Modelling Spotlight on Sustainable Agriculture: SOL-m

Source: www.sojourneyfarm.com

Before we conclude the impact of agriculture on the environment (and say a hearty farewell to 2015!), I will quickly enlighten you with a dash of the modelling of sustainable agriculture, in particular, Sustainability and Organic-Livestock Modelling (SOL-m). The research of this study was published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 2013, and was designed to assess the environmental impacts of converting current livestock production systems into smaller, less resource intensive ones, with sustainable management of organic materials.

The model itself compares the effects of multiple production scenarios on land use and degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential, nutrient flow, availability of food, consumption of fossil fuels, impact on biodiversity and more. It was constructed using conditional projections for food supply, food demand, and their interaction over time, by assessing available resources, land, human population, nutritional requirements and consumer choices. From here, environmental and social policy was also taken into consideration, and used linear programming to optimise each production scenario with respect to certain targets. 

The different scenarios investigated within the context of this study were:

• Scenario 1: baseline for 2050 (as predicted by FAO), alongside projections for population rate, dietary trends, expected yields, etc. Livestock feed was assumed to be remain consistent.
• Scenario 2: modelled a 50% decrease in concentrated feed, and measured number of livestock sufficient to give at least as many calories as Scenario 1.
• Scenario 3: the same as Scenario 2, but assumes no consumption of concentrates in livestock feed.
• Scenario 4: predicted conversion to organic livestock production, including organically produced feed concentrates. Again, measuring livestock to give at least as many calories as Scenario 1.
• Scenario 5: a combination of Scenarios 3 and 4 - a complete conversion to organic livestock farming, whilst omitting all concentrate in livestock feed.

The results concluded that Scenario 1 could not sustain a planet projected to reach a population of 9.6 billion by 2050 whilst still maintaining quality in the environment. In Scenarios 2 and 3, the model calculated substantial increases in food availability and security, whilst reducing environmental damage caused by deforestation and land degradation. This trend improved with higher reduction in livestock feed concentrates. Interestingly, although Scenario 4 measured significant decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and toxic material flow, it also predicted a lack of available food implying a need for more agricultural land (a finite resource). However, Scenario 5 yielded the best result, showing a positive results across the majority of environmental effects measured, suggesting that organic farming and diminished concentrate in livestock feed are two major factors necessary to achieve sustainable agriculture.

Open Your Eyes: Sustainable Agriculture

Over the last few weeks, we have explored the largely damaging impacts of industrial agriculture, characterised by the exploitation of resources, large-scale single specie regimes, and high consumption of fossil fuels, pesticides and fertilisers. The destruction of this farming methodology is undeniable, from the emissions, pollution and deforestation of the livestock industry to the water depletion, desertification and toxic chemicals produced by crop production. This cannot go on indefinitely. But what can we do? Surely there are no other options?

Wrong! Sustainable agriculture is an alternative which, in its various practices, involves fulfilling present and future demands of food, water, health and ecosystem demands, whilst maximising societal benefits and environmental well-being. These systems typically focus on conserving resources, utilising natural ecosystem relationships between animals and plants, preserving biodiversity, reducing chemical inputs and incorporating renewable forms of energy. Additionally, sustainable agriculture tends to bring the consumer closer to the producer by decreasing the size of farms, distance travelled and emphasis on economic gains (that inevitably push hidden costs onto society), and in the long term sustaining healthy soil, land, communities and ecosystems.

What makes this type of agricultural more beneficial? In a world where resources and economic expansion are limited, we need to move away from our desire to drive profits, and push toward a more secure future. Sustainable agriculture tends to rely on small-scale, independent and local farms, which generate local employment, local spending and boost average incomes. Unsurprisingly, agribusinesses and farming industries are shown to do the opposite, with the core aim to turn high yields and profits at the expense of farmers, communities and the environment. These big businesses can actually be highly inefficient/ For example, despite rice farmers in Japan, Korea and Taiwan using more than 50% of all insecticides sprayed on rice globally, they yield only 2% of the Earth’s crops.

