Citizen Science Project: Count Flowers for Bees

Dr Eileen Power, a researcher based in Botany at Trinity College Dublin is creating a flower map of Ireland to help conserve pollinators. This will involve sampling as many locations in Ireland at different times of the year to gauge the species and density of flower plants that are to be found.  This is a massive undertaking and while Eileen is carrying out surveys of her own she has created an online resource to encourage people from around Ireland to help her get as a complete map as possible.

The Citizen Science Project is asking everyone who has either a camera or smartphone to take some photos of flowers while out walking and upload them to her Flickr Group Page Count Flowers for Bees:   https://www.flickr.com/groups/countflowersforbees/

In order to identify which  habitats provide the best food for pollinators she needs you to follow the following rules:

1. Take a photo of roughly a 1 metre squared patch of ground or hedgerow
2. Take 1 photo every 10 metres until you have 10 photos. One metre is equivalent to one long stride.
3. Upload photos to Flickr 
4. Tag the photos FLOWERMAP 
5. Say where you took photos. You can click 'add to map' in your personal photostream.
6. Add the photos to this group

Remember only to take images from Ireland.  So please take part in this important research project.

Posted: Nick Gray

A Pint of Nature for St Patrick's Day

This St Patrick's Day, make yours a pint of nature. 

The Irish Forum on Natural Capital (IFNC) has created this infographic to illustrate just how important natural processes are in making a pint of beer, but the same logic applies to every commodity in our lives: from staples like bread and milk to luxuries like lipstick and laptops, nature is at the root of everything. 

So let's make it count!

Check out their website and find out what the IFNC are all about:

http://www.naturalcapitalireland.com/

Happy St Patrick's Day!

#Nickgraytcd

Irish farming and climate change

Irish farming will be affected by climate change but not as severely as more southern countries.  The problems will primarily be the reduction in summer rainfall by up to 25% and an increase in winter rainfall by 17% by mid century, with Southern and Eastern counties most affected.  This will  result in extended dry periods leading to drought, flooding, heavy rainfall events and extreme temperatures, in fact far more unpredictable weather patterns making farming activities difficult to plan and execute.  While this will mainly make tillage farming more difficult from sowing to harvesting of crops, livestock farmers will also feel the pressure from increased stress to animals  and providing water in the summer to ensuring sufficient winter fodder.  The wet summer of 2012 led to a massive fodder crisis in some parts of the country during the winter and spring of 2012/13, leading to massive imports of hay and silage from the UK and Europe. The increased prevalence of pests and diseases ,especially new pests as their ranges increase in response to higher temperatures, will affect all farming sectors.   It is not all negative because the higher temperatures will increase cereal and beet yields, which is in stark comparison to countries such as Romania and Hungary which will see a steep decline in crop yields due to water scarcity.  The solution is for the Irish farming sector  to  increase crop diversity, alter planting and harvesting regimes, develop more climate resilient crops, and to introduce water management strategies.

More information 

Nick Gray

Dinner’s on me

The food we eat everyday forms a critical component of our carbon emissions. How we get this food and what we do with the waste form the integral part of this problem.While as consumers we have limited control over the agricultural practices, food wastage is entirely down to us. What makes this problem even more dramatic is the fact that food wastage is a completely unnecessary and avoidable in today’s modern world. Coming from an agricultural background and working part time in a local supermarket, I have experienced first-handthe huge wastage that exists among society today.

According to the Department of Agriculture’s websites, 29% of Irelands total national carbon emissions in 2009 came from the agricultural sector while food wastage accounted for approximately 15 million tons of CO₂emissions each year in the UK.  This area urgently needs to be addressed. Working part time in my local supermarket has given a prime insight into the food wastage that occurs there on a daily basis. Date checks have to be carried out on all products on a daily basis. When most products near their expiry date they are marked down in price, however meat and dairy products have to be removed a day before their ‘best-before’ or ‘use-by’ date, resulting in huge wastage. These products are simply thrown in the bin. Similarly, living on a farm has given me an insight into the wastage that occurs before products even reach the shops. Many perfectly healthy vegetables are deemed to be ‘unsellable’ due to their unusual shape or appearance. While food is wasted every day in first world countries such as Ireland, 239 million people in Africa go hungry every year.

