Climate Food and Agriculture

Ag practices are mucking with the Mississippi River, says research

The Mississippi River has been dramatically changed by agricultural practices, says new research in the journal Nature. In the past 50 years or so, carbon levels in the river have jumped 40 percent, while the actual amount of water flowing through the riverbed has increased 9 percent — the equivalent of five Connecticut Rivers. “Agricultural […]

New superfood is higher in press-release fluff and poor journalism than your average carrot

The best way to read this post is to begin with a recent press release from Texas A&M on their new Supercarrot.

Second, read Wired magazine journalist Alexis Madrigal's coverage of the story. Alexis praises the next generation of biotech crops. He writes that, "A carrot that increases what's known as the bioavailability of calcium could have a major impact in the marketplace." Really?

You are correct, Alexis: it could have a major impact on a totally uninformed marketplace -- but not much of an impact on nutrition. However, it is likely to have an impact on genetic contamination, wasted public research dollars, and increased corporate profits. If you had read the press release and considered the math around just how much more calcium we are getting from this new carrot, and at what costs, you might have seen that this "news flash" is no news at all. This is a great example of industry fluff. This is promoting a new breakthrough that on the surface has lots of flash and pizazz, but with scrutiny becomes a big "So what?".

The biotech industry is going to keep pushing a media blitz to get us to swallow their breakthroughs and keep their stock prices up. Unfortunately, many researchers at our public universities are willing partners in spreading their misinformation. Don't believe me? Let's look at the math:

Eating extremely local pigs

For pork lovers squeamish about hunting, check out this fascinating account of an intrepid urban farmer who doesn't let the fact she lives in the hood in Oakland, Calif., get in the way of her commitment to eating local. Very local. Like backyard local.

So ... here's the piggies on day one.

And last days.  Read up from the bottom. She's a beautiful writer, and she has some insightful things to say.

Better agronomy for energy crops

I believe improved crop practices are a vital aspect in meeting our cellulosic feedstock needs. There are a few areas that offer significant potential:

1. crop rotation,
2. the use of polyculture plantations,
3. perennials as energy crops, and
4. better agronomic practices.

We address all four issues here. Though none of these have been extensively studied, early studies and knowledgeable speculation point to their likely utility. Further study of these techniques is urgently needed, especially the use of grasses or other biomass-optimized winter cover crops.

Crop rotation

I have proposed the usage of a 10 year x 10 year energy and row crop rotation. As row crops are grown in the usual corn/soy rotation, lands lose topsoil and get degraded, need increased fertilizer and water inputs, and decline in biodiversity. By growing no-till, deep-rooted perennial energy crops (like miscanthus or switchgrass -- see below) for ten years following a ten year row crop cycle, the carbon content of the soil and its biodiversity can be improved and the needs for inputs decreased. The land can then be returned to row crop cultivation after ten years of no-till energy crops.

Currently unusable degraded lands may even be reclaimed for agriculture using these techniques over a few decades. A University of North Dakota study highlights some of the benefits for food crops. I expect similar or even greater benefits for food crop/energy crop long cycle rotations, especially in soil carbon content:

Tuna sushi in New York tests high for mercury

Tuna sushi in 20 Manhattan stores and restaurants contained high levels of mercury, according to testing commissioned by The New York Times. In five establishments, fish mercury levels were so high that the seafood could legally be removed from the market. According to a 2007 survey, New Yorkers’ blood mercury levels are three times the […]

Erosion is as big a problem as climate change, say experts

Planet Earth loses some 1 percent of its topsoil to erosion every year — and that’s an environmental threat on par with global warming, say experts. “Globally, it’s pretty clear we’re running out of dirt,” says geologist David Montgomery, who identifies agriculture as the main culprit for “soil mining.” In the U.S., cropland is estimated […]

How food sovereignty benefits people and planet

One of the most prominent voices fighting corporate control of food and water, Food and Water Watch, recently teamed up with international development and human rights organization Grassroots International to issue an important paper, "Towards a Green Food System" (PDF), about how the food sovereignty movement (the right of peoples to define their own food, agriculture, livestock, and fisheries systems independent of market forces) emerging from Asia to Africa is good for both people and planet. It discusses the building of a food system that protects rather than degrades the environment, and explores this rather important link well.

At the core, they say that there are common techniques that both food sovereignty advocates and U.S. environmentalists employ: managing natural resources sustainably, promoting environmentally friendly technology, and building the eco-economy. They make the point that food sovereignty might not only benefit small producers all over the world, but also give us what the "free trade" agenda has failed to deliver ... not unlike having your cake and eating it, too.

Where will biofuels and biomass feedstocks come from?

When it comes to biofuels we have choices. We can do it poorly, using short-run approaches with no potential to scale, poor trajectory, and adverse environmental impact. Or we can do it right, with sustainable, long-term solutions that can meet both our biofuel needs and our environmental needs.

We do need strong regulation to ensure against land-use abuses. I have suggested that each cellulosic facility be individually certified with a LEEDS-like "CLAW" rating, and that countries which allow environmentally sensitive lands to be encroached be disqualified from CLAW-rated fuel markets.

We think a good fuel has to meet the CLAW requirements:

C -- COST below gasoline
L -- low to no additional LAND use; benefits for using degraded land to restore biodiversity and organic material
A -- AIR quality improvements, i.e. low carbon emissions
W -- limited WATER use.

Cellulosic ethanol (and cellulosic biofuels at large) can meet these requirements.

Environmentally, cellulosic ethanol can reduce emissions on a per-mile driven basis by 75-85% with limited water usage for process and feedstock, as illustrated later. Range, Coskata, and others currently have small-scale pilots projecting 75% less water use than corn ethanol, with energy in/out ratio between 7-10 EROI (though we consider this a less important variable than carbon emissions per mile driven).

Sustainable land use

The question about biomass production that arises first is about land use: how much will we need? What will it take? Is it scalable? For conservatism, I assume CAFE standards in the U.S. per current law, though I expect by 2030 to have much higher CAFE and fleet standards (hopefully up near 54mpg or a 100% higher that 2007 averages), which will dramatically reduce the need for fuel an hence biomass. Yes, this would include lighter vehicles, more efficient engines, better aerodynamics, low-cost hybrids, and whatever else we can get the consumer to buy that increases mpg.

Ecosystems are nonlinear

Here's a disturbing study that seems to mimic nothing so much as my mother-in-law's theory that small brownie pieces cut from the edge of the remaining mass of brownies left in the pan ("the efficient frontier," an economist might call it) don't have calories, because each little tiny mini-slice hardly changes the amount of brownie left at all.

On the one hand, the example cited is not particularly objectionable: Researchers claim to have found a mangrove where you can remove 20% of it with little reduction in flood control capacity -- meaning you can use that 20% for factory farmed shrimp and such.

The attitude of this article is in sharp contrast with that of Aldo Leopold and others, who would suggest that recognizing nonlinearity is a good first step, but that wisdom, or even an approximation of it, doesn't begin until you recognize that this ...

It’s not always just Monsanto screwing with the food system

Creating a food system that is "good, clean, and fair" involves more than the buy-local mantra and the anti-Monsanto-ADM-WalMart rhetoric I and so many others constantly chanting. Sometimes even more evil and insidious obstacles lie in our way.

Witness what's taking place in Kenya: