximations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (GHG emissions) at each stage of production, and from fermentation and manure management

The outputs of the model are:

• ·    Spatial distribution and quantity of cattle, sheep, goats, buffaloes, chickens and pigs
•      Amount and management of manure
•      Volume, composition and quality of feed
•      Emissions emitted at each stage of production
•      Commodities produced by livestock

Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment (IMAGE)

This model has been developed by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency to measure the environmental impacts of global human activity, including livestock production systems. This aspect of IMAGE is similar to GLEAM as it measures the impact of livestock production on greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollutants, and land use.

European Livestock Policy Evaluation Network (ELPEN)

The purpose of ELPEN is to measure or predict the outcomes of policy change in the livestock industry. The model incorporates bio-geographical data (including climate, land cover, soil, water, topography), statistical data, economic, social, environmental and technical features of livestock systems, to produce conclusions based on social, economic and environmental effects of policy change.

Livestock Development Planning System, Version 2 (LDPS2)

The LDPS2 is a computer model to aid livestock development planners in decision-making for livestock systems, including those of cattle, sheep, goats, buffaloes, pigs and poultry.

The main features are:

• Calculating the size, composition and feed of livestock herds needed for a given demand of livestock products, including meat, milk, eggs, skin, wool, manure and power supply
• Measuring the growth of herds to find the “growth constraint” to meet demand
• Compares these estimates with the amount of resources available

Source: http://images.all-free-download.com/

A Quick Thank You!!

Dear Beloved Audience,

I just wanted to say a massive THANK YOU to all you lovely people, as The Global Hot Potato has just reached 1000 views!! You guys are truly amazing! Thank you for reading, liking, sharing, commenting, and asking great questions. You've continuously helped me build confidence in writing again, as well as keeping me constantly interested and engaged with my work (and often questioning my values). I hope you are enjoying the experience as much as I am!

Additionally, I'd like to say an even BIGGER thank you to one reader in particular, whose incredibly kind offer to create artwork for my page has taken my blog to the NEXT LEVEL OF UNBELIEVABLE AWESOMENESS. So massive thank you, Josh Tuesley. You are both a wonderful friend and illustrator.

Please check out his Facebook page: Cerebellublob, where you can admire, request and purchase some of his fantastic artwork all for yourselves!! (Seriously, doooo it)

Apologies for my digression. I'm sure you can tell that I was too excited to hold it in...

I will be back in the next couple of days, looking at the the impact meat production has on the environment from a modeller's perspective. Don't forget to follow me on twitter @chlobular

Lots of love,
Chloe
x

Livestock Production: Part 2 – Environmental Impacts

Welcome back to the second part of looking at the livestock industry! This time we will be focusing on the environmental consequences (and potential benefits…!) of livestock production.

There is absolutely no denying that meat production has had an alarmingly negative effect on the planet. The methods and scale of the meat industry demonstrate a deteriorating Earth and climate. Yet, as consumers, we too take a fair share of this responsibility through our dietary choices, food waste, and increasingly high demand. Some of these points may be nothing new to you, such as deforestation and methane emissions, which are often echoed as a familiar rhetoric. However, as devastating as these effects are, the list extends way beyond this, and the overall problem is much more mammoth than you can imagine. So, allow me just to scratch the surface and provide you with some food for thought next time you make a meal choice…

Source: https://prezi.com/

Climate Change

Reiterating from my last post, livestock production contributes to approximately 14.5% of global human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, more than the direct, combined emissions of the global transport industry. Although carbon dioxide (CO₂) is by far the most talked about greenhouse gas, CO₂ is only attributed to about 27% of emissions from the livestock sector, whereas nitrous oxide (N₂O) makes up 29% and methane (CH₄) 44% (FAO, 2013). In total, animal agriculture accounts for 5% of Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, 44% of CH₄ emissions and 53% of N₂O emissions (IPCC, 2007).

Due to the higher Global Warming Potential of both N₂O and CH₄ (296 times and 23 times that of CO2 respectively), livestock are having a major impact on the global temperature through the greater accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, leading to a stronger greenhouse gas effect. This can obviously cause serious changes in regional climates and the global weather system, leading to increased drought, flooding, and natural disasters. These factors, in turn, have serious impacts on local economies, infrastructure and health. But, where are these emissions coming from?

