Ecolog:
If I may build on Camill's remarks:
1. Meat consumption among the wealthiest countries is obscenely greater than
needed for good health. Simple reduction of meat consumption to the
necessary levels would have the effect of reducing the rate of increase of
ecosystem degradation, including those connected to the stream of resources
(corn being just one) going to feedlots as well as adverse impacts to
ecosystems such as overgrazing. One raises fewer animals on the same land,
in a truly sustainable fashion, i.e., not overgrazing it. This can be
quantified and measured and studied to confirm the actual effects and the
probable effects can be modeled. This ecological economics is antithetical
to the agribusiness model. Exploitation of a system to the point that the
system's productive capacity is compromised is profitable in the short term,
inefficient in the long term. As agribusiness marches on with its
exploitation model, it is sucking up future resources for present luxury
consumption to the point that system recovery is no longer possible, at
least to the level of productive capacity of which the system was once
capable, meaning that prices have to go steeply up, resulting not only in
lower per capita production but in allocation of scarce resources to those
with the greatest ability to pay (for example, look at bluefin tuna prices
and who consumes it). Such consumption/production ratios pretty much define
unsustainable; all that is left to argue about is the rate and "end point."
2. There will still be degradation of ecosystems, but less, if the
ecological economics model is adopted.
3. Cattle, for example, can perhaps graze on "marginal" land, but the impact
on such land is greater. The system degradation/destruction from trampling
and other corollary effects tends to be greater than those from the grazing
itself. Animals have to travel farther and farther for a bite of grass in
more and more marginal environments. Cattle did not evolve in such marginal
environments. The better "management" option would be to shift consumption
to better-adapted animals in small enough numbers to maintain system
productivity. BLM lands in the US West, are, and for the most part always
have been, "marginal" for cattle, and they are highly "cow-burnt," i.e.
overgrazed to the point of system degradation/destruction. Taxpayers
subsidize most western (BLM) livestock operations, which are inefficient,
even by agribusiness standards. But then, agribusiness is one of the most
obscene of the "Giant Sucking Sounds" around, picking our pockets to run
their dubious enterprises, then overcharging us at the point of consumption.
For starters, I'll go for the Nieman Ranch model for starters and even
subsidize them, provided the promise to wean themselves off the dole and
slowly increase unit prices for meat. Until then, I don't want to hear any
more whining about "welfare queens" from agribusiness and their slaves,
which is a common refrain throughout the American West, heard most
prominently in the most highly subsidized areas.
4. "Dust bowls" go on all the time; it is a matter of scale; the most
noticeable ones are largely created by human activity such as plowing,
overgrazing, grading etc. Just because a "dust storm" doesn't get publicity
doesn't change that fact that it is soil particles on the move, and the
additive effect is sooner or later the same--soil loss beyond the rate of
formation is a progressive phenomenon, as in water erosion or any other form
of degradation trend (e.g. aquifer drawdown and replenishment).
5. Effects on ecosystems still exist at any scale of consumption; I suspect
the most practical "bottom-line" issue with respect to ecology is whether or
not the "background rate" is exceeded (e.g. extinction:species formation)
and whether or not cultural practices can be transformed such that
background rates are not exceeded, or at least not exceeded as a matter of
trend or a reduced end state. Probably all that can be expected is a
reduction of culture effects as a trend in ecosystems or perhaps a slight
flattening of the curve that is now exponential. If not, as my wife and
McPherson say, "Nature bats last." Ideally, humans would find a way to
remain within the nutrient/energy cycle, but that probably can't happen at
anywhere near current population levels, even at minimal per capita
consumption levels.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Camill" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sustainable agriculture
Hi Bill,
I agree that "promoting more sustainable ways of growing meat is a valuable
complement to weaning people away from eating it." I also agree that
universal vegetarianism is not realistic. There's likely a sustainable
middle ground between our current system of industrial agriculture and
universal vegetarianism. The question is whether Niman's local farms
approach can be that option. My hunch is that it can't, unless we are
prepared to tolerate land use change and degradation in the US and abroad,
or we are willing to reduce meat consumption.
My main point is that given the current, rising level of meat consumption in
the world, what would US and global land use look like if we were to move
from industrial modes of production to these kinds of local, sustainable
operations? If, as many suspect, free-range and traditional operations are
less productive than modern industrialized farms (that's certainly what
farmers tell us), then part of the price of being less productive is that
you need more land to raise the same number of animals. The question then
becomes, how much land is needed and where does it come from? What do we as
a society think about these outcomes? Sure, cattle and other livestock can
graze on land not suitable for crops, but what does that mean, exactly, in
terms of land area and geography given current rates of meat consumption?
It would be interesting to see this modeled. For instance, given the
current rate of meat consumption in the US, what kinds of land use changes
here at home and around the world would be needed to sustain the same
productivity of animals if we switched to free-range, pasture modes of
production? Any number of economic assumptions could be included or modeled
concurrently. To my knowledge, nobody has done this yet.
Perhaps if we saw the outcome of these scenarios, it could help us make
these kinds of choices. Would we have to use a large fraction of BLM lands
in the American West? What does that mean given the history of land
protection since the Taylor Grazing Act? Abolish these statutes? If so,
then we might have bigger problems of desertification and conservation on
our hands (e.g., Dust Bowl II). Americans might also balk at higher food
prices as land for sustainable meat production competes with conservation,
cropland, and urban/suburban development. In that case, there would be
strong economic incentive to maintain the industrial agriculture status quo
(as there always will be). Or, rising prices from our shift to sustainable
meat production might have perverse outcomes: Similar to what we saw with
forestry in the 80s and 90s, we may end up exporting more of our meat
production to developing nations, in which case we drive their land use to
sustain our meat consumption. And we know how well that story has gone.
Now add China, India, and other rapidly developing nations to the mix.
I may be wrong, but I don't see many good options given steadily increasing
rates of meat consumption worldwide. Aquaculture is one alternative, but
even that has challenges. We need better models, coupled among
ecological-sociological-economic systems, to help us make these decisions.
All the best,
Phil
________________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Silvert
[[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:59 PM
To: [email protected]
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
