Genetic Modification: Pro GMO or No GMO?

Source: http://engl105062.web.unc.edu

Genetic Modification (GM) of organisms and our food is incredibly hot topic in this day and age. The internet is full to the brim with very strongly opinionated articles about why you either should or should not be for the use of GM products. These opinions are cleverly disguised as facts, and are about as useful as a chocolate teapot... Thus, as a result, through time I have had friends who are vehemently against their existence, which often lead me to lean far the opposite way in the 'for' camp. However, over the last year or so, I have found myself dwindling back in the middle again - a reason I wanted to write this post in the first place. Despite this, I've been putting it off for weeks, trying to procure legitimate facts and rid my brain of preconceptions or little sound bites I've heard. So, please, if you're firmly in one camp or another, I ensure that you will benefit from reading further and understanding both the pros and cons, and extending that olive branch to your "GM-emies" (*cough* enemies *cough*) to finally end the disdain you feel... Otherwise, if you're in an argument with a strict "yes or no"-er, you can now have the upper hand of knowledge!

So, what's the deal with GM? Genetic Modification is when a species' genetic material (either DNA or RNA) has been altered in some way that is not specific to that organism, for example, through the switching on or off of certain characteristics within the genome, or by transferring genes from one organism to another (including different species). Regardless of the potential pros of this recent technology, there are strong public concerns over its safety within food production, and fear of its damage to human health, the environment and economies. A lot of these worries appear to stem from the prevalence of multi-billion agricultural biotechnology company, Monsanto, whose patents on a large proportion of crop seeds grants them a great deal of control and power over what we eat. This is undoubtedly a worrying matter. However, others seem to focus more on the safety of the food itself, as opposed to the inequality in its distribution or ownership... Despite this, the UN say that as a planet who are currently facing a huge crisis in terms of food security and malnutrition, we cannot justify ignoring the use of Genetic Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our food. So, is there anything wrong with GM food, or is it just in the wrong hands?

Source: www.livinglimitlessly.com

For / Pros / Yea

Productivity:

• Crops can be genetically modified to become more resistant to certain stress factors, such as pests, weather conditions (e.g. drought or frost), and disease, making it less likely for their yields to fail. In some cases, this can increase the overall yield of crops and increase their adaptability to climate change and other environmental stress, which would provide more food globally, and ensure improved food security in the future. Additionally, this can pave the way for increased efficiency and future research in improving crops through GM methods.
• For animals, genetic modification has the potential to increase milk yields in cows, which can reduce the amount of dairy cattle needed, which in turn reduces their devastating impact on the environment, as described here.

Environment:

• GM crops can decrease the environmental destruction caused by chemical and industrial practices. For example, crops modified to be resistant to pests and disease dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides used on them. A study (conducted between 1996 and 2002) determining the environmental impact of pesticide use concluded that a reduction of 503 million kilograms led to a decreased direct carbon footprint of 18.7%, including an equivalent reduction in GHG emissions from 11.9 million cars (compared to the mass of CO₂). 
• The ability to produce more food on less agricultural land due to the increased productivity potential of GM crops. This reduces the need to cultivate new land.
• Additionally, we are able to rehabilitate degraded land, which again decreases the need to cultivate new land. This is achievable either through the introduction of organisms modified to increase soil quality and provide nutrients, or through the use of crops resistant to harsh conditions, such as drought or degradation.
• This available land can be used to create bio-fuels, modified to efficiently provide a lot of energy, whilst simultaneously reducing the need for fossil fuels. 
• Increase the shelf life of food products, and in turn reducing the vast volumes of global food waste, which currently equates to approximately a third of all food!

Health:

• By the transfer of genes into crops, we have the potential to insert certain nutritional characteristics that may benefit consumers. Golden rice is an example of this, where the gene that encourages the production of vitamin A was transferred into certain rice crops. This advantage can decrease vitamin A deficiency, a condition that can lead to blindness, disease and death, and is prevalent in developing countries.
• The existence of GMOs allow us to experiment with medicines and vaccines, which can potentially save many lives and lead to become a more medically advanced society.
• They also enable us to learn more about certain diseases with carry genetic material.
• Lastly, we can identify certain allergens in food and organisms, thus leading to improved methods of prevention and possibly eradication.

Source: http://makeena.com

Against / Cons / Nay

Socio-Economic:

• As mentioned previously, the ownership of certain GM crop seeds (often within the private sector) decreases farmers' capability to exist independently, and often runs them out of business. The idea of large companies dominating the market, and selling farmers' crops back to them at extortionate prices creates a monopoly in the market.
• This issue also affects the freedom of researchers, which is lost due to the ownership of property, and can reduce the speed in which research is developed.
• The well-known "terminator" feature of GM crops, stopping crop from reproducing the following season naturally, is designed to prevent the crossing of GM seeds with non-GM seeds, which can lead to complications described below. However, it also means that farmers cannot save seeds from one season to the next, and have little choice but to buy new ones again (likely at high prices).