So, if sustainable agriculture benefits consumers, producers and the environment, why aren’t we doing it? Maybe the techniques used are hard to achieve? Wrong again! Here are some examples of the typical methods used by sustainable farmers:

• Rotation of two or more crops – to reduce pests, increase biodiversity and soil fertility
• Improved soil management –  by decreasing chemical inputs, and increasing organic material suitable for helpful bacteria and fungi
• Maintaining topsoil – by reducing the use of heavy machinery on the soil, this is known as tillage
• Allowing animals to graze rotationally – by relocating animals to different fields to improve soil quality, restore vegetation, and reduce high-protein feed, need for manure management and costs.
• Nitrogen management – by decreasing use of high-protein feeds, fertilisers and pesticides, farmers can effectively monitor nutrient content in soil and prevent contamination of waterways and air quality.

I don't know about you guys, but this was always my idea of how normal farms operated (until discovering the reality and widespread existence of factory farms), and I ascertain that that is how they should be! So, what do we need to do to push for more of these systems?! 

1. Raise awareness of the importance and social benefits of sustainable agriculture
2. Campaign for climate and social justice in the agricultural sector
3. Make sensible dietary choices that eliminate industrial means, i.e. opt for local, seasonal and organic produce
4. Put press on industrial farms by holding them accountable!
5. Reduce animal products, particularly from caged animals

Source: http://s.hswstatic.com

Post-Christmas Food Waste Facts and Foibles

,
Food Waste - how it is recycled from RecycleNow on Vimeo.

Almost all of us waste food, whether we'd like to admit it or not. Although some items are destined for waste, like fruit peels, egg shells and meat bones, we throw away food that is perfectly edible, sometimes without realising. Here are some food waste facts, provided by Recycle Now and Love Food Hate Waste:

1. Approximately 7 million tonnes of food waste is generated in the UK each year
2. The average household wastes around £470 worth of food per year
3. The average family wastes around £700 worth of food per year
4. About half of the food wasted in the UK comes from our own homes
5. Wasting edible food contributes to 4% of the UK water footprint
6. The common food to be wasted is fresh food, such as, vegetables, fruit, bread, etc.
7. In the UK, we chuck more food in the bin than the packaging around it
8. If you throw food in the bin, the waste goes to landfills where it decomposes and releases vast stores of methane. This is equivalent to the emissions produced by 25% of cars in the UK, and thus is conducive to deadly climate change.
9. HOWEVER, food waste reduced by 1 million tonnes from 2007 and 2012. And potentially more since. If we follow France's example of retailers donating their surplus, then we can seriously make a huge impact!

Source: www.foodwastenetwork.org.uk

I thought this post to be particularly apt the day after Christmas, a day in which we engorge and spoil ourselves greatly, and consume lots of food (probably more than is necessary). This ultimately results in large quantities of waste. Although we can treat ourselves to this one day of indulgence every year, in a world where 793 million go hungry, it would the very least to ensure that we try to utilise all our leftovers. Here are a few recipes to consider before throwing away those tasty bites!

• Turkey and Potato Curry, instead of curry paste, make your own here
• Put any leftovers on your own homemade pizza
• Take a Moroccan twist with your leftovers with this Fruity Turkey Tagine
• Use your root veg to make a tasty Leftover Veg & Orange Cake
• Try a Christmas Leftover Pie
• Or, absolutely ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE!

Dietary Decisions: Part 2 - Lettuce is Worse Than Bacon!?

Source: www.cohabitaire.com

I cannot lie, and say that I haven’t found writing this post incredibly difficult! First of all, reaching a scientific consensus was a bit of a challenge, with many conflicting opinions and interests on the issue, and many studies only focusing on certain impacts (direct emissions, land-use, etc.). You begin to wonder who you can really trust. Despite this, after many days of research, I finally felt that I had reached a solid understanding of the literature and concluded that plant-based diets are the clear winners when it comes to the environment (as is often echoed). "Yay!", I thought, now I can commence the writing process... However, literally minutes before my fingers hit the keyboard, I come across this article boldly claiming “Lettuce is ‘three times worse than bacon’ for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for the environment”. Sensationalist to the max, I know, but I couldn’t help getting caught up in the drama and feeling like my many hours of research were nothing but a complete waste of time and effort. Luckily, I manage to trundle through the article and associated research paper, and deduce that the conclusion was based upon dietary recommendations, not vegetarian diets, and that it was totally twisted out of context. Not to mention that lettuce is very water and carbon intensive as vegetables go. So, finally, I manage to regain my confidence and comprehension.. And then, BAM! I realise that, although I don’t eat a great deal of meat, sometimes I really love beef burgers, cheese and bacon, and I start to feel the need to totally reassess my life and values…

But, fear not! All hope is not lost for the meat enthusiasts… If you dare to read further, you may find some surprising (and some not so surprising) results.