Now that we are aware of the problem, what can be done in order to obtain our food in a more sustainable manner? Examples of sustainable initiatives at a nationwide level include:

·         In America, food collecting organizations have been established and collect food from restaurants, supermarkets and cafeterias that would otherwise be thrown out and distribute it to low income families and the homeless. If a similar plan was adopted in Ireland it would significantly reduce food wastage in supermarkets across Ireland.

·         Since the fall of the Celtic tiger in Ireland, there has been a growing trend towards allotment gardening where people can grow their own fruit and vegetables. I was interested to learn during the Living Sustainably course that anything grown in an allotment or garden in season is equal to 0g CO₂e kg^-1.If county councils across Ireland committed to supplying land for allotment gardening, carbon emissions would be significantly reduced.

·         In response to the emissions from agriculture, the Department of Agriculture has committed to a plan of planting new forests and maintaining good forest management in order to counteract CO₂ emissions.

However real change is needed at the basic human level and it is up to each and every one of us to change our consumer habits to ensure a sustainable planet for the future.  By committing to buying only the food we really need, to buy food that is locally produced and in season and by avoiding unnecessary food packaging we can make a big difference to the planet.

 Additional Information can be found on:

·         http://www.allotments.ie/

·         http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/

Paul

In-Vitro Grown Meat - a low carbon alternative?

Which scene do you think is more appealing? Lush green pastures, covering dozens of acres, filled with grazing cattle - or muscle cell culture, floating in a petri dish flooded with growth hormones, nutrients and stimulants. The end result of both: the beef burger you're going to chow down on for dinner. Easy decision, right?

Image source
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/uk-science-meat-idUKTRE7AA1Z020111111

Not so fast - there’s more to this “lab meat” than it initially seems. In-vitro meat – grown from animal tissue in an indoor setting - has the potential to be just as palatable and tasty as the "real deal".  The potential industry revolution has been garnering more and more attention in recent years: in 2011, PETA announced an award of $1 million to whoever managed to produce meat from cell culture which is as good as the meat from a whole animal (1). Though currently too expensive for the average person - a meat for a beef burger currently costs about £200,000 (2) - the costs will eventually drop, allowing those who find meat eating morally reprehensible finally have that steak they've been dreaming about for years.

But there is more than just an ethical benefit in replacing traditionally-grown red and white meat with the in-vitro variant.  The live meat industry is a massive contributor to global environmental change; it is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, takes up 2/3 of agricultural land, and costs 2500-5000 gallons of water per pound of beef produced (3,4). Clearly, reducing our meat and dairy consumption is a simple but significant change that each individual could take to reduce one's carbon footprint. But in-vitro meat is an interesting alternative; the production method results in less greenhouse gas emissions, requires less energy and could reduce emissions at other points in the supply chain. A recent study by Tuomisto and de Mattos (5 - include a diagram, possible?) estimated that lab-grown meat would require 99% less land use, 82-96% less water consumption, 78-96 less greenhouse gas emissions, and 7-45% less energy per volume of pork, beef and sheep (poultry would require more energy but much less land  and water). Though these figures are built on many assumptions, technological innovations could meet these targets. Meat appears to be back on the menu in our environmentally-turbulent world.

The possibilities of in-vitro meat do not end there. Meat could be produced in urban environments and delivered rapidly to food distributers and shops, reducing the eco-burden of shipping and transportation from the source of production. The monetary and energy costs of freezing the product would be reduced also, as excess fats and bone would not need to stored. More savings could be made by "vertical farming" - high rise buildings devoted to the indoor production of food stuffs in urban environments (6). These "food factories" aim to be as efficient as a normal ecosystem, recovering water by hydroponics and aeroponics. Though conceived of as being a means to locally source fruit and vegetables in cities or town, combining the concept with in-vitro meat culturing has the potential to curb the environmental impact of overall food consumption.

Reducing food wastage and the consumption of meat and dairy products is an effective way we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But unfortunately not everyone is willing to sign up for the vegetarian lifestyle for the sake of environment. In-vitro culturing gives us a chance of a future where environmental change is under control but the humble hamburger remains – even if it were grown in a test tube.

