European Agricultural Ministers look to backtrack on Farm Carbon Program
May 17, 2012
Conservation groups have condemned a move by European agricultural ministers to tone down some of the most controversial environmental proposals in the next phase of the EU's farm support program. Agricultural and fisheries ministers from the 27 EU countries called yesterday (15 May) for replacing conservation measures recommended by the European Commission with a more flexible system.
The decision was not a surprise – ministers have indicated in the past that there was little political appetite for creating requirements in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that tie direct payments to farmers to measures aimed at cutting carbon emissions and reducing other pollutants.
“This attempt to sabotage the greening of the CAP threatens to jeopardise this perhaps last opportunity to provide legitimacy to the CAP,” said Faustine Defossez, agriculture campaigner at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).
“Under the pretext of simplification, the Council would not only fail to justify why such vast sums of EU money are been spent under the CAP at a time when governments around Europe are forced to make painful cuts in expenditures, but will also increase administrative burdens,” she said.
The EU executive’s plan for the ‘greening the CAP’ centred on:
Expanding permanents grasslands;
Using direct payments to encourage farmers to rotate crops as a way to reduce fertiliser and pesticide use;
Preserve at least 7% of land for ecological focus areas to help reduce emissions.
Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Cioloş has called the proposals for the next CAP – which he introduced in October 2011 - “both simple and efficient”.
But the agriculture ministers' Council – debating the proposals in Brussels – thought differently. Their decision calls for replacing the three greening targets with a “menu” that farmers could choose from, although it did not specify what it should include.
“Such a flexible approach would help to take into account the diversity of agriculture in the EU and would avoid a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach,” the Council said in a statement released yesterday.
Meanwhile, farm groups and some national representatives have testified in the European Parliament they fear the EU executive’s greening proposals could cause administrative headaches and even drive smaller farmers out of business – defeating goals to encourage small-scale production and to bring young people into a rapidly ageing industry.
UN: Meat Consumption Must be Cut to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
April 16, 2012
In the developed world, citizens take advantage of the enormous bounty of meat while shopping at markets and dining in restaurants. For some, a meal can only be classified as real if it contains some kind of meat in it. According to the UN, the attitude towards meat consumption has to change, and people must cut back. This is a necessary step in reducing one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide (N2O). A recent study by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that the developed world needs to cut its meat consumption by 50 percent per person by the year 2050.
Nitrous oxide typically does not get the same amount of attention as the greenhouse gas heavy hitters, carbon dioxide and methane. Nitrous oxide is actually the third highest contributor to global warming, but is the most difficult to control. This is because nitrogen is an essential element in the production of food. Nitrous oxide is the most potent of the three big greenhouse gases because it is a better absorber of infrared radiation.
The main sources of N2O are the spreading of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers used in agriculture, the storage of fertilizers, and the use of livestock manure. Microbes break down the fertilizers and manure, and then release N2O into the air.
Reducing meat consumption would decrease both sources of nitrous oxides. Less livestock means less manure as well as less agricultural produce required to feed them. Less crops for livestock would lead to a reduction in the use of synthetic fertilizers. This is one method the UN IPCC wishes developed countries to adopt. N2O emissions can also be controlled by better management of fertilizer and manure.
IPCC author Dr. Eric A Davidson of the Woods Hole Research Center, Massachusetts, outlines four scenarios which represent possible pathways of reductions in greenhouse gases.
Three of these scenarios, which require less aggressive actions, would meet necessary N2O reduction by reducing meat consumption, reducing emissions from industry, and improving agricultural practices. The most aggressive scenario, where N2O concentrations would stabilize by 2050 would require a 50 percent cut in meat consumption, 50 percent cut in industrial emissions, and an equal level of improvement in agricultural practices.
Assessing the likelihood of such a drastic change in the diet of the developing world is difficult. However, according to Dr. Davidson, "If you had asked me 30 years ago if smoking would be banned in bars I would have laughed and said that would be impossible in my lifetime, and yet it has come true. Are similar changes possible for diet? That will depend not only on education about diet, but also upon prices of meat. Some agricultural economists think that the price of meat is going to go way up, so that per capita consumption will go down, but those are highly uncertain projections."