GHG emissions from beef production
Source: www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/
the-greenhouse-hamburger

Meat production both directly and indirectly release GHGs into the atmosphere. The main direct cause is the release of methane from ruminant animals (e.g. cattle, sheep, and pigs), due to methanogenic micro-organisms living in their colons that cause plumes of fart and waste to exit their systems and drift up into the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide can also be emitted similarly this way due to the high concentration of ammonia in their diet. In terms of indirect contributors of these emissions, we turn to deforestation, landscape change, pollution, etc. which are explored in greater depth below.

Pollution

Water pollution is one of the biggest environmental and public health risks of livestock farming, particularly factory farming. As animals and vegetation are often separated through agricultural practices, the natural process of waste management has disappeared, where the waste of one fits the demand of the other: in a perfect, sustainable harmony… Due to this, there is an increasing burden of animal waste on farms, stockpiling in vast lagoons that hold millions of litres of excrement, with limited places to transfer it to. This accumulation of waste can seep into water systems, adding bacteria and pathogens which can kill aquatic species, destroy ecosystems and even make its way into our drinking water, as it did in Milwaukee in 1993. Additionally, the excessive presence of nitrogen in waterways (from waste) can cause both oxygen exhaustion and eutrophication (increase in nutrients) in water, which can severely damage and alter biodiversity, as well as cause a fatal blood disorder, methemoglobinemia, in infants through drinking water.

Air pollution from farming is another threat to the environment. Ammonia found in animal waste produces dangerous pollutants when combined with sulphates and nitrates from fossil fuel burning, which can lead to respiratory disease and death. Excess ammonia can also cause soil acidification, soil eutrophication and acid rain.

Deforestation, Land-Use Change and Land Management

Agricultural land occupies about 30% of Earth’s terrestrial surface, with 70% of this land utilised for livestock production (Steineld et al., 2006). With global population and demand continuously increasing, we are constantly converting more available land into agricultural land, through land-use change, land management and deforestation.

Source: http://news.mongabay.com/

80% of tropical deforestation is directly motivated by the rising demand of agriculture, especially within the Amazon rainforest and other parts of Latin America. This poses not only a threat to wildlife and loss of biodiversity through the vast destruction of habitat, but also to the planet as a whole. Forests are major carbon sinks and have a net positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions by reducing 
excess CO₂ from the atmosphere. Thus, when deforestation occurs, particularly on the mass-scale that it has, this will have an overall negative greenhouse effect through increased carbon fluxes, equivalent to more than the total EU greenhouse gas emissions.

Although, land-use change is not only driven by the relocation of non-native animals for the purpose of human consumption, but also by the tremendous space required to feed them. Most livestock reared for meat are fed a high-protein diet that promotes excess growth, and often relies on the use of soy bean. Soy monocultures, dominated by big businesses, are becoming the norm in Latin America and are have major impacts on the environment, local economies and communities. The full impact of soy production can be seen on a neat infographic, here.

Antibiotic Resistance

According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, approximately 80% of all the antibiotics sold in the USA are fed to livestock. Disease and bacteria are very common in livestock production, particularly within factory farms, due to genetic uniformity, poor sanitation and cramped conditions. To combat this issue and prevent loss of profit, animals are given cocktails of antibiotics which work to kill off all bacteria in their guts. Despite this, those resistant to antibiotics remained unaffected, allowing them to multiply rapidly. Once these resistant bacteria spread, they are able to contaminate waterways, soil and animal products, which can eventually lead to antibiotic resistance in humans. You can check out an enlarged version of the infographic here.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/

Food and Water Insecurity

There is serious controversy surrounding the efficiency and productivity of intensive livestock production. In the year 2000, livestock were estimated to consume 34% of all primary crops, and up to 50% of all cereals, produced globally (Erb et. al, 2012). This is consistent with claims that all cereals fed to livestock could fed up to 3.5 billion people per year by 2050. But, maybe the meat industry is feeding this many people too, right?

