Sudanese 'Super Cows'!

Super Cows? Yes. That’s right. The BBC's James Copnall went on a rare tour of some state-of-the-art agricultural facilities in Sudan that could come to dominate agricultural production. Below is the BBC's account of his trip.

The DAL group is a prominent Sudanese business and is a major player within the agricultural sector. Right from growing alfalfa as feed for the dairy herd to producing and packaging the products, this farming business incorporates technology that is alien to agriculture in Sudan.

The irrigation equipment used for fodder crop growth is much more technical and precise, and with that in mind is also much more expensive. The cows that are fed these crops are imported from the west, all born abroad. But, because of their far superior milk-producing power, these imports are becoming Sudan’s new ‘super cows’. These so-called ‘super cows’ do have a downside though…because of the overwhelming heat, these western breeds have to be kept in air-conditioned barns! The barns are kept 20˚C cooler than the outside air by a system that sprays cold air.

Even in the milking and packaging process technology reigns supreme. The dairy factory alone costs $50 million, presenting itself as a massive investment, especially when you compare this to the majority of Sudanese agriculture which is practiced on a small scale. The latest genetic technology is also being used to ensure that the next generation of ‘super cows’ can produce even more milk.

Indeed, this is a prime example of how technology can help revolutionise agriculture and is very much a display of technology at the service of agriculture. But (and for me this is quite a big but!) for all its productivity benefits, can this really be sustainable? Socially as well as environmentally? With this extensive use of technology within a farming system, not as many jobs are created as in traditional farming, and many of the jobs that are available require more educated and trained people. Here the choice between outright productivity and social commitments has been made.

The real concern with regards to environmental change is what powers these technological advancements. The energy needed to maintain air-conditioned barns, electronically monitor each cow, or to package products all by machines is astronomical. This energy consumption is not sustainable, particularly if these types of technological revolutions become more commonplace across the developing world. The environmental costs and ensuing environmental change as a result of these revolutions is unquantifiable. Worrying times if these ‘super cows’ begin to take over the world!

Back on Hive Watch - We Need to BEE Careful!

In this post I want to return to an environmental issue I explored in a couple of posts back in November, where I focused on the worrying evidence of bee declines and how this decline is commonly attributed to some methods of intensive management (bee-ing all of those naughty pesticides!). Although I did conclude that a range of factors have contributed to recent alarming declines, agricultural evolution and chemical usage are key factors.

A bee covered in pollen (Source: theguardian.com)

A recent article by the BBC sheds some interesting light on the bee decline issue in this respect, not only cementing this ecological change as a real issue but also relates the consequence back to the cause.

I'll explain what I mean. Globally, farmers have increased their use of pesticides...this has largely been done to help in the efforts to increase yields to meet the increasing demands of our growing world population...yet this increase in pesticide use seems to have contributed to the loss of our black and yellow friends...and with this loss, their is a loss of pollination services, which could actually leave us facing a potential food security crisis! So, in our human naivety, we may have actually reduced long-term yields in our attempts to increase them.

As this article highlights, a major reason behind this pollination capacity shortage is the increase in demand for biofuels, with crops such as oilseed rape being grown more widely across Europe for this purpose. These crops require high rates of pollination, and so even a suggested bee population recovery of 7% between 2005 and 2010 is not enough when considering biofuel feed crops increased their area by over 30% during the same period.

Bee hives in a field of oilseed rape - an ever-rarer site (Source: inhabitat.com)

The UK is at the epicentre of this issue, with only Moldova having a bigger honeybee shortage. Our position as a relative economic power within Europe makes this even more shocking. Action really needs to be taken now, as the UK and European agricultural sectors rely on it. Yields are hampered and crops are at risk with the current over-reliance on wild pollinators, which do not have sufficient capacity to provide the pollination services required.

