Well well well!!!! Hello Blog-o-world! I sure has been a while and a few more lost lbs (literally a few more!).
A good friend, Chloe, who did a great blog on ocean acidification a few months ago, posted something on facebook that caught my eye:
Now this is an artist (cartoonist) impression which is totally unrelated to the article... but somehow (with the power of imagination!) reflects what the BBC news article says, dinosaurs farted so much, they effected the climate, 'Jurrasogenic' climate change? Maybe not...
Sarupods (large diplodicus like dinosaurs) had huge amounts of bacteria in their stomachs (much like today's cows and ruminants) and enterically fermented what they ate, producing noxious dino-farts! It is estimated that these fart-machines produced 520 million tonnes of methane (as we know, a very potent GHG). However, it should be questioned just how it is possible to estimate an arbitrary number, in fact, it is much like what the total annual methane emission are currently (500 M tonnes). These statistics would be based on numbers of dinosaurs, diet, average methane production per unit food, and how much (and of what quality) food they ate.
1) We don't know how many dinosaurs there were at any one point in time 2) We can't compare current dinosaur enteric fermentation rates to prehistoric one because we will never be able to directly measure the (you kind of need a dinosaur in a confined space... oh and a live one helps too!). 3) The signal of these gas signitures would have to be discerned from other natural processes going on at the time (no disrespect, don't we all have better time periods to focus on, like the here and now, or the anthropocene!).
To be frank, this article does have sound rationale for making a statement, after all, dinosaurs were multicellular organisms, and produced bi-products from digestion/respiration which included some GHGs. However, to quantify is to dig a whole back to yesterday... pointless.
Please read the article yourself, your opinion should be formed by your own judgements and perspectives on evidence. With exams in two days (2 consecutive days!) I know I should be revising for them right about now... but being in the past with a bunch of farting reptiles doesn't seem that bad with respect!
Even though assessment for this blog is over... I know I did this not for my environmental conscience, but because I was FORCED to... I feel the need to carry on posting because I love the many uses of poo...and here is another example of POO POWER!
So the video shows a great way to sustainably develop.... income from pig farming, waste management, and energy production on a decentralised scale... tick tick tick for the World Bank's Rural development initiatives!
This technology is being rolled out at a global level, it is happening in India and China where rural populations are increasing and require energy and income like anyone else.
More on this to come!! Hopefully! :D
Disclaimer.... I do not want any marks for these posts after the deadline of submission, I would just kind of like to carry on if possible??? Is that bad?
I hope in the recent posts that I have at least hinted to the fact that I believe that through personal choice we can change the current path we are on through simple yet hard lifestyle changes.
This is a funny video of my hero Peter Griffin... lol Random... anyways... in fact it conveys perfectly what I want to say in this post... denial of the facts just won't solve the problem (shouting yeah when you are doomed to fail regardless of what you think the science is showing you or not) doesn't change the course you are on and the destination you will finish at.... deep I know right? :D)
Believe me, I can appreciate how hard it is to drastically change your consumption habits.
Today is my 21st birthday!!! YAY ME! Thanks to all the messages... wait... this isn't facebook... anywho, unsurprisingly, this time last year I had just turned 20....
*FLASHBACKS*....
Oh wait... I can't do a flashback, well I guess I have been watching far too much family guy, and not enough time working hard!
On my 20th Birthday I realised on thing that dawned on me... I was consuming far too much; not just for someone my age (a nearly fully grown man) but for a human in general. I was an obese child, and I only grew larger with time. When I am talking about obese, I mean, hey, I'm not on the biggest loser because I was too big!
So, like I said, I turned 20, and weighed so much I couldn't even get on a Wii fit *product placement*... yes that's right, I got on the scale and it literally said one at a time... FAIL.
Just to give you an idea, the maximum weight was 150 kg (23.6 stone). I know I weighed a lot more than that, 24 stone or about 152 kg. I am honestly not lying.
So as you can see, from an obese child to a morbidly obese young man it didn't look to well for me... I mean, I weighed more stone than years to my life!
I was a large child, I weighed 70 kg (11 stone) at the age of 11. That is a full grown man's weight if not more.
So I said to myself: "In 10 years I have more than doubled in weight. What about the next 10? Will I be 300kg (47 stone)? Or will I gain another 70 kg, coming up to 220 kg (34 stone)?"