An Emissions-Based Approach

The most common measure of climate impact within the food industry is the amount of direct greenhouse gas emissions produced, equivalent to the mass of CO₂. This excludes any emissions produced by land use, deforestation, transportation, cooking, storage, etc.

My research began through the investigation of five American diets – Meat Lover, Average, No Beef, Vegetarian, and Vegan – compiled by the USDA’s Economic Research Service and adapted by Shrink That Footprint, inferring a consumption of approximately 2,600kcal per day.

Source: Shrink That Footprint

Unsurprisingly, the results showed that GHG emissions escalated with increased meat consumption, with vegans at the low end of the scale, and meat lovers at the other. Interestingly, vegetarianism did not fall too short behind veganism, despite the vast proportion of animal products consumed by vegetarians coming from dairy cows – which are shown here (and in my previous blog post) to contribute massively to potent greenhouse gas emissions. An even more surprising finding is that simply omitting red meat from the diet has a drastic reduction in carbon footprint, and contributes to a similar measure of emissions compared to vegetarianism. It seems maybe we should consider ending our romanticism with beef and lamb, and rediscover our love for white meats (or none at all). The research concluded that, in the average American diet, 60% of emissions were produced by meat and dairy, although only equating to 25% of the energy in the diet.

Source: Shrink That Footprint

However, plant-based diets aren’t totally off the hook, as fruit is shown to be the second most carbon intensive food group measured for direct emissions, likely due to the high volume of fruit that becomes waste and is often grown out of season. Although, with that being said, this still only contributes to a third of the average emissions produced by ruminant animals, and is almost identical to the amount produced by dairy. Additionally, meat eaters still eat 80+kcal of fruit on average, reinforcing that this is not just the responsibility of herbivores!

Source: Hallstrom et al., 2015

It cannot be ignored that this study does carry limitations, particularly as it only takes into account American dietary habits and fails to include the amount of studies it includes. Despite this, the findings are supported by another paper, conducted by Hallström et al., 2015, which compiles together twelve independent studies, between 2009 and 2014, looking at the emissions produced by various diets. This report confirmed that vegan, vegetarian and diets without red meat contributed to the lowest amount of greenhouse gas emissions, with a reduction of approximately 20 to 55% in total. However, interestingly, a moderate reduction of about 20% of average meat intake had an insignificant effect, due to the common replacement of meat with equally highly carbon intensive food groups, such as dairy, and out of season and imported fruit and vegetables. It is abundantly clear from the evidence that meat derived from ruminant animals is the main driving force that causes devastation to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

An additional component of this study was the inclusion of the “healthy” diet, characterised by an omnivorous palette, abiding by an array of different dietary guidelines. The reduction of emissions were highly variable (between 0 to 35%) with nine out of fifteen studies closer to a 10% reduction or less. The definition of a healthy diet was very loosely described, and is therefore difficult to take seriously into consideration.

Land-Use Contribution

Within the same paper, the impact of diets on land-use were also examined, compiling evidence from four separate studies which compared the diets of vegans, vegetarians, meat partially replaced by plant-based food and healthy diet with an average meat-eating diet. Again, the results deduced that ruminant livestock farming was the main driver of land-use change in agriculture.

The current availability of agricultural land globally per capita is estimated to be 7000m². As developing countries continue to grow economically, and Western countries continue to indulge, the global average per capita land demand is set to reach a whopping 5000m² by 2050. This will begin to put a serious strain on humanity, as we edge closer toward a self-inflicted carrying capacity. However, if the consumption of red meat can be reduced through any of the dietary scenarios investigated, it is predicted that the land demand could potentially reduce to between 2200 to 3500 m². This could significantly reduce environmental damage caused by land-use change, reduce deadly climate change, and allow us to continue expanding our population more freely.

