Ecolog:
While Silvert's acknowledgement of the limitations of his experience with
plants is well-taken, I suggest that his very unfamiliarity may put him in a
better position to come up with a different "take" on the subject that
"experts" in the field, some of whom may have been out standing in it a bit
too long. That is, he may provide a fresh look from which specialists closer
to the topic could benefit.
Any discipline or specialty runs a certain amount of risk of suffering
myopia, and a little cross-fertilization might introduce some new "memes"
into the pool, perhaps even some new insights. Marine ecology or other
sub-disciplines might be just the ticket for providing a test of how closely
range management, for example, harkens to the fundamental or common
ecological principles at the center of ecology as a comprehensive field of
study.
As a country boy who had hardly heard the word "ecology" by my first year of
college when I took botany and ecology as electives at a little cow-college
that emphasized agronomy and range science, I had quite a struggle
overcoming the presumptions of agronomic practice for the more fundamental
thinking required for the scientific approach. As a result, I came to see
agronomy more as a practice bound by traditional assumptions in which I had
been indoctrinated and instructed, and ecology as a master key to
understanding more about was actually going on. I went through a phase of
being anti-agricultural and anti-horticultural as part of the rebellious
part of my early maturation, and while that attitude may persist more than
it should in the view of specialists and generalists in those fields, I no
longer insist upon going back to hunting and gathering.
But I do look forward to the day when "sustainability" loses its buzz-phrase
status and actual progress is made in transforming agriculture into a more
"ecological" function of culture. For this to happen, however, agriculture
will have to both give up its insistence upon Wall Street-type values such
as profit maximization at any cost to ecosystems and parasitical subsidies,
and ecologists will have to stop caving in to the phony blandishments that
anything that involves living things is somehow "natural," and the other bs
with which the public is let to economic slaughter and disease at the altar
of so-called "stockholders" (whose welfare, they insist, is paramount). What
bullsh_ _ !
True, agriculture always will be with us in some form, and my generation is
likely to see any substantial change before we die off. But to say that the
excrement needs to keep blowin' in the wind need not be true of the next
generation, and just as ecological economics must undergo constant
transformation, so can agriculture and ecology. Certainly no one expects
there to be no change in the future--does anybody? Well, yes, there are
those who are fond of staying "You can't stop progress!" who are the very
ones who stand in the way of progress. Ironic, even comical, eh?
So that's a little (perhaps too big a) sample of how I react to the
discussion about "sustainable" agriculture. Certainly it is a laudable goal.
But there is a long way to go, and there will be more distortions as
hucksters grab the phrase as a hot-button to push in marketing campaigns and
even grant proposals.
WT
PS: There should be a simple acknowledgement that even small-scale farming,
especially as currently practiced, requires the sacrifice of ecosystems.
And, while the idea of being kind to our fellow animals by eating more
plants instead may be sympathetically appealing, it does require the more
complete destruction of ecosystems than pastoralism and is arguably less
efficient and less likely to be successfully integrated with ecosystems than
domestic livestock or indigenous animals. While Pollan's prescription is
certainly a bit of an advance over feed-lots, his cow/pat/insect/chicken
integration is hardly new; the farm I grew up on was more integrated than
that. My hope is that future generations can do more than turn the clock
back. They will ultimately have to.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sustainable agriculture
As several previous posts to this list have pointed out, cattle can graze on
land that is not suitable for crop production. Also there are multiple use
options as pointed out in Pollan's book where he describes a process where
the cattle are moved from plot to plot and chickens are introduced to feed
on insects growing in the cow pats.
I don't claim to be an expert on this (I'm a marine ecologist and not used
to dealing with plants that have more than one cell), but I do think that
promoting small-scale farming offers significant benefits. As Niman points
out, "few people are likely to entirely abandon animal-based foods" and I
think that promoting more sustainable ways of growing meat is a valuable
complement to weaning people away from eating it.
A recent issue of Time magazine dealt with changes in funding for
agriculture over the past few years, and emphasized the growing interest in
helping small-scale farmers in developing countries be more productive by
such means as subsidizing farm ponds to retain monsoon rainwater. Most of
the farm projects described in the article were in fact plant producers,
although I know of other projects involving combinations of meat production
with aquaculture where pig faeces are used to fertilise the water where fish
and shellfish are grown. Universal vegetarianism would certainly increase
the efficiency of food production, but I think that a realistic approach
must involve considering a wide range of options.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Camill" <[email protected]>
To: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: sábado, 31 de Outubro de 2009 17:21
Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Sustainable agriculture
Hi Bill,
Thank you for pointing out this column. It's interesting, but it could have
used some further analysis with respect to a broader view of global change
and sustainability. Below is a letter to the editor I submitted to the
Times (expanded version at my blog:
http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2009/10/in-defense-of-sustainable-meat-production/)
All the best,
Phil
___
In“Carnivore’s Dilemma,” Nicolette Niman argued that meat production has
gotten a bad rap because of its climate change impacts. Her analysis was
important but missed a major point: Meat production—even sustainable—is also
land intensive.