Also highlighted in this article, and in the study by Tom Breeze and colleagues upon which it is fundamentally based, was the divergence between agricultural and environmental policies. If this pressing issue is to be resolved, linkages must be formed and simultaneous changes to both agricultural practices and environmental policies must be made. If business continues as usual, this partly agriculturally-driven environmental change will lead to a socioeconomic crisis...and who knows the environmental changes that may result from that?

October to Now - What's Changed?

With the New Year now well underway, I thought I would pause and reflect a little on what I have uncovered, discussed and learned over the past few months through doing these blog posts. This is, I hasten to add, not by any means a reflective send-off, but rather more an update on my own personal mindset and opinions on the key topics relating to global environmental change and agriculture.

(Source: richesandglory.wordpress.com)

Now, first things first, I need to go back to the very beginning (no, not when time began...let's try October). When I set out to explore the debates, contributions, misconceptions and facts surrounding agriculture and its contribution to the concept of global environmental change I very much saw pollution as the primary factor. My first few posts prove testament to this, where I explored phosphorous leakage and the damage that causes to the environment, particularly in a contemporary context. I decided that from this part of the debate I would explore the chemical usage of modern agriculture further, which led me to a very topical "buzzing" debate about bee populations. This gave me a real case study focus on how the changing practices of agriculture are altering the natural environment. I also touched a little on the impacts farming is and has had on broad ecology and habitat stability, which was a topic I found particularly interesting.

At this stage it seemed clear to me that this excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides is really a driving force behind how agriculture is causing and contributing to global environmental change. Indeed it is avery significant one, but through my reading it became apparent that the concept of water consumption was arguably a far bigger issue. I've become quite passionate about this topic, and it has led to a real change in my mindset. Having initially thought that the modernisation of agriculture through chemical use was the primary cause of agriculturally-induced environmental change, I am now in a position where agricultural water consumption tops the agenda.

What I have found really interesting, and incredibly useful, about this blogging process is the difference in how I have engaged with literature and debates, and then how this has helped me to understand concepts and topics much better. The ways in which I now go about reading and researching topics has changed, and I am much less hesitant to take my own opinion on things.

(Source: goodjoe.com)

All I can say now is that I look forward to more explorations of a broad spectrum of environmental change topics in relation to farming, and I hope you all do too!

Gobble Gobble - Turkey Time!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

As tomorrow is the big day, I thought I’d do a little topical post about farming in (or should I say for?) the festive period.

Now, many of us will be eating Turkey for Christmas lunch tomorrow (if you aren’t, or if you are a vegetarian going for the nut roast vibe this year, don’t feel like you can't read on!). Personally, I know very little about poultry farming, and so I thought I’d have a little dig to see what I could find out, and perhaps even see if anything might relate to environmental change! A lot has been said about bird welfare, but I want to focus on a more ecological and environmental perspective of the turkey production process.

Turkey is our most popular centrepiece for Christmas lunch (Source: longestacres.blogpost.co.uk)

Although very much considered as exclusive to one day of the year, more than 22 million turkeys are produced in the UK every single year, with the majority reared intensively. Intensive agriculture…environmental alarm bells ringing!

The ability of one Turkey farm to produce such vast amounts of meat (Bernard Matthews, I’m looking at you!) means that the production of large volumes of animal waste in such small areas is a real environmental challenge . Animal waste runoff contributes significantly to high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in natural habitats such as water systems, with particularenvironmental damage borne by local regions. Manure has been seen stacked high in fields, which is then washed into river systems when it rains…there is no mechanism or practice in place for the prevention of this transportation. Consequences of eutrophication, among others, are serious and have very severe repercussions for the aquatic environment specifically.

Turkey production is one of the most intensive forms of agriculture (Source: grist.org)

Moreover, due to the large numbers of birds produced in one location, the fossil fuels burned (and hence the pollution released into the atmosphere, contributing to the global warming phenomenon) to transport our Christmas lunches to our local supermarkets worsen the industries environmental impact. Of course, this factor is not exclusive to our festive birds, but it is a significant element of how intensive poultry systems are damaging to the environment.