Kevin Daly

References:

1. http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/peta-offers-1m-for-invitro-meat-26720454.html

2.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761

3. http://woods.stanford.edu/environmental-venture-projects/consequences-increased-global-meat-consumption-global-environment

4. http://www.earthsave.org/environment/foodchoices.htm

5. Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat ProductionEnviron. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45 (14), pp 6117–6123 Hanna L.Tuomisto and M. Joost Teixeira de Mattos

6. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-rise-of-vertical-farms

Controlling Wildfires – Sustainable for Who?

When people speak of sustainability they speak with the idea of creating a planet resourceful for all species, not just man. The human race will probably admit to being the leading cause of the disruption of sustainability so it’s fair that we also take responsibility to try repair it, not just for us but for all other organisms that inhabit earth. But what inspired me to write about this particular topic was that man is also trying to repair the disruption caused by other sources on the planet.

So what are the main disruptors of sustainability? Overpopulation, destruction of forests, burning of fossil fuels… all caused by man mainly. As a result of all these and many more, there is too much carbon being pumped into our atmosphere causing more disruption.  But we all know that and we are slowly trying to change ourselves to decrease our carbon emissions. Natural sources of carbon emissions however can’t change themselves and we’ve generously decided to also help combat their carbon emissions. But is this an entirely beneficial thing? Is this really sustainable for the entire planet or just us?

Wildfires are thought to cover 3–4 million km² of the globe each year and are responsible for the release of 2–3 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere based on estimates from previous years. I think everyone can agree that this is bad and due to global temperatures rising, forests are becoming drier and more prone to more frequent and larger fires. But do we really have the right to try stop these natural occurrences?

Despite the billions of tonnes of carbon emissions, wildfires do have their benefits, of which many species take advantage. It is said that fires cause the loss of nutrients through a variety of mechanisms however it has been shown that very high temperatures have to be reached to result in a significant loss and generally these nutrients are replaced by the organic matter left behind after the fire. Fires also remove overhead vegetation resulting in fewer leaves intercepting rain which allows more moisture to reach the soil.

It is also said that fires result in the loss of biodiversity due to the death of species caught in the fires. This has been shown incorrect in many cases. The longleaf pine savannas of the southern states of America depend on fire to prevent the invasion of deciduous forest trees whose shade eliminates both the pines and the species beneath. The diversity and abundance of these species is closely related to fire frequency. Natural fire regimes of the forests of British Columbia are important in maintaining a diverse assemblage of vertebrate species and different species have adapted to exploit the different stages of succession, regrowth and habitat change that occurs following a fire. Fires also cause the habitat to evolve differentially afterwards and influence how vertebrate species are able to use the burned areas. In most grassland ecosystems, fire is the primary mode of decomposition, making it crucial in the recycling of nutrients. There are also many plant species that depend on fires to instigate the germination of their seeds such as the Giant Sequoia.

Fire serves many important functions within fire-adapted ecosystems. Fire plays an important role in nutrient cycling, diversity maintenance and habitat structure. The suppression of fire can lead to unforeseen changes in ecosystems that often adversely affect the plants, animals and humans that depend upon that habitat. So with all that in mind, is controlling wildfires creating sustainability for all or are we just looking at the smaller picture?

  

Alice Kennedy

What the Horsemeat Scandal has Taught Us

 I have no problem eating horsemeat, however, what the recent horsemeat scandal has taught us, is that we can no longer take for granted what we are actually eating or where exactly it is coming from. Not only has this investigation raised questions into both the regulation and traceability of the meat industry in Europe, but it has also highlighted what a globalised and mechanised system the modern food industry is.

Following the discovery by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that Horse DNA was contained within a third of all tested frozen beefburgers and ready meals, a large-scale enquiry was carried out into the origin of these meat products. The enquiry quickly spread to the UK where products such as frozen spaghetti Bolognese sold in supermarkets including Aldi, Tesco and Findus were found to include 100% horsemeat. It was subsequently discovered that the meat supply chain could be traced back through 8 different companies, located in different countries of Europe including Cyprus, Romania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France.