The point is, was I really going to continue on this unsustainable trajectory; a poor life of pain and misery and death. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, too many obesity related diseases to mention.
I said no... not this time, so I made a choice, a simple yet hard choice to lose weight. It was simple in the sense that all I needed to do was reduce the amount I eat and be more active. However, breaking an eating habit that I have had all my life is not easy. I have always loved pasta, nutella, chocolate, sugar, bread, anything fatty/starchy/sweet I would eat, and a large amount as well!
Changing my consumption habits was not easy, but day by day I learned to not add sugar in my tea, drink sugar free drinks, give up pasta and white bread and diversify my diet (Pasta is my favourite food... I would have literally killed for a plate a year ago lol!).
I began to watch what I ate, calorie counting thanks to labels; watching sugar in my diet, never exceeding the recommended daily calorie intake of 2500 for a man my age (although for someone my size it was more than double, 4-5000 just because I was SOO BIG!).
Spoonful by spoonful, meal by meal, day by day and month by month I stuck to (not my diet) my lifestyle change. Not eating after 6 pm. No added sugar in anything. Reduced salt in my foods. No pasta. No bread. No chocolate. No sweets.
Instead, lovely vegetable soups, eggs and oily fish, occasional lean meat (I know!! I ate far less than I did before though!!!) in sauces and stews, cous cous and rice. I know love Chinese, Singaporean and Indian foods (albeit slowly slowly lol!). Italian: gnocci and polenta; Moroccan: tagines and harira. I diversified my consumption, I became healthier and over time I shed my weight.
I know exercise a bit, I like to walk...(hey one step at a time I am still no Olympian!) and move around as much as possible.
So the other day I weighed myself... and from 24 stone, I now weigh 15 (I got down to 14 stone 13 lbs but gained 1 pound over 4 days!! dammit! lol).
Over the course of one year I have lost 9 stone exactly. I like to think I look better than I did, I sure feel do.
I have never in my life weighed so little, I just wished my wardrobe shrunk too... I have tents for t-shirts and sleeping bags for trouser legs. I can fit into a 36 inch waist... not incredibly comfortably, but zip up and button the trousers nonetheless, just wouldn't go out in them at the moment! I only used to be able to wear jogging bottoms, now I can wear jeans!!! I am sorry but when you have never been able to, throughout your late teenage life, it is amazing to finally wear them!
The reason I am embarrassing myself by telling you I used to be really big is to show you that it may be hard but fundamentally, if it is unsustainable, it will be the eventual death of us all unless we do something about it. I know it is difficult and so easy to pass the buck but if we all just made little choices, we could make a massive difference. I had to change my unsustainable consumption because it finally dawned on me that I was on the wrong track; I am no better than any one else on this planet for that, but by trying to make a difference, sure I am no Brad Pitt, I am sure as hell healthier than I was before.
If I can do it, then anyone else can because as cheesy as it sounds, I have hopefully shown that it can be done. Seeing is believing and if we do take care of ourselves, and we do become aware of the impact that our actions are having on the planet, then we will begin to change our ways, innovate out of it or change our consumption patterns. Whatever we do, the replacement has to be sustainable. Being selfish and not changing consumption patterns would result in a poor quality environment for our kids to grow up in, or in my case no life at all.
Everything you could ever want to know is just a click away. There is no excuse and I am one to make up excuses I tell YOU!!!
All the best and keep watching the posts... maybe? :D
By no means I am wagging my finger and blaming everyone under the sun for everything negative that's wrong with the world; that would be tiring and hypocritical lol!
What is needed are solutions.
Whether it is bio-technology and increased use of GM technologies to produce less GHG producing cows and other ruminants, or the utilisation of efficient feed and better storage, disposal and use of manure and other excrement produced as a livestock by-product (all in this IPCC report) and suggested by Popp et al., 2010.
Greater efficiencies in the production of livestock is integral to its sustainability, its been done to a certain extent in the transport industry, so why should what we eat be ring-fenced whilst we are all streamlining transportation (greater fuel efficient cars) energy production (renewable energy/ long life light bulbs), waste disposal (recycling); yet we still dump a lot of unnecessary fertiliser on a over irrigated field all in the name of reducing starvation?
Like in every single one of the example I have highlighted (and many more I have forgotten lol) there are some common traits; public support and interest; consumer attitude changes; cost of implementation; accessibility and availability of products.