World’s Largest Rooftop Farm Coming to Brooklyn
April 19, 2012
Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood will soon be home to a 100,000 square foot, multi-acre rooftop farm that will produce a million pounds of produce per year – enough to feed 5,000 people – without using any dirt. The farm will be built by BrightFarms, a new company with a unique business model that finances, builds, and operates hydroponic greenhouse farms for supermarkets and other retailers who purchase the produce.
The Brooklyn farm will be located on top of an eight-story, 1.1 million square foot building that was built in 1916 as a Navy warehouse and is now part of the city’s plans to redevelop the Brooklyn industrial waterfront. Construction is slated to start in the fall with the first harvest of tomatoes, lettuces and herbs expected next spring. Company officials say that once the farm is built, it will be the largest of its kind in the world.
In an interview with the New York Times, BrightFarms’ CEO Paul Lightfoot said that the company was in talks with nearby supermarkets to potentially commit to purchasing the produce from the farm. “Brooklyn was an agricultural powerhouse in the 19th century, and it has now become a local food scene second to none,” said Paul Lightfoot, the chief executive of Bright Farms. “We’re bringing a business model where food is grown and sold right in the community.”
In December of 2011, BrightFarms announced the completion of a $4.3 million Series A equity financing round. So far, 10 supermarket chains have signed up to work with the company including five of the top 50 national chains. The company owns and operates one greenhouse in Long Island for the supermarket chain Best Yet Market, and plans to open three more this year in other areas of the country.
The greenhouses generally cost between $1.5 and $2 million each to build, but the supermarkets don’t pay any of that cost. Instead, they enter into long term agreements to purchase the produce, which they can buy at a price that is comparable to or even cheaper than what they currently pay. Even if the produce costs the supermarkets the same price, there are several other advantages to buying BrightFarms’ locally produced, hydroponically grown products.
This new model effectively shortens the produce supply chain, providing supermarkets with safer, higher quality, and more environmentally friendly produce. Buying food that is produced nearby saves time and reduces the cost, risk and environmental impact associated with transporting food over long distances. The longer shelf life of the food also results in less shrink, which will produce higher gross margins for the retailer.
According to BrightFarms, hydroponic food production uses ten to twenty times less land and ten times less water than conventional agriculture. Using integrated pest management eliminates the use of pesticides and prevents fertilizer runoff. Rooftop greenhouses also have the same building energy saving benefits as green roofs. The long-term fixed contracts that retailers enter into insulate them from volatile prices, rising energy costs, and the potential for supply shortfalls. According to Forbes, this model has the potential to transform the supermarket as we know it.
High Productivity Farms may be Greener than Organic
February 18, 2012
Farms that aim for high food production using environmentally-friendly practices could be better for the environment than both organic and conventional farms. A study, led by Oxford University scientists, compared the environmental impact of different farming systems.
The researchers found that ‘integrated’ farms that maximised crop yields whilst using environmentally-friendly techniques – such as crop rotation, organic fertilisers, over winter cover crops, and minimal use of pesticides – would use less energy and generate lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production than both organic and conventional farms.
“arming in a way that’s good for the environment doesn’t have to mean accepting a dramatic drop in food production,” said Dr Hanna Tuomisto, who led the research at Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU). “Or research suggests that integrated farming systems, which combine the best practices for producing high yields with low negative environmental impacts, can be more beneficial for the environment than either organic or conventional farming.”
Professor David Macdonald of Oxford University’s WildCRU, who directed the research, said: “ntegrating the needs of food production and wildlife conservation is a major 21st Century challenge – humanity needs both, and it’s only by taking account of all the costs and benefits that the best compromises can be found.”
The research also found that possible alternative land uses should be factored in to any assessment of different farming systems.
