Area vs yields

I just experienced an epiphany.  I heard a speech outlining what is in store for global agriculture during the next ten years.  We hope that the global agriculture industry will be able to feed the growing global population.  However, and this is the part that threw me for a loop, in order to do that we either have to increase area or increase yields. Ok- that makes sense.  But if you look at this sentence, either we need more land to grow food (which is against the conservationist in me) or we need new ways to get more food from one acre of land (and bio-technology makes me squirm).  So, suddenly I was asked to pick one of three options:

1. Not feed a growing human population, which from the beginning of this blog, I have said will not ever happen.  We will not leave land wild to save elephants if it means humans, especially children will starve.
2. We can increase land for agriculture
3. We can improve farming practices to increase yields

You might think that increases in yields do not have to come in the forms of bio-technology, which is GMOs.  Throughout most of history you would be correct; most of our advances came in the form of improved farming practices, including irrigation, plow and pesticides.  However, these improvements have taken us as far as they can.  Yes, there might be improvements left, but most of them will be minor and not worth the investment to discover.  Therefore, the big improves to come will come in the form of GMOs and other bio-technology.

Many foodies and environmentalists have very strong feelings about both of these options and express a lot of resistance, but it is unrealistic to think that one if not both of these will continue to happen.  Knowing this people need to understand their options and the impact of their choices.  If you are saying that we should not use any GMO crops then you are also saying that to feed the world we need to bring new lands into production.  Or the converse if you don’t think we should bring new lands into production then you are saying that we must find ways to increase yields on the lands we already use.

Once conservation and bio-technology were placed at odds with each other it forced me to think, where do I fall? As you know I think we should take the action with the smallest impact on the natural world because as much as we try, we have no idea what the long-term consequences of our actions are.

Scientists generally believe that GMOs are safe for human consumption and do not harm the environment.  My concern with GMOs is that we don’t have enough empirical evidence to know for certain what impact they have on humans or the environment.  I think it is likely that in 50 years we will find negative consequences associated with GMOs.

However, the other choice is to bring more land into production.

I think there are two reasons that I side with the conservation and not the anti-bio tech people on this issue:

1. The name of this blog is “Making the most of our limited lands” that has always been my concern.  The name itself implies that it is important to increase yields to prevent more land from being taken from its wild state.
2. GMOs are ubiquitous.  If they are unsafe for humans and will damage the environment we already have a disaster on our hands.  So I think we should be researching and asking more questions to make sure they are safe.  But as for right now, we use them and there is no going back.

So I think we should look to increase yields over increase area.

 

Jellyfish prove my point

In the “Next” section of the October 2011 issues of National Geographic magazine there was an article called Jellyfish currents.  John Dabiri, a researcher at Caltech wanted to know if the amount of water jellyfish displace when moving affected the ecosystem.  From his experiment he concluded that as jellyfish move hundreds of feet up to the surface every day they are dragging cold, nutrient-rich waters from the ocean deep up and then pulling warm water back down on their decent.

My reason for sharing this with you is because I think it highlights the fact that each species plays an integral part in the ecosystem and that in most cases we have no idea what it is.  In this example someone took the time to ask a question about a specific species and its role in the larger ecosystem and the result was mind-blowing.  I don’t think that most people would trumpet jellyfish as a critical component in the ocean environment or that they would believe that jellyfish combined other small organisms could rival tides in the impact they have on moving ocean water.   This example leaves me wondering, how many species are there who have a profound impact on the environment, without us realizing it?  My guess is all of them.  This is why I am a conservationist, because we don’t know what the loss of one species will have on fragile ecosystems.

In the jellyfish example, the jellyfish’s action is not extraordinary.  It is moving from the bottom of the ocean to the top to feed, which is required for the jellyfish to stay alive.  While the intent for the jellyfish is to find food, the result is much further reaching; moving water and nutrients allows for other species to flourish.  The absences of these creatures would be devastation for the ocean’s ecosystem, without jellyfish all of the surface species that require nutrients from the ocean floor and all of the deep species that require warmer water would not be able to exist.

On the flip side having too many of one species changes a positive impact into a negative one.  For example elephants knock over trees.  It’s natural and in ideal conditions it’s good for the environment.  They get rid of weak or sick trees.  They create areas for new trees to grow in the bush and the down trees create an ideal living space for other species.  However, due to habitat loss and deforestation, there are more elephants than the land can support.  In these places too many trees are being knocked down by the elephants and the result is that antelope species are not able to hide from predators and their numbers are dropping.  In the short-term the easy prey will boost predator populations, but without a steady food source future generations will not be able to survive… all because of the number of trees that elephants knock down.

These two examples are supposed to show the delicate nature of two every different ecosystems.   These are just two examples and we have them because someone was interested in the impact of a specific action on the environment.  However there are far more instances where the organism or action has not been studied and therefore we have no idea what will happen without that species, or in the case of the elephants an imbalance between the number of species and the amount of habitat available to them.  This unknown is the foundation of my belief that it is important to leave as much of the natural world intact as possible, because we just don’t know and extinction cannot be reversed.