I am not asking/telling people to be vegetarian, it isn't necessary if agriculture was more sustainable. Greater GHG sinks (afforestation); less intensive agricultural practices; the real cost of meat (reduction in production subsidies Bruges, 2008) they would all curb emissions one way or another.
But by far the biggest source of agricultural expansion and GHG emissions is through demand. Unsustainable and inappropriate consumption is creating a problem that shouldn't even exist. The most significant way, as all the literature points to, whether modelled or not, is through consumer habits changing. Not eating meat every day is a start. Buying a non-meat alternative is also good. Margarine over butter is a positive, however depending on where the source of ingredients come from , palm oil could be one.
Whatever you choose to do, just be aware of the choice you are making. Be a concious consumer and try act in an environmental, in a sustainable way. This is not easy. I am no expert on all products and their sources, but finding this information out has never been easier. Google it!
Maybe soon there will be some kind of certification that address how environmentally sustainable meat products are (like those for tuna and dolphins, recycled paper from sustainable forests and recyclable plastics)? If there is already please let me know!!! Maybe that's one thing we could do, start a social movement for Sustainable and Environmental Agricultural Production in the United Kingdom... SEAPUK!
SEAPUK...we could get Paul McCartney to talk at an event... hmm.... Planet organic... get a few farmers involved... we could start something great!
The site is great for recipe suggestions which surprisingly don't have any meat in at all!
Now... I have to be honest, today I made a tasty chicken teriyaki tikka masala curry with tasty thai jasmin rice... *om nom nom... anyways I have some left over... rather than waste I shall, as the say in Italy 'mangio' the curry. I know bad right?... but I did not eat meat on Friday or Thursday, at least I don't remember eating any? *thinks deeply to himself*
So enjoy the site and all the tasty suggestions...
Tomorrow I shall post a good post... it is a special day!!! YAY ME! lol I am sad but... well there is no justification, I just am.
Is there no end to the power that is google? Clearly there is and that is why they are investing in pig poo power (say that really fast 100 times without dying of lack of oxygen or boredom). As seen in this article.
The technology is simple, decompose the poo to produce methane (our favourite gas after oxygen and helium... *squeeeek!*) and then burn this highly potent GHG to produce heat to boil water to produce steam to turn a turbine to produce electricity! Loads of to-s!
Get this... it will produce enough to power an amazing 35 homes! That's right 3...5...! To be fair 1 american home is practically 20 European homes... WIN.
Highlighting the offsetting equivalent, the effect of 900 cars have been taken of the roads (and are now in China...lol!) no in all seriousness it shows the GHG producing potential of livestock.
It's so difficult even trying to read this post not because it's dull (it's actually quite funny) but because I really really really really don't want to stop eating meat :( I mean, I can go without meat for maybe a day or two (I love veg) but not my entire life! And I think I'm not alone in my reluctance to change. Love of meat is what's stopping many people who do know that their meat-eating lifestyle produces much more greenhouse gases to just eating veg.
What then would you suggest to help persuade more people to stop eating meat (or eat significantly less meat)?
Well Wei I hope this blog has tried to help persuade people of the environmental cost of meat at least, even though to be honest it was originally created just to investigate the role livestock agriculture and in particular the poo and pee aspect of it all has on our planet. I don't think I can go without meat forever, but as I am to emphasise everything in moderation is acceptable. The amount of meat we eat is purely unsustainable, not individually but as a collective; if we all individually reduce our consumption, the collective will reduce aptly. This video really got to me, but it is mostly focused on the animal cruelty side (it has some very disturbing images so please only watch if you are not easily offended, it is called 'If slaughterhouses had glass walls' by PETA.... the environmental aspect is admittedly small, but as we can see from not just this blog, but every other on the 'anthropocene' it is all interlinked.
On a much lighter note! Food is delicious, rice, pasta, pizza are all non-meat based foods (just because meat can be eaten with them, it does not mean it has to be eaten with them). Like Yulia has suggested pulses are a great source of protein like tofu, even though it fails in comparison to east asian tofu!
Buying meat from a sustainable farm, the practicalities are hard, but it is a possibility. The cheapest way to make a difference is to probably lobby policy makers (and I said cheap lol!). Again this is not easy in london, but if there is market, a product will soon fill it!