For me, two main aspects have arisen from this scandal. Firstly, in an article written in ‘the Guardian’, it was highlighted that economy beefburgers (cheap, industrialised burgers) are legally allowed to consist of only 47% beef, the remainder made up of protein additives, fat and water (A fact that surely makes the idea of a 100% horsemeat burger suddenly sound a lot more appealing). Secondly, the distance that food is now travelling before it even gets to our plates, a figure that is certainly not decreasing.

In terms of sustainable living, the farm to fork distance is perhaps the most significant aspect that needs to be tackled. In the UK alone, one in four heavy goods vehicles are in fact carrying food. Considering how many tonnes of CO₂ emissions could be saved each year if less food was transported such long distances, it is clear to see the potential this area has for drastically reducing our carbon footprints. In the USA this problem has actually worsened. In 1997, the average distance travelled by food stood at 6760 km. However, by 2004 this figure had increased to 8240 km.

By making a greater effort to source local goods as well as promoting seasonal diets, we can not only radically cut down the distance which our food is travelling, but also ensure that a higher level of traceability and quality is delivered for all food products. This will also help in both augmenting the local economy as well as decreasing our carbon footprint. The problem with this ideal however, is ultimately cost related. Although it is much cheaper for us to consume food products bought in supermarkets, the true environmental cost of this practise is often overlooked. The sad reality is, that when faced with a decision of spending a little extra on a locally sourced, 100% Irish beefburger, we will usually choose the cheaper, lower quality option sourced from far afield, attached with a substantial carbon footprint.

As it is simply not economically viable for many people to source the generally more expensive local or even national goods, the government needs to take a more active role in creating incentives for people to buy local. Unfortunately, the irony is that the government itself lacks the money to fund such programmes. Unless the general population recognises the importance of buying local, it looks likely that our future consuming habits will continue to seek out the cheapest option.

Patrick Moss

Reference: 

Lawrence, F. (2013) Horsemeat scandal: the essential guide. The Guardian. 15^th February. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/15/horsemeat-scandal-the-essential-guide [accessed 02/04/2013]

Plastic makes the world go round...But can we do without it, when we are buying food?

 Once, I was at the airport at a time too early to be mentioned here. So, there was plenty of time to pass before the buses ran again. I decided to sit down at one of those airport restaurants, which already served breakfast, and I bought an on-site prepared smoothie, which was filled into a tiny, resealable plastic bottle. Of course, an unnecessary wrapping for me, because I finished the smoothie there, and a drinking glass would have done an even better job. Then I thought of how much unnecessary plastic wrapping there is, and how many things I just buy to throw them away again.

Back home, what I did next was to check my fridge for the last grocery purchase, which turned out to contain more plastic than I would have dreamt of, and more than was required. A sinister amount of plastic gathered in my fridge, and suddenly it struck me, why our recycling boxes are always full: not because we are so good at recycling, but because we buy so much waste, because we think that it is convenient to get six plums nicely wrapped up in a plastic basket.

But plastic is more difficult to recycle due to impurity and the mixture of different types of plastic. Therefore it is more likely to be burnt in order to generate energy than it is used to create things. Even worse, it is scarcely reused.  Paper and glass seem to be better wrapping alternatives, because paper is easier and more often recycled than plastic and glass does not lose quality, no matter how often it is recycled.

 That’s why I went down the road to the store and tried to get food without wrapping, or at least with less wrapping which would be easily recyclable. And, oh yes, I was quite successful.

As pictures paint a thousand words, just have a look for yourself.

The difference is striking: The food with less wrapping looks much nicer, and is more appealing to my appetite

There is less unnecessary waste, which does not leave me with a “Big Mac feeling“ of having eaten bad food and having created a lot of waste. Instead, buying food more consciously makes me enjoy my meals much more.

 

Within this comparison, the icecream seemed to be the most controversial. The first coming in a robust plastic box that could be reused, which would have saved me a lot of money on food containers. The latter came in thin cardboard only, not even foil on the inside.

I could replace most of the plastic by paper and glass, although many products can not completely refrain from using plastic. And even if you can not completely refrain from buying things wrapped in plastic, because there are no alternative products, you can reuse some of the plastic boxes, not forgetting to recycle them in the end.

Jasmin Grossmann

Is cooking up insects for dinner an answer to increasing food shortages?