Source: Hallstrom et al., 2015

How much of an impact do these diets appear to have? Replacing all food products from animals with plant-based alternatives, i.e. veganism, on average, decreases the land demand by 60% compared to an average meat-eating diet. Fascinatingly, a substitution of 75% of red meat with poultry or pork has the potential to reduce the land demand by 40%. Whereas, contrarily, substituting half of monogastric meat consumption with plant-based food has little effect, with an estimated 5% reduction on land demand. Therefore, it is apparent that pork and poultry have fairly similar demands on land-use to plant-based foods.

There are, unarguably, some uncertainties within these studies, due to individual differences and the difficulty in accurately modelling certain processes, such as predicting the emissions produced by ruminant animals and soils, variability in socioeconomic status, geographical location, temporal variability, gender and age. Despite this, the results overall consistently reach the same conclusion, that plant-based diets are generally kinder to the environment.

Alternative Diets

So, “what about all those other diets that haven’t been included in the context of this study?” I hear you say. Let’s take a look at a few of these individually!

Paleo Diet

If you are unaware, the so-called “paleo” or “paleolithic” diet is based upon the perception of what our early, nomadic ancestors, who once foraged and hunted for their food, used to eat. (If you’ve forgotten about our hunter-gatherer friends, you can check out my blog post about it here). This relatively new diet consists of largely meat, fish, nuts, berries and vegetables, with no grains, dairy, sugar, legumes or alcohol allowed - encouraging a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. It is shown that eating food of this nature on a regular basis puts unnecessary strain on the body and can lead to serious health problems, such as, heart disease, renal failure, high cholesterol and cancer.

Source: www.blakebeckford.co.uk

To not forget that the high meat content within the diet (which particularly focuses on red meat) puts mass pressure on the environment through increased greenhouse gas emissions and land-use change, as discussed above. This makes the paleo diet a poor contender for being environmentally friendly, as well as for sustaining a healthy lifestyle.

Additionally, the diet has been heavily criticised as the circumstances in which animals are bred within modern agriculture are not representative of the wild animals hunted thousands years ago. For example, today livestock are fed with high-protein and high carb feed, alongside an abundance of antibiotics, which contradicts the “healthy” and grain-less demure of the paleolithic diet.

Raw Diet

Source: http://rawgourmets.com

Another diet which claims to be the best for health and the environment is the raw food diet, consisting of purely uncooked and unprocessed ingredients. This diet is relatively variable as some continue to eat raw meat and dairy, while others maintain vegan or vegetarian diets as well. Regardless, the main argument for raw foodism is that recipients believe that they’re acquiring all the nutrients available within their food, as they are not “destroying” them by cooking. However, contrary to popular belief, cooking food aids digestion and allows our bodies to access more nutrients, compared to raw ingredients. It is common for women to stop ovulating due to the lack of nutrients being absorbed, despite them being abundantly available within the food. This is no surprise when we acknowledge the fact that civilisations expanded greatly after the discovery of fire, due to prevalence of cooked food, which continues to be a central element of almost all cultures in modern day.

However, from an environmental standpoint, raw food does reduce the emissions caused by cooking, processing and packaging food. Despite this, the ingredients needed to sustain such a diet may be more resource and carbon intensive, due to the high consumption of fruit, and out of season produce, which potentially puts additional strain on the environment compared to other diets.

Top Tips for a Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Diet

1.      Reduce red meat intake to a minimum, preferably omit completely
2.      Purchase seasonal and local produce
3.      If you wish to consume monogastric meat, elect for grass-fed or pasture-raised
4.      If you wish to consume fish, stick to sustainably sourced
5.      Reduce food waste – waste not, want not!
6.      Buy certified organic produce
7.      Consider reducing your dairy intake
8.      Try composting
9.      Only eat as much as you need!!