And these three are from Yulia:
Thanks for your reply! So depressing about the battery hens! However, from my life as a student and from being aware of the lifestyle of the rural poor in Russia (compared to whom the British poor are ‘wealthy’, which is why they can afford meat), I don't agree with you that meat is the cheapest source of protein: pulses like chickpeas are cheaper (if you buy the dry ones and then boil). Now we don't theoretically have an excuse for unsustainable consumption! THEORETICALLY! I really hope your blog can convince more of us to change our habits. Though the way it is going, it seems that the 'innovative technology' will have to be the answer. Please check out my blog for innovative land sources, which I will post soon!
Firstly poverty is relative... there isn't a competition about who is poorer, but I will gladly cede the win to you. Anything is possible, it's hard but one less sausage a day or the vegetarian option at lunch is a step in the right direction. Fruit is a healthy snack alternative... but not really great for meat? vegetable soups are great for this time of year, and minestrone soup is perfect!
No Meat!
Your posts really make me laugh, DanDan! And you are actually starting to convince me to want to eat less meat.
Nonetheless, I do have the same question as Wei, though: I tried becoming a vegetarian before and as soon as I made that decision, I realized that I can't live without meat! It seems many environmentally-conscious consumers are in the same boat. What do we do? Would getting recipes for the delicious vegetarian Moroccan dishes I once tried help? DanDan?
As I said in a comment on my blog, you may find this relevant to using biofuels and bacteria to simultaneously tackle eutrophication:
With all the talk about environmentalism, and when we are all too busy hugging trees, we do forget other things that are happening on the planet.
Sustainable development is not just some buzz-phrase cooked up in the nineties to gives us 15 year olds in the naughties to learn about in geography... well there is some truth in that too.
"livestock make a vital contribution as generators of cash flow and economic buffers, provided that market chains are organised to provide openings for small scale producers and traders and those in remote areas." (Forward, ix, FAO 2011: Livestock in Food Security)
The fundamental point is that livestock is not just a source of emissions, pollution, ethical controversy but at the end of the day is a source of food and income. Highlighting Sub-Saharan Africa, the expansion of agriculture (like that seen in China and India in the late 20th Century, Green Revolution) is pegged as a lifeline to reduce poverty and improve on the health problems.
The report highlights the changes in livestock production numbers and per capita consumption (Table 4) and also shows specific region and national scale changes and predictions (figures 1, 2 and table 16). I could bore you describing what they say... alternatively you could read? read isn't a good word to use, you don't 'read' a graph do you? observe the graphs yourselves.
As you can see, the numbers only increase...
Pastoralists number 120 million, and they depend on their livestock for food, income, transport and fuel; would it be fair to force them to stop stocking animals because climate change is getting out of hand? After all it is the 'developed' who have truly mechanised GHG emissions; should we tarnish everyone with the same brush? I don't think so.
This coupled with the need to maximise profits and reduce cost to open the market to everyone, livestock intensification is needed, and these agricultural systems are the worst environmentally, ethically and for small business competition which just does not have the finance to compete.
The report (FAO, 2011) goes onto stress that the dichotomy for environmental mitigation and sustainable economic development doesn't necessarily result in changes in the way development is going but rather the point that:
"suggest that the average global consumption of meat should be approximately 90 g a day, compared with the current 100 g, and that not more than 50 g should come from red meat from ruminants. If this target were achieved, it would lower the peak demand for meat. However, government-sponsored nutritional and healthy eating programmes have had limited success in changing dietary preference." (page 82)
The root of all evil it seems is not money but consumption, and a lot of it at that!
Inequality in food distribution is widely known. Last year I had the opportunity to sit in on a UN Young Ambassador Society events held at the Institute of Education and none other than the Executive Director of the World Food Programme gave a keynote speech. There, Josette Sheeran spoke quite bluntly about the inequality of food distribution worldwide. There is enough food but a billion remain undernourished and a billion over. That means there is still a lot of waste, and through waste reduction we can 'offset' carbon emissions and save the environment!
It is a very long read and I would bet there are gems that I haven't mentioned that I haven't read in the report... it's 100 pages long! What do you expect me to do???
This video sums up the arguments for and against meat alternatives. It is an easy and fun watch... in fact I remember watching this when it first aired on tv... how sad am I!?!?!
Next up... a reply to another comment! I would love to see more! :D
And remember, if we can send a man to the moon any thing is possible, even reducing our consumption!