 Would you eat a seasoned and fried cricket or locust? Most of us would recoil at the thought. However, after a bit of research into enantiomophagy (the consumption of insects as food) it dawned on me how common it is around the globe to consume insects as a cheap and adequate source of protein and nutrients. Some of the most popular insects are mealworms, crickets, locusts and various beetle grubs, particulary so in developing regions of of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania.

I believe that the worlds population today consumes and produces too much meat, especially beef. The raising of livestock is slowly but surely destroying our planet’s biodiversity and natural beauty. Animal livestock is the largest anthropogenic user of land and apart from the animal cruelty that takes place, apart from the destruction of native forests to grow animal feed crops, and apart from its contribution to global climate change, it saddens me to think of the volume of meat which is wasted by us in the Western world, while 870 million people worldwide still do not have enough to eat.

The consumption of edible insect species as a food source has been suggested by many scientists and others alike as a more sustainable way of eating. Professor Arnold van Huis, an entomologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and the author of the UN paper, says eating insects has advantages. "There is a meat crisis," he said. "The world population will grow from six billion now to nine billion by 2050 and we know people are consuming more meat. Twenty years ago the average was 20kg, it is now 50kg, and will be 80kg in 20 years. If we continue like this we will need another Earth.” Van Huis is an enthusiast for eating insects. "Most of the world already eats insects," he points out. "It is only in the western world that we don't. Psychologically we have a problem with it. I don't know why, as we eat shrimps, which are very comparable."

So why is enantiomophagy a more sustainable way to eat? In analyses of particular edible insect species, it was found that ectothermic insects can have an energy input to protein ratio as much as 12 times that of endothermic vertebrates. Livestock also contribute hugely to the production of greenhouse gases whereas insects produce very little in comparison despite a higher relative growth rate. In relation to another environmentally damaging practice, some people argue that the use of harmful pesticides is economically damaging and insufficient due to the fact that the insects killed by this practice can contain up to 75% protein, while the crop being protected by their destruction often contain no more than 14%. This strikes me as a typical example of a human activity which doesnt make any sense economically.

I realize that it could also be of some concern that if insects became globally more popular as food, their populations may decline, a common outcome of human exploitation, such as with the decline of fish in the sea or threat to the survival of the honey bee. It cannot be denied however that farming insects would be a lot more sustainable than farming cattle or pigs.

An interest in entomophagy is slowly growing in the developed world in parts of the US and Europe. It seems that its novelty is catching peoples attention and time will tell as to whether it will take a stronger, more permanent hold or if the novelty will simply wear off.

A good website  ia all that is required to find out which restaurants are currently offering insects on their menus and if you’re feeling brave, it also has some recipies for people to try out. 1,462 insect species worldwide are currently recorded as edible. So why not give it a go?

Danae Wollan

Meatless Mondays: The Difference a Day Can Make

As increasing attention is given to climate change each year, researchers across various disciplines are coming to a common conclusion: our individual lifestyle choices have a direct - and quite profound - impact on the environment. Specifically, climate change researchers are emphasizing the extent to which the food we eat contributes to our individual carbon footprints.

According to the United Nations, the meat industry alone produces about 1/5 of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions across the planet (1). This stifling number is more than the CO2 emissions from transportation – that is: cars, busses, trains, and planes – combined.  As a response to these daunting statistics, Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advised that people begin to take action by limiting their consumption of meat as a step towards reducing emissions and protecting the planet from the imminent global warming (2).

But is this feasible? Can we really expect people – especially in meat-loving countries like the US and across the EU – to reduce their meat consumption? The answer is yes, and it is a phenomenon that has already infiltrated societies across the globe. The way in which thousands of people are consciously reducing their carbon footprint is by going vegetarian – but for just one day each week. This idea of a “meatless Monday”, as it is commonly referred to in the US, is part of a public awareness campaign in which individuals pledge to go one day a week without consuming meat. Councilwoman Jan Perry, who helped promote the meatless Monday initiative in L.A., explains that by going meatless one day each week, “you can reduce your carbon footprint by over eight pounds per day…save half a gallon of gasoline per day; reduce your saturated fat intake by 15 percent (per meatless meal); and reduce your risk of heart disease by 19 percent,” (3).  So not only does Meatless Monday help the environment, but it is also presents numerous health benefits.  