Source: https://extraportionnatur.files.wordpress.com/

Dietary Decisions: Part 1 - An Overview

Dietary decisions are, unarguably, a part of our everyday lives. For most, these choices are personal and of intrinsic importance, which makes the task of telling people what they should or shouldn’t eat a great challenge.  Vegetarians and vegans are particularly stigmatised for their approach to combatting environmental damage and animal cruelty, and are often labelled as irritating or preachy. Equally, the ignorance of these issues surrounding food production probably does cause vegans and vegetarians alike to become a bit self-righteous and cheesed off, and subsequently berate their meat-eating counterparts. So, how do we stop this endless cycle? I guess by presenting the hard, cold facts and letting people see for themselves.

But, sometimes it’s really hard to get all the facts… There are so many diets out there claiming to be the best, the healthiest, and the most environmentally friendly, with countless recipes, pictures and ideas on the internet for you to gaze upon. But, which way do we turn? Vegan? Vegetarian? Paleo? Raw? Gluten Free? Pescatarian? Raw? No Red Meat? Ahhhh!!

Is this really the correct balance in our diets?
Source: here

Many diets have potential pitfalls, and it’s important having an awareness of what these are and how to combat them. For example, meat-based diets raise concerns of animal cruelty, diets containing red meat impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, and vegetarian and vegan diets often face issues of iron and vitamin B12 deficiencies. Additionally, there are other limitations to certain diets, such as, health conditions, pregnancy, socioeconomic status, geographical location, access to food and religious beliefs.

Before embarking on my blogging journey, I had never before put a label on my dietary habits. I have eaten meat my entire life, and still cannot quite call myself a vegetarian (even though my consumption is now relatively limited). As a child, meat was on the table at almost every meal. For a time, I could not imagine many meals that didn’t have meat on the menu. It wasn’t until half way through my mathematics undergrad degree that I started running low on money, and made a conscious decision to start cutting down on my consumption.

Source: http://bridgetnielsen.com

Since then, I have discovered lots of amazing vegetarian recipes that are tastier, healthier and cheaper than my original meat ones. I know that I do not suffer from deficiencies as I was already B12 deficient (so have regular injections), and have a very high iron count (which is tested every 16 weeks when I give blood). Now, I only purchase meat when it is in the reduced section and is about to expire, and only if it is chicken, turkey, pork or fish. Additionally, if a meal is prepared for me, I will not let it go to waste.

In this respect, I suppose that I now consider myself a “flexitarian”. George Monbiot says I’m a cheating vegetarian… I hardly think that’s fair when I consciously avoid red meat in particular, rarely eat meat at all, and do my best to purchase local and seasonal food (with exception to my dessert choices – by far my greatest weakness!). Despite this, I do often think I’m not doing enough. As Chad at Sown on Stony Grown has questioned, can you eat meat and still call yourself an environmentalist? I want to, but I can’t help feeling like I’m not doing enough…

Upon undertaking this blog, I have truly discovered the most pressing environmental impacts that our food choices have, and I continue to be utterly stunned at how food production is never at the forefront of the climate debate. So, if it isn’t being talked about enough, let’s take matters into our own hands! What diets should we be working toward to do our bit of climate change? How much power do we have as consumers?  And should we be doing more to put pressure on the food industry?

Please join me next time, when I will be spilling the beans!

Industrial Crop Production: Part 2 - Models Galore

Source: www.organicfacts.net/

Models are fundamental tools to helping us understand and predict real-life scenarios without having to meddle and tamper with them in actuality. Crop modelling is of particular importance to our society, particularly when considering the global population’s high dependence on the security, efficiency and existence of crops. Additionally, the large scale of systems like these raises a multitude of potential environmental implications that must be measured carefully and projected as accurately as possible.

However, there is some ambiguity and scepticism revolving around the use of models, especially within the field of crop modelling. In the last two decades, research has be launched to reduce the uncertainty prevalent in existing models through inter-comparison, scaling, development of code, removal of deficiencies and calibration of models to suit certain regions more effectively.

Below are some strong examples of models, or improvement projects, which have been utilised in last 15 years (and are, quite possibly, the cream of the crop!).