Well I am not talking about 21st of December... regardless of what those great survivors the Mayans thought (even if THE Britney Spears 'sings' a song about it) the world won't end; but one absolute certainty is that the cows will come home to fart....
The end of my blogging days may be over... screams of please no I hear?!? (or are they all 'Thank God!')... nevertheless I will try and look at the alternatives to a life in an atmosphere of animal farts.
From what the much of the literature points to as the driver in increased livestock production, demand seems to generate the largest fundamental factor in the quantity of emissions. So, to reduce emissions and other detrimental effects of livestock farming we have to reduce demand and consumption.
This is not easy... I personally do not want to stop eating meat altogether, although, after watching the documentary Mat the Truth, I was seriously contemplating going cold turkey... on turkey...
Proteins are vital to human health and life. So if we don't eat meat, what would we eat instead?
A commonly given example is fish. Fish is often seen as a better food stuff than meat, but fishing has caused a substantial amount of environmental damages as well as the state of fish stocks world wide ebbing closer and closer to depletion. The UN FAO World Fisheries and Aquaculture report (2010) states that 32% of stocks are over exploited/depleted or recovering; 53% are fully exploited and 15% are moderately exploited. Shifting more than a billion people in the developed world onto an already stressed resource will cause its collapse. Greater consumption of smaller fish which is environmentally sustainable and healthier for you is one option. If this resource is ever going to support an increasing number of people then sustainability is required, please read Worm et al. (2009) for an in depth insight into the potential approaches to take, most could be applied to other environmental problems; a multidisciplinary approach.
Corn, Soy and Grains are the food stuffs we generally feed to livestock. They are also very much fit for human consumption; but we tend to feed more of it to the meat we eat then personally consume ourselves. I personally don't eat corn... I know shoot me... but as you will find out in a later post (ooh foreshadowing I know right?!) I have taken certain steps in the right direction already!
This list doesn't look too impressive... but one factor easily neglected is simply reducing the amount of meat we eat. Meatless Fridays, or what Roman Catholics call Fridays... notable celebrities do it, Paul McCartney, Leona Lewis, they are talented because they eat a lot less meat... in fact none! OK... there is no link between talent and meat consumption.
Reducing meat consumption has many benefits. You are healthier, richer (from not buying any meat, doesn't work if your meat originates in a five finger discount manner), aiding the environment in becoming less polluted and less full of cow farts. Also you can waste all those calories on chocolate, more room for nutella! OK I am not advising you to go on to an all nutella diet as fun as it would be, full of chocolaty goodness..... OMG it has been so long since I have had nutella I would kill love to have some right now..... *drools* mmmmmmm. Nutella pizza - nutella instead of tomato sauce and kinder in place of cheese. HEAVEN... like this, but rather than the nuts (which are a great source of proteins and energy!!!) add bananas... *collapses*.
10 minutes later....*wakes up*
Back to the point!
My New Years resolution is to eat less meat... so far I think I have eaten a little meat every day FAIL, but it hasn't been one whole week yet!
So I'll let you ponder about other foods you can stuff yourself with... but remember put down the fork, don't eat too much beef chicken or pork!
Eutrophication; another problem (partly) caused by meat
consumption.
Now I said I wanted to look into pollution caused by
livestock farming in a bit more depth… so I am going out to the open ocean…lol
not a very good joke is it?
There is a lot of material on the topic of eutrophication
and I have already touched upon it before in some of my previous blogs and
referenced some really useful sources. Here are three more!
The World Resource Institute commissioned three reports on
eutrophication or as they call them ‘Policy Notes’:
The reports define eutrophication as ‘over enrichment of
water by nutrients such as nitrogen – and most topically for us – phosphorous’.
Selman et al. (2008) shows the extent of the problem. In the
United states and Europe’s Atlantic coastal waters, 78 and 65 % of the
respective areas were exhibiting some symptoms of eutrophication. In this case
symptoms of eutrophication include the most common hypoxia and algal blooms.
The severity of the problem is not widely known due to the
poor monitoring of global ocean water quality. Like with many research projects
funding is required; most countries especially those who face challenges of
greater importance (like epidemics/droughts/famines/natural disasters/wars)
simply cannot spread resources to measure a trivial data set when there are
more important things to hand.
However what is known is the responses of the ecosystem.
Initial growth of phytoplankton, micro-algae and macro-algae; these can cause:
Reduction of light penetration into waters (planets below
the surface of the water cannot photosynthesise as the light is being absorbed
and blocked out the excessive algal growth).