It doesn’t appear that way… There are many different estimates of how much grain it takes to produce 1kg of meat, so it’s difficult to get a proper picture! However, according to Horrigan et al. (2002), it takes (on average) 7kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, with 4kg of

grain for pork and 2kg for poultry. Additionally, the calorie conversion looks even worse as it requires 35kcal of energy to produce 1kcal of beef, where the average for any meat is 3kcal of energy to produce 1kcal, and this excludes transportation, packaging and processing!! Clearly this is highly inefficient, particularly in a world where 793 million people live in food poverty.

In addition to food poverty, the lesser talked about topic of water scarcity is equally as pressing an issue. Over 1.2 billion people live in areas with water scarcity, with an extra 500 million people moving toward this over time. It doesn’t take a mastermind to know the implications that come from a lack of water, but what has this got to do with agriculture? Global livestock farming uses about 15% of all irrigated water, which has the potential to be spread amongst those living in water scarcity across the world. However, this is not specifically representative, because if we were to switch solely to crop-based diets, these all require huge volumes of water, leaving many still without water.

Other Effects

Source: www.alburycity.nsw.gov.au

• ·    Transportation
•     Food packaging
•     Ozone depletion (due to excessive methane)
•     Food waste and storage
•     Soil erosion
•     Land degradation
•     Overgrazing
•     Desertification

And many, many, MANY more!

Potential Benefits

However, allow me to play devil’s advocate… Although factory farming does contribute to a net decline in available farming jobs, livestock production does open up a wide array of jobs from food transportation, to food packaging, to deforestation, etc., allowing some economies to thrive. For example, the economies and prosperity of Amazonian countries depend on legal deforestation for the purpose of trade.

Additionally, animal feed is often made from the waste products of common processes. For example, grains leftover from ethanol production, soy and canola meal left after the extraction of soybean and canola oil for cooking and biofuels, and roughage left from crops fit for human consumption.

Furthermore, the existence of small ruminant livestock (not factory farmed) can control certain weeds and invasive species, which may cause damage to some plant ecosystems in local areas if left alone. As well, ruminants help to maintain vegetation in forestland, which is a sustainable alternative to herbicides.

Livestock Production: Part 1 - Facts, Figures & Ethical Considerations

With all the background information we have gathered over the last few weeks, we can finally kick-start the review of modern food production practices, by looking at the global impacts of intensive livestock farming. I must stress that I have tried hard to look at the evidence with unbiased eyes, ditching any preconceptions I may have previously held. However, this is, admittedly, no piece of cake! We’ve all heard horror stories of the factory farming industry, and the internet does not fail to keep them coming, by hosting a wide inventory of sensationalist articles, videos and pictures that will put you off meat for good... Well, until you’ve miraculously forgotten about it a few minutes later… (Guilty!) So, to avoid being misinformed, I have largely structured my reading on scientific papers, research and well-cited articles, whilst still considering some element of opinion from credible organisations, albeit with a pinch of salt.

via chartsbin.com 

Now let’s start with the bare facts. This year, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimated the global average meat consumption to be 41.30kg per capita, with the average consumption in industrial countries (e.g. European countries, USA and Australia) to be 2.32 times this figure, roughly equivalent to 262g of meat per person per day. For comparisons sake, this is equates to eating about 9 rashers of bacon, or 3-4 sausages, or 2⅓ quarter-pounder burgers each day. However, if we revisit the FAO’s figures we see that, since 1964/66, the average consumption in industrial countries have increased by a factor of 1.56, whereas in developing countries this is a factor of 3.10! Despite this, western countries still devour a heck of a lot more meat than developed countries, by over threefold!

                                      MEEEEEEAT! Source: www.willowbrookorganic.org/

Why is this an issue? What’s so bad about meat? Despite the recent connection found between cancer and processed/red meat, in moderation, meat can contribute as part of a healthy, balanced diet, providing protein, minerals (e.g. iron) and vitamins (e.g. B12). Yet, with plenty of other non-animal sources of these essential nutrients, the question stands: are we consuming and producing more meat than necessary? Current estimates suggest that livestock production is responsible for approximately 14.5% of global Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2013). Shockingly, 61% of these emissions were generated by cattle alone via both the meat and dairy industries, whilst poultry (incl. meat and eggs) and piggies only generate 8% and 9% respectively… So, what’s going on here? Where are all these emissions coming from? Before we look at the environmental implications, we must first consider the current methods of practice that put the meat on our plates.