Environment:

• It is a possibility that the genes through one GM species could be transferred unexpectedly to another through "gene escape". This could result in weeds developing herbicide-resistance, and thus damaging future crops. Out-crossing is heavily monitored prior to its introduction in agricultural practice, and has not yet indicated an increased risk of invasive species. However, this cannot be ruled out as a future possibility and issue.
• Unknown genetic mutations could potentially occur, with unknown consequences over future generations.
• During the modification, non-targeted (sleeper) genes should be accidentally be switched on, or equally important, active genes may be switched off, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
• The impact of GMOs on biodiversity or ecosystems is also hard to predict. For example, in the laboratory, Bt crops were shown to have a negative impact on certain butterfly species, however this was not reflected in real life.
• Additionally, the concern over insect resistance in Bt crops led experts to push for plans that require all fields containing insect-resistance crops to be accompanied by locations containing non-GM crops, to ensure insect biodiversity is maintained.
• GM crops aren't only a threat to animals, but also to crop biodiversity, either through the competition or crossing of these with wild species.

Health:

• A risk is the possible transfer of genes containing allergens into other crops, which may be a danger to allergy sufferers.
• There may be unapproved genetically modified food available on the market, which will require strict regulations and governance.
• Similarly to eating meat, GM foods have the potential to transfer resistance of antibiotics to humans (and livestock) which would make us highly susceptible to bacterial diseases, and may lead to increased deaths.

So, what do you think now? Yea or Nay? Please leave your opinions in the comments about where you think you are, and we can all have a gruelling debate! Even if you're still in the middle... Or if you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask!

Source: www.civilbeat.com

(RE)Solutions to Reduce Future Climate Vulnerability in Food Systems

Source: www.wholebodyreboot.com

It is clear that one of the main issues we face when ensuring global food security is climate change. Therefore, it seems obvious that our main solution here is reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, switching to renewable sources of energy, adapting more sustainable agricultural practices, et cetera. As mentioned in other previous posts, we would benefit to staving off red meats and switching to more plant-based diets, as well as highly reducing our waste of food, and even our consumption. However, it's all well and good to say these things coming from a western perspective, where everything is readily available... Yet, most of our food is often grown abroad. Especially staple goods, like rice and wheat. It may be easy for us to switch these parts of our society, but it's not that simple for others developing nations, who rely on selling off rainforests for agricultural land (like in Amazonian countries), vast fossil fuel industries (like China) and large industries that need to increase their GDP at the expense of exploiting their workers. Things aren't always as black and white as they seem... But as privileged people, we should be doing more.

As mentioned in a few previous posts, food security is characterised by three main pillars: access, availability and utilisation. Therefore, to reduce vulnerability to external factors, such as climate change, conflict, disease and the likes, we need to ensure that we achieve security in all of these individual sects.

Availability

Gregory et al. (2005) believe that boosting production is our solution to increasing availability of food. Although this is difficult to dispute, they interpret this as increasing intensification of agricultural production, cultivating new agricultural land, increasing widespread use of chemical inputs (fertilisers, pesticides, etc.) and furthering development of genetically modified crops (which will be discussed in further detail next time).  Contrarily, the FAO disagree by stating that we need to move forward with "climate-smart" methods of agriculture. To be fair, we cannot expect nations to switch to sustainable practice, if they have not been educated or encouraged to do so. Therefore, we must campaign to reduce government subsidies that push small farmers to engage in unsustainable practices, and educate the globe about how to integrate pest management and boost yields with minimal fertilisers. Additionally, we need to increase international funding for the adaptation and mitigation of climate change for developing nations, as presented in the COP21 agreement, to reduce future global food insecurity.

Access

Poverty and infrastructure are two key elements impacting global access to food, which both boil down to economies and available money. Gregory et al. (2005) comment that we need to improve food distribution, such as enhancing transport infrastructure and political agreements that circulate food faster in cases of emergency, as well as increase economic access to food by introducing policies that cut out middle men, lowering price of production, encouraging economic growth and providing political stability. The latter point (to increase economic access) contradicts the ideas put forward for improving availability, as industrial practices reduce agricultural employment, increase production costs, and reduce GDP per capita. Thus, to improve access, we must introduce more sustainable and local agricultural practices, that serve local communities. In respect to improving transportation, this can indeed certainly be said for developing countries, however possibly less so for developed nations, who should in turn be working hard to reduce their carbon footprints within the transport sector, and instead look to grow and import food more locally.

Utilisation

Defined as the "appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care", utilisation refers to the education of its users and producers. Thus, to increase security in food utilisation, our main priority must be to educate farmers, producers and consumers in sustainable and secure practices, healthy and environmentally-friendly eating, and the reduction of food waste.