Benthic (bottom-dwelling) aquatic community species change,
less biodiversity.
Algae can outcompete coral larvae for nutrients, so there is
reduced coral growth.
A shift in the phytoplankton species composition, allowing
toxic algal blooms to develop.
Collapse of oxygen reserves in the water resulting in
‘dead-zones’.
These symptoms damage the ecosystem and more importantly
inhibit its economic potential, either directly through ecosystem servicing
(what you can ‘harvest’ from the ecosystem, i.e. fishing; biodiversity; carbon
sequestration) or indirectly through loss of income from reduced tourism;
reduced income from fishing; recreational facilities.
Hypoxic zones exist around the world. Some of the best
examples are the Gulf of Mexico (Mississippi outflow) and the Black Sea (Volga and
others outflow). Particularly in the case of the Black Sea, there is a strong
correlation between agricultural intensification in the 1980s and the size and
rate of the hypoxic zone formation. Since the collapse of the USSR, the Black
Sea has in part been in recovery.
Agriculture is not the only source of excess nutrients:
human and animal sewage (…yep POO and PEE!!!), urban runoff, industrial
effluent and fossil fuel combustion (not just more nutrients but more CO2
allows more photosynthesis/productivity as CO2 is generally seen as the
limiting factor in plant growth).
The relative importance of the sources of nutrients is
spatial. In Europe and USA, the biggest source is fertiliser application and runoff
into the sea via rivers; whereas in Africa, Latin America and Asia as
industrial regulations are laxer effluent is the largest contributor. Dry
nitrogen deposition (from volatilisation of fertilisers) adds to eutrophication;
Chesapeake Bay, in the US (as seen in an earlier post referencing Megan Smith’sblog) and the Baltic Sea in Northern Europe are good examples of this.
There is a necessity to collect information on nutrient
sources and their quantities and a time series of all factors involved; from
nutrient influx to chlorophyll, oxygen concentrations; quantifying the impacts
on income (cost of loss of fish production, etc.). Selman et al. (2008)
conclude with the importance of eutrophication to governments and the requirement
to never leave it unchecked.
Selman and Greenhalgh (2009a) goes on to further highlight
the significance of increased population (demographic pressures; 9.2 billion by
2050) coupled with greater demand for food and fertiliser to increase
production; intensification driven by changing dietary patterns, for instance
increased meant consumption up 54% from 2002 to 2030, during the same time
frame energy is expected to grow 50 %. Most of the growth will occur in the
developing world where there is greater vulnerability to resource pollution due
to lack of funds to cope with environmental degradation and the health
implications stemming from it (untreated water, spread of disease).
The tables from Selman and Greenhalgh (2009a) show nutrient
sources (table 1) and percent of treated sewage (table 2).
Focusing on agricultures role in eutrophication, fertiliser
leaching, runoff from agricultural fields, manure from concentrated livestock
operations and aquaculture are the largest sources. Focusing on manure (a
direct impact of more livestock) and fertiliser leaching and runoff
(proportional to livestock feed) the relationship between eutrophication and
these processes is strong. As shown from Cordell et al.’s (2009) paper with the
phosphorous source graph over time, inorganic P use has tripled since the onset
of the 1960s green revolution; eutrophication has also shot up. Nitrous oxides
(from farts!) also add to the N used by algae. An important note is they
mention that manure application to fields is timed not by necessity but by
storage; when too much is in stock, they ‘fertilise’ the land, this exacerbates
the run-off and leaching issue resulting in greater amounts of eutrophication.
Selman and Greenhalgh cite Ellis, 2007 and Mee 2006 as studies which show poor
pollution controls in China and also the production of an equivalent 5 million
inhabitant city quantity of excreta from a 1 million pig farming operation in
the Black Sea (respectively).
The Figures below show Meat consumption per capita against
time (figure 2) and projected fertiliser consumption (figure 3) (Selman and Greenhalgh, 2009a). The
link between meat consumption, fertiliser use, land use change, manure
production, population growth and eutrophication is clear; ‘a by-product of
unsustainable agricultural production and energy use’ (page 6).
The final report (Selman and Greenhalgh, 2009b) looks at the
potential to tackle this problem. Other than the issue of monitoring which has already been
looked at, they shed some light on other elements; increasing environmental awareness
and greater public knowledge of the problems faced due to our consumption
patterns.