 

Presenting Dr. Jane Goodall

Yesterday I heard Jane Goodall speak and while it is not directly related to food, I think I would be remissed if I did not mention it on my blog.  She was an incredible speaker – not that, that is news to anyone.   The experience was great on three different levels… first the internal excitement I felt in seeing someone I find so  inspiring.   Secondly, hearing all of the people around me talking about how they idolized her and how important her work was and is still is.  And finally, hearing her  words themselves told a story that captivated everyone in the audience and people watching online.

First, I will start with me and my discovery of Jane Goodall.  My first encounter with Dr. Goodall was in third grade.  We had to read a biography, present on it and dress up as the person.  My mom insisted that I be Dr. Goodall, because of my love of wildlife.  So I was.  I am pretty sure I had never heard of her until then and didn’t think much about her for years to come. After graduating college I read two of her books and looked into internships at the Jane Goodall Institute in Arlington, VA.  Then a few weeks ago, I saw that she was speaking at American University, and I had to go.

As I sat in the audience yesterday I was thinking about the things I knew about Dr. Goodall and trying to contain my own excitement.  I was not alone in my excitement, but since I attended the talk alone, I had no one to share my excitement with so I listened to the people around me.   I was surrounded by people equally as excited as I was.  The girl sitting directly behind me was an AU freshman.  She had dragged her new friends to the talk and was trying to explain to them how important and inspiring Dr. Goodall was. She also mentioned that she had a signed poster on her wall.  I was almost ashamed that my own dedication was not as great as hers, but I am not a college freshman and no longer have posters on my bedroom walls.  I also heard numerous other people talk about Jane’s work- they have followed her career as if she was their favorite actors or athletes.

Finally the words Dr. Goodall spoke reinstated with me as well.  Yes she worked in the jungle for many years and made huge strides in conservation and our knowledge of primates and the animal world.  Plus she did things and visited places that women didn’t go or do in the 1950s.  But she has also done so much since leaving the jungle and she has allowed her message to grow and change over the years.

Dr. Goodall spoke about how the chimps are safe to live in Gombe National Park, however outside of the park live extremely poor people that were transforming the land into desert because of their unsustainable practices.  However, it is not possible to get people to care about chimps or the environment if they are starving to death.  For the last 10 years she has been working in the region to teach the locals sustainable ways to make a living off the land.  She said that the people were receptive to the new techniques and even to information about family planning.  After almost a decade there are hard wood trees in the buffer region around the park, the wildlife is returning and the people not as desperately poor.

In other regions of Africa human war is a major threat to chimps and through a long series of events Dr. Goodall has become a Peace Ambassador through the UN.  She has programs – like Roots and Shoots that promotes peace around the world.

 

It is so interesting that a biologist could become one of the most influential peace promoters in the world.  Everything in the world is so interconnected.  I would like to attack conservation issues through sustainable farming practices and Dr. Goodall has done it through world peace.  The issues we face are so complex and the answers are not simple.

 

Agriculture is not at odds with environmentalism

We try to make the best decisions we can in the moment we are living in, however it generally takes months, years or even decades to be certain that we made the right choice – assuming we can ever know for sure.  I got my confirmation today.

As I have mentioned a few times five years ago I worked at a wildlife rehabilitation center in South Africa.  I always knew the difference between conservation and medicine, but here I could see the distinction clearer than ever before.  Medicine saves individuals and conservation saves species.  Up until this trip I wanted to save individuals.  The close contact with wildlife and the mysteries of the body fascinated me.  But in Africa I suddenly understood how fruitless saving an individual could be if there was no place to put it once it was healed.

It is to be expected that a summer working as a veterinary assistant in South Africa would have a profound impact on the course of my life.  I thought it would strength my resolve to get into and complete veterinary school.  It didn’t.  I never expected to love what I did every day that summer then return home and six months later declare that I was not going to veterinary school after working toward it for the past 13 years.

I had new insight.  I was armed with new ideas and opinions.   When I graduated college I applied for jobs at many environmental non-profits in the greater Washington, DC area.  I ended up working for Green Media Toolshed, where we worked with other environmental non-profits to improve their communication plans.

I became interested in the social media side of my job.  I decided I needed to become more familiar with social media to really help our members.  I picked a topic, sustainable agriculture and started to blog and create a small following on twitter.  My idea is that there is enough land on this earth to sustain the human population and wildlife populations, we just have to figure out how to balance competing needs, or rather make them less at odds with each other.

In order to do this I think we need to apply some of the ideas I learned during my time in South Africa.  First and foremost we need to make wildlife and wildland more valuable.  No one, especially in poorer regions of the world is going to leave the wildlife intact if they can make more money from the land another way. It is unrealistic. Secondly we need to rethink how we grow and transport food today.  These are the main themes covered in this blog.