In short, it's incredibly difficult to gauge how to best increase future food security, and one that policy-makers have found challenging for decades. In a world where individuals focus on gaining personal profit at the expense of others, and environmental degradation is a "future matter", it's hard to see everything for what it truly is, instead of how it may appear... As westerners, our smart phones are often made out of conflict materials, our clothes made through slave labour, our electricity provided at the expense of suffocating smog, GHG emissions and pollution, our food processed beyond recognition, and our wars that serve agendas to be seen fighting the "war on terror". We have it so easy, yet it is never enough... So, to really reduce your impact, think about what you need, why you need it, and how best to obtain it ethically and environmentally...

The Role of Climate, Conflicts and Economies on Future Food Security

Source: The Guardian

Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most pressing issues of our time, and will continue to worsen if our attitudes fail to change quickly. As discussed in a previous post, food insecurity is amongst our greatest concerns when it comes to climate change, with the potential to leave millions in food poverty and increased deaths. Some models predict that we have the capacity to produce enough food for the global population over the next 20 to 30 years, while others contest these claims, stating that climatic variations may see a net decline in major cereals, such as corn, wheat and rice, over the next 20 years. Despite this, multiple studies agree that our ability to expand production is slowly diminishing, as intensification and exploitation of resources reach their limits.

Diverse regions across the world face variable levels of food systems vulnerability due to the different physical, social and economic abilities to cope with climate change. Alongside the direct causes, like change in weather patterns, many indirect also causes play havoc with the future of global food security, such as disease, poverty and politics.

On the contrary, it’s not all bad news for everybody over the globe, as some areas may soon start to enjoy social and economic growth as a result of climate change…

Climatic Impact on Food Security

Source: http://i.imgur.com

With increasing global temperatures brings great changes in regional climates and weather patterns. Take, for example, the high temperatures and increased precipitation we have experienced this winter, leading to mass flooding and social devastation. In terms of food production, tropical and subtropical regions are highly in danger of decreased food security due to a rising risk of drought. It is estimated that many countries across these regions could receive less than the minimum 120 days necessary to produce sufficient cereal crop yields, plunging already typically vulnerable countries into economic decline. The increasing occurrence of El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events are thought to be related to enhanced dry spells, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This implies that this region is likely to be the most at risk of hunger and food insecurity in upcoming years. Additionally, with heightened chance of drought, decreased precipitation and increased evaporation comes greater risk of water scarcity, which is forecasted to affect 5 billion people by 2025.

Although, these projections are largely based upon models and assumptions, which do not take into consideration the likelihood of technological development, adaptation strategies, international support, and political attitudes to climate change, which may see some of these regions less affected than predicted.

Interestingly, a majority of countries located in the temperate and arctic climates (mainly in the northern hemisphere) will experience an approximate 9% gain in arable land suitable for agriculture. This expansion will mainly be observed across Russia, North America, Central Asia and northern Europe, seeing respective boosts in local economies and availability of food. Despite this, it is postulated that, on the global scale, food reserves will remain relatively the same. So, this does not solve the distribution problem effectively! Additionally, this prediction of increased agricultural land in these regions does not take heavily into account the potential for unprecedented occurrences to take place, such as natural hazards, flooding/waterlogging, conflict or political instability.

Other Impacts on Food Security

However, as discussed above, climate is not a single deterministic factor of food security. Although it is the most quoted, many countries, such as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), struggle to cope with sudden shocks and variations due to a lack of infrastructure, financing, skilled labourers, and much more. The resulting issue tends to increase with heightened instability of external factors, instead of just climate change itself. For example, despite Europe, USA and eastern Australia having an incredibly high human threat to water security due to severe drought, climatic variations and detrimental agricultural practices, their ability to cope is high, as they are technologically and economically equipped to manage. (This demonstrated in the image below).

Source: Vörösmarty et al., 2010

Poverty is the most obvious aggravating factor, as it can lead to reduced technological capability, poor social infrastructure (housing, transport, etc.) and increased risk of disease. With food security reliant upon availability, access and utilisation, these characteristics are highly pertinent. To illustrate, lack of efficient transportation reduces access to food from outside regions (which is particularly concerning in the face of an environmental or social emergency), lack of trained agriculturalists or labourers impacts the quality and availability of food, and lack of economic security increases hunger and food poverty. Additionally, approximately half of all malnutrition is caused by non-food related aspects, such as HIV/AIDs and malaria, which are amplified by increasing global temperatures, and are often located in LDCs. That really is the icing on top of a shit-filled cake…

To add insult to injury, political alliances also have a huge part to play in the battle for food security. Alliances with countries who are well-equipped to deal with climate change, such as North America, Europe and Australia, may be ensured aid, safety and refuge in potentially dark times head, whereas less-economically developed countries may find themselves marginalised and left to fend for themselves (despite statistically contributing a whole lot LESS to global warming). Additionally, these political alliances can become vastly unpredictable, particularly during the current “war on terror”, born almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, which continues to deconstruct and rebuild new political affiliations on a regular basis.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

AHHH! The voice is my head is almost screaming as I write… Which factors do you see as the most damaging to future food security? Climate change? Economic stability? Political stability? Health? Something completely different? Or a mixture of certain factors? Let me know in the comments!

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.

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!

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.

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.