If we switched from factory farms to free-range pastures, where would the
land come from? Sixty percent of U.S. corn is fed to livestock. That’s a
lot of land. The opportunity cost is being able to produce more calories
with plant crops, which will likely be needed to feed more people in a
future world of 9 billion. And as Michael Pollan has shown, factory farms
raise animals in half the time using grain and hormones. Eliminating these
may cut livestock production by up to 50%, requiring a doubling of pasture
area.
In a world with rising human populations and affluence, which often
translates to increased per-capita meat consumption, there will be
increasing pressures on land for meat production. Sustainability, writ
large, will require a shift away from meat-based diets and not just a shift
away from factory farming.
Sincerely,
Phil Camill
Rusack Associate Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies
Program Director, Environmental Studies
Bowdoin College
6700 College Station
Brunswick, ME 04011
[email protected]
207-721-5149
________________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Silvert
[[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 7:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sustainable agriculture
This OP-ED from the NY Times seemed very relevant to some of the discussions
that we have had on the list. It seems to be well researched and I think it
provides a valuable perspective on sustainable agriculture.
The title is obviously a take on The Omnivore's Dilemma which adds a
complementary perspective. While Niman describes the role that small farmers
can play in producing food in an environmentally friendly way, Michael
Pollan chronicles the administrative obstacles. Regulations on farm
management and food processing tend to favour big producers and are often
too costly for small operations.
Bill Silvert
October 31, 2009
NY Times OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Carnivore's Dilemma
By NICOLETTE HAHN NIMAN
Bolinas, Calif.
IS eating a hamburger the global warming equivalent of driving a Hummer?
This week an article in The Times of London carried a headline that blared:
"Give Up Meat to Save the Planet." Former Vice President Al Gore, who has
made climate change his signature issue, has even been assailed for
omnivorous eating by animal rights activists.
It's true that food production is an important contributor to climate
change. And the claim that meat (especially beef) is closely linked to
global warming has received some credible backing, including by the United
Nations and University of Chicago. Both institutions have issued reports
that have been widely summarized as condemning meat-eating.
But that's an overly simplistic conclusion to draw from the research. To a
rancher like me, who raises cattle, goats and turkeys the traditional way
(on grass), the studies show only that the prevailing methods of producing
meat - that is, crowding animals together in factory farms, storing their
waste in giant lagoons and cutting down forests to grow crops to feed them -
cause substantial greenhouse gases. It could be, in fact, that a
conscientious meat eater may have a more environmentally friendly diet than
your average vegetarian.
So what is the real story of meat's connection to global warming? Answering
the question requires examining the individual greenhouse gases involved:
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides.
Carbon dioxide makes up the majority of agriculture-related greenhouse
emissions. In American farming, most carbon dioxide emissions come from fuel
burned to operate vehicles and equipment. World agricultural carbon
emissions, on the other hand, result primarily from the clearing of woods
for crop growing and livestock grazing. During the 1990s, tropical
deforestation in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Sudan and other developing
countries caused 15 percent to 35 percent of annual global fossil fuel
emissions.
Much Brazilian deforestation is connected to soybean cultivation. As much as
70 percent of areas newly cleared for agriculture in Mato Grosso State in
Brazil is being used to grow soybeans. Over half of Brazil's soy harvest is
controlled by a handful of international agribusiness companies, which ship
it all over the world for animal feed and food products, causing emissions
in the process.
Meat and dairy eaters need not be part of this. Many smaller, traditional
farms and ranches in the United States have scant connection to carbon
dioxide emissions because they keep their animals outdoors on pasture and
make little use of machinery. Moreover, those farmers generally use less soy
than industrial operations do, and those who do often grow their own, so
there are no emissions from long-distance transport and zero chance their
farms contributed to deforestation in the developing world.
In contrast to traditional farms, industrial livestock and poultry
facilities keep animals in buildings with mechanized systems for feeding,
lighting, sewage flushing, ventilation, heating and cooling, all of which
generate emissions. These factory farms are also soy guzzlers and acquire
much of their feed overseas. You can reduce your contribution to carbon
dioxide emissions by avoiding industrially produced meat and dairy products.
Unfortunately for vegetarians who rely on it for protein, avoiding soy from
deforested croplands may be more difficult: as the Organic Consumers
Association notes, Brazilian soy is common (and unlabeled) in tofu and
soymilk sold in American supermarkets.
Methane is agriculture's second-largest greenhouse gas. Wetland rice fields
alone account for as much 29 percent of the world's human-generated methane.