I’m not sure about you, but when I think of meat production, my thoughts immediately turn to factory farming, characterised by large numbers of animals crammed into restricted space and requiring substantial quantities of food, water and antibiotics. This comes as no surprise as, globally, factory farming contributes to about 72% of poultry production, 43% of egg production, and 55% of pork production, with suggestions that figures for cattle are slightly lower (although this is not conclusive). These percentages are pretty high, but are honestly a bit lower than I anticipated! Saying that, in countries like the USA these figures are generally greater than 90%, with exception to cattle with approximately 78% raised from factory farms, which probably explains my initial perception of the situation.

   Sources: Image 1: www.an1mal.org/ , Image 2: http://allergiesandyourgut.com/ , Image 3: www.fairwarning.org

Regardless, intensive livestock farming is the dominant method of meat and dairy production in the world, and continuously raises ethical concerns for animal welfare, such as, the confinement to metal cages to restrict movement, reduced (or lack of) access to fresh air and natural light, and removal of tails and beaks to reduce loss of livestock through aggressive behaviour (most likely due to heightened tensions caused by poor living conditions). Additionally, the desire to boost productivity of the end “product” which can cause adverse effects, for example, increased growth rates of chickens leads to higher risk of lameness, increased egg yield in laying hens can lead to osteoporosis, and greater number of offspring can lead to higher infant mortality. Not to forget concerns over human welfare… With large agribusinesses on the rise, small farmers are on the decline, as some are unable to compete with these vast, industrial practices at the same low cost.To some, this may seem like fair game, but this produces a net decline of labour force, thus resulting in less available jobs.

Most of this is probably nothing new to you. We all know this stuff, to a degree, and since it’s incredibly easy to detach yourself from the reality, it becomes very easy to ignore. You don’t often see the industrial process. You can’t truly measure an animal's emotional response. Plus, meat is so readily available, it doesn’t take a second thought. However, the environmental implications are a lot harder to ignore, or at least will be as time goes on. Deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, water source contamination… The list is endless! Yet, a lot of us still aren’t that clued up about the full extent of the impacts in an environmental context. So, instead of shying away, join me for part 2, as I explore the major impacts that meat production is having on our planet, and how we can predict the future effects using modelling.

Don’t forget to follow me on twitter for more updates on food production and climate change: @chlobular

A Sneaky Peak At Some Graphical Indulgence...

I was flicking through the IFLScience website this evening (as usual) and stumbled across an interesting article, looking at which countries consume the most calories. Within the article lies a report, conducted by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, assessing the performance of health systems in OECD countries. I'm not sure if it's the inner mathematician in me, but I just loooove looking at data, especially when it's compiled into nice, attractive, little graphs... (Oh, the shame of it!).. So, this report really captured my interest! Although, sadly, no pie charts to munch on this time folks...

If this is up your street, don't be ashamed! Have a gander at some of these figures taken directly from the report, along with some adaptations developed by Recovery Brands. 

          Source: OECD Health Statistics 2015

           Source: OECD Health Statistics 2015 , Information of data for Israel

The UK actually holds up some impressive results in the fruit and veg categories (especially amongst those who define as female)! Sadly, the same cannot be said on the subject of obesity... (NB: this do not mean that fruit and veg causes obesity!!!)

      Source: OECD Health Statistics 2015 

Below is a graph displaying the comparison of obesity rates between 2000 and 2013 (for some, but not all mentioned countries)...

      Source: OECD Health Statistics 2015 

Now, we take a look at Recovery Brands' mapped visualisations of OECD's data for calories served per capita between the years 2004 and 2013...

    Source: Recovery Brands

Followed by further adaptations of OECD data by Recovery Brands. This time, observing the average calorie consumption per person per day between the years 1961 and 2011...

    Source: Recovery Brands

And last, but not least, shocking percentages of children classified as overweight or obese, for the year 2013 (or nearest)...

       Source: World Obesity Federation (2015), KIGGS (2003-6) for Germany, and KHNANES (2013) for Korea


Don't forget to follow me on Twitter (@chlobular), for some more articles, quips and facts!!!