While the concept of Meatless Mondays began in the US, the idea of going meatless one day a week is occurring in various countries. Meat-free days have taken off in Ghent, Belgium, where the entire city now goes vegetarian each Thursday. Similarly, in the UK, Brazil, and Australia meatless days are gaining increasing popularity.

Meatless Monday’s are a simple step towards living a more sustainable lifestyle. So why not give it a try? Not only is eating vegetarian better for your health and the health of the environment, it is also a fun way to step out of your comfort zone. Whether it means trying a new recipe or ordering something you never have when out at a restaurant, going veg can be fun and exciting – plus, it’s only one day of the week!

Emily Collette

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7600005.stm

(3) http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2012/11/meatless-mondays-as-a-program-for-environmental-stability-and-public-health

Review: Fundamentals of Sustainable Development by Niko Roorda

There is an ever increasingly large number  of books on the market dealing with sustainable development, so any new book has to offer something new.  Fundamentals of Sustainable Development By Niko Roorda published under the  Earthscan imprint by Routledge (2012) offers just that in a very innovative way.  It goes against the trend of specialization within the area of sustainable development, which often creates inaccessible and  to my mind overly confusingly complex views, but gives a fresh approach to understanding the problems and to some extent the solutions to the crisis facing us today. Roorda describes the crisis in the develop world as the triple crunch  (i.e. climate change, economic crisis and oil depletion), which illustrates his no nonsense approach.

The book is broken down into two parts. Part I is called SWOT analysis (i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) which explores the global situation. This is made up of four chapters: 1. Sustainable development: an introduction; 2.  Flaws in the fabric: people and nature; 3. Flaws in the fabric: people and society,; and 4. Sources of vigour, this later chapter dealing with global strengths.  Part II is Solution Strategies and  explores some of the ways in which sustainability can be achieved through a further four chapters : 5. Here and there; 6. Now and later; 7. Climate and energy; and 8. Sustainable business practices.  Based on case studies and littered with other examples and colour images  this is a fascinating book  and is as complete a text as I think could have been achieved.  It has numerous student questions which, with the support of an equally innovative and exciting website (www.routledge.com/cw/roorda), makes this text very interactive.

The book really is interdisciplinary, and while challenging in places is truly accessible to readers of all backgrounds.   The presentation of the book is excellent and the format makes this a very attractive paperback, and at 350 pages, it is not too big for students (and lecturers) to carry around. This is a colourful and intriguing textbook which I highly recommend.  It is the sort of book you wish you had written yourself, but Niko Roorda has done just that and in the process added a remarkable edition to the sustainability library.

Nick Gray
@nickgraytcd

Organic food : Is it the sustainable option?

The term organic is often used as an alternative for the concept of sustainable, but is this really true.  There is no doubt that organic food is grown by people who care about the environment and work their land to strict conservation principles , but is it really best for the planet overall?  Organic farming has made an enormous contribution to altering farm practices and raising public awareness, especially in relation to biodiversity and conservation issues. Indeed many of the underlying principles of organic farming are now seen as best practice. So why is organic farming having such a bad time?

Sales of organic food has been falling in recent years and in 2011 it fell 3.7% in the UK alone with the number of producers also declining by a similar amount to just under 7,300.  This is in stark contrast to the ethical trading certification products such as Fairtrade whose have steadily risen over the same period with a 12% increase in 2011.   There are three reasons why people buy organic. The majority believe it is healthier (52% ), next come better animal welfare standards (34%) and a similar number buy organic because they believe it to be a more ethical way of farming (33%).

So what has changed? Quite simply consumers interested in sustainability are using different criteria in buying food such as is it in season, is it local, does it carry an ethical trading label such as fairtrade, and have welfare issues been addressed.  I must admit to being confused at some organic farmers markets where I have been confronted by out of seasonal vegetables, exotic fruit and vegetables that clearly all have large air mile tags attached.  Also authenticity is also another problem, especially with the price premium attached to many of these products sold in such markets.  A carrot looks very much like another, and with it now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organically grown is not really better than conventionally grown fruit and veg in terms of health or  taste, then we have to reassess the role of organic farming in terms of sustainability and supply the growing demand for food. The oft quoted WHO  estimate that 3 million people are hospitalized annually due to pesticide poisoning has been shown not to be relevant , as the trace pesticide residues found in conventional food, according to the Food Standards Agency in the UK, poses no risk to health.