Of course, turkey farming isn’t all bad, and you should definitely not feel guilty when you tuck in tomorrow, but the intensive side of turkey production which is so dominant due to seasonalised demand has significant detrimental impacts on the environment. I think this provides another example of how intensive agricultural systems, although currently necessary to meet our growing demands, have to be recognised as having detrimental environmental effects, and for the specific practices generating such impacts to be identified and modified.

I hope you all get what you wished for from Santa Claus, and no one has to chomp through dry turkey meat tomorrow!

How Much Water is Embedded in Everyday Life?

Following on from my posts relating to freshwater use in agriculture, I've come across a fun little interactive tool on the National Geographic website.

How much water is embedded in everyday life? (Source: National Geographic)

I recommend just having a little play, and I almost guarantee you'll be surprised by some of the figures! Half a kilo of beef requiring 6810 litres of freshwater to produce seems crazy!! It's this mass consumption of water that is a real growing concern. As you will discover from this informative tool, the meat that more of us around the world consume requires huge volumes of water...could you be a vegetarian to save the world?!

Go and Explore!

New Agricultural Water Policies, But We Still Have Problems

A couple of posts ago, I discussed the issues surrounding agriculture’s use – and overuse – of freshwater. Recently, I came across an article by the National Farmers Union (NFU) that was raising the issue that water policies must give farmers the ability to grow food to meet demand.

Extensive irrigation (source: National Geographic)

Water Use and Food Security

On 3^rd December, the Government’s Water Bill reached the parliamentary committee stage. The NFU is calling on the government to ensure that policies recognise the critical link between water and food security, and that they help to allow farmers to use enough water to grow our food.

Without irrigation, we would not be able to produce enough food to feed our growing global population, and so there is a key link between agricultural water consumption and food security. The less water agriculture utilises, the less secure our supply of food. However, it could be argued that current rates of water use are severely detrimental to future food security.

‘Sustainability’ – An Unreachable Concept?

For me, this raised an interesting point, and it is one that seems to underpin many debates in regard to environmental change. Are we able to meet the current needs of our global population without harming future generations, and vice versa?

In terms of agricultural water consumption, the term ‘sustainability’ doesn’t seem to fit. Farmers need access to water if their production is to meet our consumer demand. If current usage is to become more sustainable, irrigation techniques must become more efficient (see Terry Howell's 2001 Agronomy Journal paper for more detailed information), genetically modified crops requiring less water must be more widely grown, and we must adapt our diets to aid in the reduction of agricultural water consumption.

Freshwater Ecosystem Services - Down the Plughole?

Anthropogenic activities are causing environmental change. With environmental change comes an alteration of the variety, magnitude and spatial range of freshwater ecosystem services, which our societies have come to rely upon in one way or another.

Agriculture has been a primary force in environmental change, and is also an industry that heavily relies on freshwater. One obvious example of how agriculture - and more specifically recent agricultural intensification - has damaged ecosystem services is eutrophication, with a loss of water quality, toxicity and diversity loss. There is a need to realise the damages to and loss of freshwater ecosystem services so that these trends can be curtailed. In their informative journal article, Walter Dodds and colleagues provide discussion around this concept, and attempt to quantify the human impact on freshwater ecosystem services through the development of a composite index.

Dodds et al. (2013) diagram of the calculation of the proportion of ecosystem services used and overall impact

I want to focus on the drivers of human freshwater impact that they selected. Both the intensity of agricultural land use modification and of agricultural production. I find this interesting, and actually not very surprising. What I have learned is that both land-use modification for agricultural purposes and production intensification increase freshwater demand as well as frequently damaging the surrounding environment (which, of course, includes local hydrological systems). So, these will be key drivers of human freshwater impact and thus the changes to freshwater ecosystem services we are observing. The thirst of agriculture is a real environmental issue, and without action detrimental environmental change in relation to freshwater systems is likely to continue.