Regulation and the imposing of standards in: environmental
quality; pollution (effluent/emissions) capping; technology (up-to-date and
efficient as well as sound).
Financial incentives like eco-taxes on environmentally
degrading products (like meat); subsidies like payment for ecosystem services
(PES) where a government subsidises farmers who employ an eco-friendly
agricultural practice at the expense of profit – that profit is then
compensated as the cost of the ecosystem service provided by the farmer (i.e.
less intensive use of fertilisers, ditch management, receive £50 a month rather
than production subsidies); eco-labelling and consumer awareness in the market
place (successful with free range).
Creation of protected areas via either nature preserves,
sites of scientific interest, national parks which all limit the types of
activity that can be performed in the area; land purchases and habitat
restoration and conservation (like in Chesapeake Bay).
The requirement for institutional support is emphasised as
well. Greater transparency, accountability and participation are all listed as
vital to the success of schemes from the outset, to implementation, to
completion. This is also the same set of criteria for what is referred to as ‘Good
Governance’ in development literature.
Summing up; it is integral to sustainability that
eutrophication is reversed. The issues around water quality are large. Where
agriculture and livestock come into it is simple, more meat requires more
fertiliser which produces more poo and other wastes! It is through the large
wastes in agriculture that we get side-shows of eutrophication which further
degrades our environment. What is needed as hinted to by the literature is a
holistic approach, a multi-disciplinary approach involving all parts of the
puzzle. There are successes highlighted in tables but that would be too much
copying and pasting!!!
Please feel free to read them, especially if interested on
the topic of eutrophication!
Van Vuuren et al.’s (2010) highlights predicted
use of P from 1970 to 2100. Clearly they think that P reserves are going to
last a while; they come to the conclusion that:
There
are no signs of short-term to medium-term depletion
In
the longer term, the depletion of low-cost and high-grade resources will have
consequences for future production trends
Given
the impact of resource uncertainty on the assessment of risks associated with P
depletion, it is important to pay more attention to data on P resources.
Uncertainty was found to play a role in data on P production,
Phosphate
rock depletion may lead to concentrating production to a few countries, thus
increasing production costs.
Major
reductions in the use of fertiliser P can be achieved by improving plant
nutrition management, better integrating of animal manure and recycling P
content in human and/or animal excreta
What
is most interesting about the article is that it highlights the different
scenarios of P depletion; the figures show their findings:
Cordell et al. (2009) also look at the
geopolitics; inequality; economics and relative irony of it all – peak oil has
received a lot of attention and it is only necessary for energy and cars (I
know hear me out!) whilst P is integral to crop growing, and that ever vital
necessity that is food.
The
figures below (taken from Cordell et al. 2009) include a pretty graph showing
Phosphorous sources over time; it just shows how dependant, or as Cordell et
al. puts it ‘addicted’ (2009, 292).
With
high grade P reserves being depleted (Cisse and Mrabet, 2004), and our
addiction (Cordell et al. 2009), the debate as to where the next lot of P will
come from, which just adds to increased food insecurity and environmental
degradation due to a potential in greater mining; this leads to:
Greater
energy use – fossil fuels and GHG emissions.
Greater
waters usage and wastage – particularly in countries where safe water supplies
are already an issue.
Rising
prices – of P, fertilisers, agriculture and fundamentally the cost of food).
Inorganic
fertiliser alone is not sufficient in restoring soil organic carbon (SOC) that forms through decomposition in situ of organic materials , and attaining the highest yields in crop production (Su et al, 2006; Liu et al., 2010). SOC
is an integral part to the soil and provides plants with capacity to grow due
to its properties or absorbing water and nutrients. Fertilisers cannot provide
that level of SOC; just another benefit of using manure and other waste
material to fertilise the soil.
Turnerand Leytem (2004) looked into phosphorous compound sequestration from, of all
things, urine. Their success in fractionating the compounds in two steps
furthers the research in attaining P from readily available resources,
excrement. Admittedly, this is a much more energy intensive way as well as
poorly cost-effective; but it opens the doors to greater utilisation and indeed
valuation of what we all poop and pee out.
So
a variety of sources point to manure and other forms of excreta as a sustainable
and beneficial source of P; not to mention an eventual necessary source!
Happy
New Year!!! Lets hope there are a lot less cows farting this year!