Welfare of animals is normally higher with certified organic farmers, however there is sometimes a conflict between using proven chemical intervention (e.g. antibiotics , anti-inflammatory drugs and anthelmintics) and maintaining organic status.  In the UK antibiotics are allowed to be used by organic farmers in certain circumstances but largely banned in the US.  Farmers may be in a cleft stick, where necessary chemical intervention on welfare grounds could lose them their organic status.

Is organic farming sustainable? Probably not in terms of being able to  feed an ever increasing global population. Professor John P. Reganold in a recent article in Nature demonstrated that in developed countries organic farmers are achieving up to 20% smaller yields compared to conventional farmers which offset financially by charging a premium for organic produce.  In developing countries most organic fruit and vegetables are exported which brings  severely needed overseas currency into the country, but creating food scarcity within often highly productive areas.

Organic certification standards are excellent in Ireland and the UK but do vary widely between countries and the certification body, some of which may cause significant confusion to the consumer. So very often the consumer is unaware of exactly what they are buying.

So in terms of sustaining and promoting  biodiversity as well as protecting landscapes then organic farming is clearly advantageous over conventional farming, but the majority of farmers are now aware of the importance of these issues are responding by using a broad range of conservation techniques.  In terms of greenhouse gas emissions going the organic route may not be all that it seems. Certainly soil fertility and quality improves under organic regimes, but research carried at Oxford University suggests that while pollution per unit area of land farmed is lower than for conventional farming, it is generally higher per unit of food produced

But the four tenants on which the Soil Association is based i.e.  health, ecology, fairness and care,  are now increasingly at the heart of conventional farming as well.   To this effect the Soil Association are now working with non-organic farmers which appears to be a sensible development for sides of the farming lobby.  So should we buy organic? If it locally sourced and seasonal then it is preferred by me, but cost will always be a factor as is the need to develop farming to meet the challenges of climate change and increased food demand.
Nick Gray

https://twitter.com/Nickgraytcd

Incredible Edible - Personal action at its best

Can the individual or community make a difference…you bet you can.  One of the many examples is the Incredible Edible initiative which was started by a group of volunteers in Todmorden in England who turned plots of unused land into communal vegetable gardens.  The video below is a presentation given by Pam Warhurst the co-founder. The idea has gone global with similar projects on every continent. Watch and see just how individuals can make a difference.


“I wondered if it was possible to take a town like Todmorden and focus on local food to re-engage people with the planet we live on, create the sort of shifts in behaviour we need to live within the resources we have, stop us thinking like disempowered victims and to start taking responsibility for our own futures." (Pam Warhurst)

“There's so many people that don't really recognize a vegetable unless it's in a bit of plastic with an instruction packet on the top.”  (Pam Warhurst)

Nick Gray

Agriculture: Feeding 7 Billion While Reducing Emissions. How can we do both?

With the world’s population recently surpassing 7 billion and still climbing, an increase in food production is unquestionably a necessity. Some predictions forecast a population rise to 11 or even 12 billion. These estimates become worrying when you take into account the fact that at current population figures it is stated that 19% of boy-children and 14% of girl-children in Ireland “always or often go to bed hungry”. So the challenge facing us is by no means trivial, we need to feed more people while reducing emissions from agriculture. Solving this problem however becomes multifaceted when you consider that 24.4% of Irish greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Roughly 10 energy units are spent for every energy unit of food on our dinner table. Reducing the emissions from the agricultural sector has been the focus of numerous studies. However the solutions, much like the problems are multidimensional. Some suggested solutions to the emissions problem include using feed additives, genetic engineering and better farm management. Solutions must however consider the economic aspects. Currently, farmers are being paid between 30 to 33 cent per litre for milk, however as recent as 2009 they were only receiving as little as 23 cent per litre. While the cost of producing 1 litre of milk varies seasonally, it can be as high as 23 cent per litre, thus leaving little room for profits. Therefore employing a solution at the production level must consider many variables and be economically viable. Along with all these aspects the population must be fed. Surely this highlights the need for detailed and extensive research.

Christopher Fennell