Dr Tuomisto said: ‘If you grow food organically you have to use much more land to grow the same amount of food than you would using other methods, meaning this land cannot be used for something else. Once we factored in the potential alternative land uses, both integrated and conventional farming systems, which produce high volumes of food per acre, began to look much more attractive in terms of overall energy use, emissions, and the impact on biodiversity.’
The study considered three different alternative uses for land not used in food production; energy crop production (growing Miscanthus), managed forest, and natural forest. The researchers assumed that biomass from either Miscanthus or managed woodland would be burnt to generate heat.
Eating Insects 'Could Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions'
January 17, 2010
Dining on crickets, locusts, or even cockroaches, instead of cattle or pigs, could ease both food insecurity and climate change, according to researchers. Insects caught in the wild are already eaten widely in the developing world. Now a study says that farming them on a large scale for food would damage the environment far less than equivalent livestock production.
Scientists compared emissions, by livestock and by insects, of the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, which have a greater warming effect than carbon dioxide. They also measured ammonia production, which harms the environment by acidifying soil and water. They reared mealworms, locusts and crickets, all of which are consumed around the world, as well as sun beetles and cockroaches, which people do not eat, despite their potential as a protein source, while monitoring the amount of gas produced per kilogram of insect growth.
Compared to cattle, weight for weight, insects emitted 80 times less methane — a gas with 25 times more impact on global temperature levels than carbon dioxide. And crickets produced 8–12 times less ammonia than pigs.
According to the study's lead author, Dennis Oonincx, an entomologist from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, 80 per cent of the world's population eats insects, particularly in the developing world.
"It's a normal part of the menu there," said Oonincx. "I don't think we can continue eating beef like we did in the past and the FAO has already predicted that in 2050 it will become so expensive no-one [will be able to] pay for it any more."
Ocean acidification may threaten food security: U.N.
December 2, 2010
Acidification of the seas linked to climate change could threaten fisheries production and is already causing the fastest shift in ocean chemistry in 65 million years, a U.N. study showed on Thursday. Production of shellfish, such as mussels, shrimp or lobsters, could be most at risk since they will find it harder to build protective shells, according to the report issued on the sidelines of U.N. climate talks in Mexico. It could also damage coral reefs, vital as nurseries for many commercial fish stocks. About a billion people worldwide rely on fish as their main source of protein.
"Ocean acidification is yet another red flag being raised, carrying planetary health warnings about the uncontrolled growth in greenhouse gas emissions," said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP).
A UNEP booklet reviewing scientific findings about ocean acidification, caused by water soaking up greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, said that it adds to threats to food security that already include overfishing and pollution.
About 25 percent of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, are absorbed by the seas, where it converts to carbonic acid. The pH value of the oceans, a scale from alkaline to acidic, has fallen 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution in a shift to acidity.
Rising temperatures threaten rice yield growth: study
August 10, 2010
Rising temperatures could slow the growth of rice production unless farmers adapt by changing management practices and switch to more heat-tolerant varieties, scientists say. Rice is among the world's most important crops and a staple for people in Asia and Africa, with Asia producing and consuming more than 90 percent of the world's output. A drop in production could lead to higher prices, fears over food security and more hunger in a world with a rising human population.
A team of researchers led by Jarrod Welch of the University of California, San Diego, found that rice yields drop as night time temperatures rise over time, although the exact reasons why are not perfectly understood.
Previous research had found that higher maximum day time temperatures can be beneficial up to a point, beyond which they can be harmful. But higher daily minimum or night-time temperatures can trim or wipe out any gains. The study is believed to be the first to look at the impact of daily maximum and minimum temperatures on irrigated rice production in farmer-managed rice fields in tropical and subtropical regions of Asia.
Using longer-term data, the researchers found that rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations in the study areas. Future yield losses caused by higher night-time temperatures would likely outweigh any gains from slightly higher day time temperatures. But sharply higher day time temperatures will also lead to lower yields as the plants become too stressed. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has already been developing heat-tolerant varieties. Welch said farmers in some areas could adapt by shifting the main growing season into the cooler months.