 

The Dawn of Agriculture

Agriculture is estimated to have popped up around 10,000 years ago, synonymous with the end of the last major ice age and a new era, known as the Holocene epoch (our current epoch!).This era has been marked by the ever-increasing development of human technology and ingenuity, and agriculture has been no exception! But what actually is agriculture? How and why did it begin? And what impact has it had on the environment over time?

Just in case you’re not quite clued up about agriculture, I’ll start us off with a formal definition… According to the Oxford English Dictionary, agriculture is “the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products”. So, in a NUTshell, agriculture exists to feed us, clothe us and medicate us (amongst a million other things) through the process of farming, with the two main divisions of agriculture being livestock farming and crop production.

This concept of agriculture seems pretty routine these days, but how did we come up with it in the first place? What techniques did we use? And what caused us to transition from hunter gatherers to farmers?

                Source: https://lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com/                       Source: https://o.quizlet.com/

For many years, early man relied on sustenance from fruits, nuts and megafauna, like mammoths, until their untimely extinction approximately 15,000 years ago, when humans turned to hunting smaller game (look at last post for more details!!!). After which, came another period of intense global cooling, known as the Younger Dryas, which saw ice returning and woodland decreasing, leaving food to become more scarce for the next few thousand years…

Once the climate recovered from these tundra conditions, it appeared that agriculture arose not long after. However, its reason for rearing its head is still a topic of wide debate. One hypothesis claims that the warm weather succeeding the Younger Dryas caused a “baby boom” = more mouths to feed! This increase in demand is thought have forced us to seek more sustainable food sources, such as the domestication of animals and cultivation of plants. Although, it’s still not definitively known whether agriculture was a response to an increasing population, or whether an increasing population was product of booming agriculture. In this latter instance, opinion is divided between the idea that agriculture was a response to intense hunger, or was discovered through the experimentation of farming.

To open the debate even WIDER, some believe that origins of agriculture stem from a single, intelligent individual whose idea spread rapidly as an improvement beyond foraging (agricultural revolution), whilst others believe that civilisations used their knowledge of plants and the land to accompany foraging with agriculture, as a back-up plan when hunting was not so fruitful (agricultural evolution). Regardless of how, agriculture was happening, and was beginning to consume the Earth…

Map to illustrate believed first sites of agriculture. Source: www.life.illinois.edu/

Crop cultivation and selective breeding were some of the earliest agricultural practices. Examples of this include: cereals in Syria (c.7000BC), seedless fruits from fig trees in Jordan (c.9300BC), rice fields in China, cultivation of squash in Mexico (c.8000BC), and corn in North America some years later (approx. 3000BC). Alongside this, the domestication of animals (that we still most commonly eat today!) began approximately 10,000 years ago. This can be seen in the DNA of Europeans, especially...  Many of our ancestors were initially unable to tolerate cow’s milk, however, genetic mutations leading to lactose tolerance occurred through natural selection due to prevalence of cow herding in Europe, allowing a large proportion of us to drink milk today. Evolution in front of our very eyes!

However, you can’t make an omelette with breaking some eggs… This method of cultivating plants caused an increasing genetic uniformity, allowing them to become more susceptible to pathogens and disease (with species competition transitioning from interspecific to intraspecific). The same story was said for domesticated animals: their predictability created an environment that allowed contagious diseases to thrive. This began the race between man and contagion (an issue still very much prevalent in today’s world), giving rise to the pesticide!

Source: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com

Additionally to disease, evidence shows that this new age of agriculture may have had a huge impact on our climate, with an estimated global temperature increase of 1.5°F!! Large-scale burning and up-rooting of forests, to allow room for farming, led to vast releases of carbon dioxide (the most notable greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, causing a global warming. However, the removal of forests would have likely made the surface of the Earth brighter and more reflective (known as “albedo”), causing sunlight to bounce off of the surface more often, resulting in a cooling effect. Although, deforestation can also cause a shift in micro-climate, which has serious impacts on food production and food security over time. We truly were meddling beings!!

Our effect on the environment has been obvious (yet completely surprising!) through the ages… Join me next time to see how we’re continuing the trend in today’s world, and what that means for the future of global food production…