In animal farming, much of the methane comes from lagoons of liquefied
manure at industrial facilities, which are as nauseating as they sound.
This isn't a problem at traditional farms. "Before the 1970s, methane
emissions from manure were minimal because the majority of livestock farms
in the U.S. were small operations where animals deposited manure in pastures
and corrals," the Environmental Protection Agency says. The E.P.A. found
that with the rapid rise of factory farms, liquefied manure systems became
the norm and methane emissions skyrocketed. You can reduce your methane
emissions by seeking out meat from animals raised outdoors on traditional
farms.
CRITICS of meat-eating often point out that cattle are prime culprits in
methane production. Fortunately, the cause of these methane emissions is
understood, and their production can be reduced.
Much of the problem arises when livestock eat poor quality forages, throwing
their digestive systems out of balance. Livestock nutrition experts have
demonstrated that by making minor improvements in animal diets (like
providing nutrient-laden salt licks) they can cut enteric methane by half.
Other practices, like adding certain proteins to ruminant diets, can reduce
methane production per unit of milk or meat by a factor of six, according to
research at Australia's University of New England. Enteric methane emissions
can also be substantially reduced when cattle are regularly rotated onto
fresh pastures, researchers at University of Louisiana have confirmed.
Finally, livestock farming plays a role in nitrous oxide emissions, which
make up around 5 percent of this country's total greenhouse gases. More than
three-quarters of farming's nitrous oxide emissions result from manmade
fertilizers. Thus, you can reduce nitrous oxide emissions by buying meat and
dairy products from animals that were not fed fertilized crops - in other
words, from animals raised on grass or raised organically.
In contrast to factory farming, well-managed, non-industrialized animal
farming minimizes greenhouse gases and can even benefit the environment. For
example, properly timed cattle grazing can increase vegetation by as much as
45 percent, North Dakota State University researchers have found. And
grazing by large herbivores (including cattle) is essential for
well-functioning prairie ecosystems, research at Kansas State University has
determined.
Additionally, several recent studies show that pasture and grassland areas
used for livestock reduce global warming by acting as carbon sinks.
Converting croplands to pasture, which reduces erosion, effectively
sequesters significant amounts of carbon. One analysis published in the
journal Global Change Biology showed a 19 percent increase in soil carbon
after land changed from cropland to pasture. What's more, animal grazing
reduces the need for the fertilizers and fuel used by farm machinery in crop
cultivation, things that aggravate climate change.
Livestock grazing has other noteworthy environmental benefits as well.
Compared to cropland, perennial pastures used for grazing can decrease soil
erosion by 80 percent and markedly improve water quality, Minnesota's Land
Stewardship Project research has found. Even the United Nations
reportacknowledges, "There is growing evidence that both cattle ranching and
pastoralism can have positive impacts on biodiversity."
As the contrast between the environmental impact of traditional farming and
industrial farming shows, efforts to minimize greenhouse gases need to be
much more sophisticated than just making blanket condemnations of certain
foods. Farming methods vary tremendously, leading to widely variable global
warming contributions for every food we eat. Recent research in Sweden shows
that, depending on how and where a food is produced, its carbon dioxide
emissions vary by a factor of 10.
And it should also be noted that farmers bear only a portion of the blame
for greenhouse gas emissions in the food system. Only about one-fifth of the
food system's energy use is farm-related, according to University of
Wisconsin research. And the Soil Association in Britain estimates that only
half of food's total greenhouse impact has any connection to farms. The rest
comes from processing, transportation, storage, retailing and food
preparation. The seemingly innocent potato chip, for instance, turns out to
be a dreadfully climate-hostile food. Foods that are minimally processed, in
season and locally grown, like those available at farmers' markets and
backyard gardens, are generally the most climate-friendly.
Rampant waste at the processing, retail and household stages compounds the
problem. About half of the food produced in the United States is thrown
away, according to University of Arizona research. Thus, a consumer could
measurably reduce personal global warming impact simply by more judicious
grocery purchasing and use.
None of us, whether we are vegan or omnivore, can entirely avoid foods that
play a role in global warming. Singling out meat is misleading and
unhelpful, especially since few people are likely to entirely abandon
animal-based foods. Mr. Gore, for one, apparently has no intention of going
vegan. The 90 percent of Americans who eat meat and dairy are likely to
respond the same way.
Still, there are numerous reasonable ways to reduce our individual
contributions to climate change through our food choices. Because it takes
more resources to produce meat and dairy than, say, fresh locally grown
carrots, it's sensible to cut back on consumption of animal-based foods.
More important, all eaters can lower their global warming contribution by
following these simple rules: avoid processed foods and those from
industrialized farms; reduce food waste; and buy local and in season.
Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and livestock rancher, is the author of
"Righteous Porkchop: Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.45/2476 - Release Date: 11/02/09
07:51:00