SIRIUS

Sirius is a simulation model which focuses on a specific cereal, wheat, to estimate the growth of wheat in multiple conditions, including varying climate scenarios. Within the simulation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) (the wavelength range of photosynthesis, between 400nm to 700nm) is obtained, using satellite imaging, to measure the biomass, and net growth of wheat. The leaf area index (LAI) (the proportion of ground area covered by vegetation) is then found using a thermal-time model, in order to estimate the natural cycle of leaf appearance and fluctuation in wheat. From here, Sirius has been programmed to measure the nitrogen and water deficiencies in the crop, by combining observations of LAI over time with photosynthetic effect. The model has been successfully calibrated in Europe, New Zealand, Australia and USA, and has shown accurate results in the face of climate change.

ATOPICA

The purpose of ATOPICA is to model the health risks and future trends of a particular allergenic pollen strain “Ambrosia” associated with the European influence of climate change, pollution and land-use changes. The aims of the project are:

• Increase understanding of the interaction between environmental change and effects on sufferers of Ambrosia pollen-related allergies
• Assessing the present and future risks associated with allergens
• To formulate responses to outbreaks, and improve regulation, in a policy-making context

Source: www.atopica.eu/

ADAPTAWHEAT

ADAPTAWHEAT is a four year project, set to complete next month, after commencing in January 2012. Its aim is to improve crop yield and performance of wheat, and develop adaptation strategies against climate change, within Europe, by looking at particular genetic components and germplasm, for flowering time and its periodicity (phenology).

Source:www.rothamsted.ac.uk

LARS-WG

LARS-WG conducts a time-series analysis of the weather in certain locations to assess the risk of weather on agriculture and hydrology, and make future predictions based on climate change scenarios. Version 5.0 of the LARS-WG model uses data from 15 Global Climate Models (commonly known as GCMs) to eliminate or reduce uncertainty in results which can stem from differences in model design. Examples of the weather measured include heavy precipitation, drought and heat waves, alongside normal everyday weather activity.

AgMIP

AgMIP, the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project, has the core objective to inter-compare multiple models, reduce uncertainty and calibrate them sufficiently, so that these crop models output more reliable results for future projects of baseline and other climate change scenarios. These predictions will be combined with economic models, to formulate appropriate adaptation strategies and enhance food security globally.

The main elements of the project are:

• Inter-comparing crop models to reduce uncertainties in temperature, precipitation and greenhouse gas emissions
• Juxtapose with observations of temperature, precipitation and GHG emissions
• Developing stronger computer code and strengthening understanding of relationships within the system
• Calibration of model based on region
• Simulation impacts of soil health and water sources on agriculture
• Utilising models to develop suitable adaptation strategies

The crops tested within the context of AgMIP were originally wheat, maize, rice and sugarcane, with expansion now allowing to modelling of potato, sorghum-millet, peanut (groundnut) and soybean.

Source: www.agmip.org

MACSUR

MACSUR take a similar approach to AgMIP with their CropM project, which aims to improve the quality of crop models by reducing uncertainty through inter-comparison, scaling methodologies, data compilation, and inclusion of (often neglected) factors, such as, impact of climate change on flowering and the use of crop rotation modelling. By linking crop and soil modelling, they are able to obtain a stronger, more accurate depiction of reality, which will help them develop stronger adaptation and mitigation strategies to climate change, and well as strengthen global food security.

Source: www.hoffmann.wf

Industrial Crop Production: Part 1 - Environmental and Social Impacts

Hellooo, and welcome back! I hope you all enjoyed getting creative and discovering new recipes with the COP21 Recipe Challenge. Now, I’d like to return to our critical analysis of certain food production practices, with the focus of today being: Industrial Crop Production.

We have so far learned about the environmental impacts of the livestock industry, which have left many presenting me with a case for pro-veganism. However, we must not forget that plant-based diets also have a major effect on the environment, and that by simply omitting meat and dairy from our diets does not come without its own set of problems! So, what’s the planet’s beef with industrial crop production?

Land-Use Change and Deforestation

http://s.hswstatic.com/

Crop production is a major driver of land-use change and deforestation. As discussed previously in relation to livestock production, the conversion of forestland threatens native species, ecosystems, and displaces and releases vast stores of carbon, decreasing the Earth’s ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

However, despite the millions of individuals in the world who live in food poverty, a large proportion of these crops are not grown specifically for human food consumption. According to the FAO, up to 33% of cropland is utilised in livestock feed, with further significant percentages being designated to the production of medicine, clothing, alcohol and biofuels. According to an article in TIME magazine, 25% of the corn harvested in the United States, in 2007, was used toward biofuel production. Although the conversion of crops to biofuels sound beneficial in theory, this raises serious concerns in terms of global food security, at the expense of choosing “clean energy” cars (for our own non-mandatory satisfaction) over feeding the planet. Despite this, the use of biofuels are not as widely spread in all other parts of the world, and thus are not necessarily an immediate threat to food security.

Irrigation and Water Resource Depletion

Graph: Comparison of yield between irrigated (blue) and rain-fed crops (orange)
Source: www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4683e/y4683e07.htm

With around 1.2 billion people in the world living in areas of water insecurity, the preservation and use of water in agriculture is of incredibly high importance. As demonstrated in the graph, crops fed with irrigated water produce much higher yields than rain-fed crops, with some results showing a yield of 2 to 3 times as high. This is great news in terms of global food security, however, as with everything in life, irrigation comes with its own set of environmental and ethical problems:

• Groundwater and water source pollution through the use of fertilisers and pesticides
• Reduced availability and/or quality of water for humans and other wildlife, i.e. water depletion
• Decrease in agricultural employment, and less available jobs
• Soil and land degradation, soil acidification and salinization
• Change in river hydrology or flow
• Increased evaporation of water within the system
• Higher occurrences of waterlogging, i.e. soil saturated with water

Desertification

https://www.wageningenur.nl/

Desertification is a type of land degradation caused by the conversion of arid, semi-arid or grass land into desert through either direct or indirect human activities, or changes in climate. Typical causes of desertification include poor land-use management, deforestation, agriculture, overgrazing, excessive use of water and excessive cultivation of crops.

This poses a threat to global food security, as the more land that is degraded, the less available land there is to use for agriculture. With the population set to increase from 7 billion to 9.6 billion by 2050, the reduction of available agricultural land will put an immense pressure on the need for further deforestation and land-use change projects. It is estimated that almost one-sixth of the land surface is already affected by desertification to an extent.

Additionally, this change in natural environment will also have a great impact on biodiversity loss and ecosystem changes which, in turn, has a knock-on effect on faraway areas.

Fertilisers

The use of fertilisers in food production is a controversial issue, particularly amongst organic food lovers. Their capacity to allow the expansion of potential food production and feed our vast population is undeniable, yet their power to wreak havoc with the environment is equally something that we cannot ignore.

Contamination of groundwater and surface through high use of fertilisers is a common occurrence, and can increase the amount of nutrients and pollutants in the water sources, leading to eutrophication, health expenses, water treatment costs, increased mortality in fish and other aquatic or land species. Additionally, the commercial and widespread use of fertilisers can lead to poor soil health, which includes soil degradation, pollution and acidification.

http://www.latrobefertilisers.com.au/

Fertilisers are not just a pollutant of water, but also a potential air pollutant. Their emissions of various nitrogen oxides increase tropospheric ozone, which is caused by the reaction between nitrogen oxides and sunlight. This can have a damaging effect on the health, biodiversity and crops themselves. It is predicted that 35% of cereals are already vulnerable to high levels of tropospheric ozone.

Lastly, we cannot forget that the manufacturing process to produce fertilisers require vast quantities of fossil fuels, particularly the use of natural gas. Thus, from an environmentalist’s perspective, fertilisers are a further dependence on fossil fuels, which we are trying to diverge away from!

Yet, this puts me, and probably you too, in a serious dilemma. Realistically, food production is so highly dependent on the use of fertilisers, and so to totally eradicate them would likely cause mass global hunger and mortality. However, their environmental impacts are leading to a similar fate. The latter is slower, with possible mitigation strategies in the future, but is highly unethical. Maybe a gradual phasing out of fertilisers would be a good solution? Although, I’m not entirely sure if that’s possible, with such a high population to feed… If anyone could give their insight on that one, I’d be really interested to hear your views!

Pesticides

Pesticide use, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and disinfectants, are another controversial aspect of crop production. They carry similar environmental impacts to fertilisers, for example, water contamination, air pollution, soil degradation and pollution, human health and ecosystems.

http://evanslab.org.uk/

The most known environmental or ecological impact is the effect of pesticide use on bees. Honey bees, in particular, are exposed to pesticides due to their high dependence on crops, such as, maize, sunflower and oilseed rape. Bees often transport pesticides in pollen and nectar, and store it within the hive, leaving non-foraging bees exposed to toxic effects of pesticides. This is supposedly taken into account by pesticide manufacturers, who ensure that doses of neonicotinoids (the damaging toxin) are below what is considered lethal (without a controlled setting)(. Despite this, decline in bee populations are still prevalent through the exposure of sub-lethal doses of neonicotinoids in pesticides. As common pollinators of major food sources, including commercial crops, this could have a potentially devastating impact on the food web and ecosystems.

Furthermore, the use of pesticides becomes a bit of an arms race between humans and pests. It is thought that within approximately 10years, most insects become resistant to insecticides, and for some bacteria this resistant to antibiotics can occur within 1-3 years. In this respect, it’s a never-ending struggle, with the end result being super-resistant pests with more potential of harm to human health.

Monocropping

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/

Monocropping is an agricultural practice where only a single crop is grown in an area from year to year, without rotating. Crop rotation is important for increased soil health and quality, thus monocropping leads to soil degradation and smaller yields. If soil degradation persists over time, this could lead to the land being usable for agricultural purposes, and thus reducing the amount of available land for food production.

The genetic uniformity of crops contributes to a lack of biodiversity in animal and plant species, as well as increase the crops’ susceptibility to pests and disease, hence the heightened use of pesticides in crop production. With 60% of the human food source dependent on only three cereals (wheat, rice and corn), this makes monocropping a huge threat global food security.

Luxurious Dark Chocolate and Hazelnut Tart

OK, so this recipe isn't necessarily of the strictest important... But I made it as a bit of an experiment, and it was unbelievably indulgent. If anyone can suggest any ways to make this recipe suitable for vegans, I would be very happy!

Ingredients

Pastry
160g butter (unsalted)
100g (golden) caster sugar
225 plain flour
50g almonds
1 egg

Chocolate Filling

100g hazelnuts
50g golden caster sugar (or soft brown sugar is preferrable if you have it)
200g dark chocolate
100g butter

1 tbsp amaretto (optional)
1 egg
3 egg yolks








Recipe

1. First of all, make the pastry. Cream together butter and sugar, until mixed well. Then add flour, and ground almonds. Beat the egg, and then add to the mixture. Leave the pastry to cool in the fridge for approximately 30 mins. Once cool, roll out into a pastry tin (23cm diameter). (When I tried this step, the pastry completely fell apart.. Don't worry if this happens for you, just press all the scrap pieces of pastry in the tin at an even level). Then chill again for 15 mins.
2. Heat the oven to 200C/180C fan. Take the pastry out of the fridge, line with baking paper, and fill with baking beans (or dried beans or lentils or anything to weigh it down), then bake for 10 mins. Remove the beans, and cook for another 10-15 mins, or until the casing is golden.
3. Whilst you wait, toast the nuts in a pan (without oil) for a few mins. Turn to a low heat, and add 3 tbsp of sugar and caramelise the nuts gently for a few mins. Take off the heat and leave to cool. Once cooled, roughly chop.
4. Meanwhile, melt chocolate and butter in a heat-proof dish over a pan of simmering water. Once melted together, add the amaretto (if using), and put on the side to cool. In a separate bowl, add the eggs, yolks and leftover sugar, and beat together well. Fold this into the cooled chocolate mix.
5. Once the tart case is cooked, take out of the oven, and turn down the heat to 160C/140C fan. Distribute most of the chopped hazelnuts along the bottom of the case, then add the chocolate mix until level. Cook the tart for 15-20 mins until the chocolate has almost set. Once cooled, scatter the remaining nuts on top for decoration.