A year after starting this blog I had over 75 posts and over 1,200 twitter followers and I left my job.  No, this blog does not support me.  I started working for a food and agriculture consulting firm.  They made it very clear that the goal of the firm is not increase sustainable agriculture and that it is possible that I would disagree with our conclusions sometimes.  I didn’t care.  I wanted to learn more about how we grow and market everything from soybeans and pistachios.

In order to find a solution to this problem of a growing human population and finite quantities of land I need to know more about growing and marketing food.  Since working here, I have questioned whether or not I am getting closer to my ultimate goal.  I love my job, but I wondered if it was changing my view point.  That is until today.

Today we met with the Executive Director of a Wood organization about their global programs.  I will spare you all of the boring details.  But at someone toward the end of the meeting he said that promoting wood from any forest in the world is good for US wood exporters and that plantation wood is not better for the environment.  Many environmental groups are against using non-plantation lumber because you are cutting down the forest to obtain the lumber.  However, the people that are logging the forest are doing so for their livelihood and it is in their best interest not to over harvest so that the environment continues to regrow itself and lumber can be removed in future seasons.  Plus most governments heavily regulate what can and cannot be removed.

By boycotting the forest lumber the value of these lands is reduced to zero and the local people must find another way to earn money.  It is common to cut down the forest and plant tree plantations.  In many parts of Southeast Asia the indigenous forests have been replaced with bamboo or palm plantations.

Bamboo wood gets very green reviews because it is fast growing.   But the entire story is lost in this rating process.  First of all, indigenous forests are much better for the ecosystem.  Millions of pieces of plants and animals live among the trees that are harvested for wood, which is not true on plantations.  These plantations are monocultures, which leads me to point number two.  It is general knowledge that there are great problems associated with monoculture.  And have severe long term problems.

I completely agree with his stance.  And it made my day that the head of one of the biggest cooperators in the US agreed with me.  He understands business and he understands the environment.  He is part of big business and his goals are not to destroy the world.  Logging on his grandmother’s land paid for his college education and he has an vested interest in not only taking from the land but making sure to preserve the land so that he can continue to earn his livelihood from it.

Being an idealist is wonderful, but sometimes a practical business approach solves more problems.

 

SARE Gets A New Logo

When I worked at the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, two years ago I was just an intern.  As college graduation grew nearer, we started talking about a new logo for SARE. SARE has a national office, that I worked at and four regional office. Getting everyone to agree on a logo is a very difficult task.

I am proud to announce that they finally have a new logo and I think it looks great!

Check out SARE!

 

Plastic Bags

I know that everyone does things a little bit differently, I just get so wrapped up I how I do things that I forget about what others do. I rarely take bags when I shop. I know it makes my mom a little crazy when I am in a department store but I’d rather combine my purchases into one bag.
Anyway, there are a lot of times that I go to food stores with my friends and I shocked at the number of plastics bags that anyone can use. First people will put all their fruits and veggies into different bags. Then they get plastic bags for their purchases and double bag the heavy or sharp things. I get that the bags are useful and reusable but no one can possible use that many bags. And they just get thrown out.
I don’t understand how some many people can care so little about the environment, while I care so much. I feel that bringing your own bag to the  food store is well advertised; so I wonder what it would take to get these people to use their reusable bags. I don’t think it’s the advertisements nor do I think that a five cent discount will help.
Plastic bags have a huge impact. We use them in such large quantities. They are cheap, reliable and mass produced, however they have negative qualities as well.

Plastic bags litter the landscape. Once they are used, most plastic bags go into landfill, or rubbish tips. Each year more and more plastic bags are ending up littering the environment. Once they become litter, plastic bags find their way into our waterways, parks, beaches, and streets. And, if they are burned, they infuse the air with toxic fumes.

Plastic bags kill animals. About 100,000 animals such as dolphins, turtles whales, penguins are killed every year due to plastic bags. Many animals ingest plastic bags, mistaking them for food, and therefore die. And worse, the ingested plastic bag remains intact even after the death and decomposition of the animal. Thus, it lies around in the landscape where another victim may ingest it.

Plastic bags are non-biodegradable. And one of the worst environmental effects of plastic bags is that they are non-biodegradable. The decomposition of plastic bags takes about 1000 years.

Petroleum is required to produce plastic bags. As it is, petroleum products are diminishing and getting more expensive by the day, since we have been using this non-renewable resource increasingly. Petroleum is vital for our modern way of life. It is necessary for our energy requirements – for our factories, transport, heating, lighting, and so on. Without viable alternative sources of energy yet on the horizon, if the supply of petroleum were to be turned off, it would lead to practically the whole world grinding to a halt. Surely, this precious resource should not be wasted on producing plastic bags, should it?

From Buzzle

I am very rarely in favor of new taxes, but personally I think that there should charge five cents for each plastic bag. I am not positive that this will act as a deterrent, but it’s worth a try. And it’s not like we don’t have other options. We can bring reusable bags to the market. So many stores sell these bags now. I have reusable bags from Target, Giant, Whole Foods, Macy’s and several promotion bags that I have gotten. And if I go to the store and don’t have one of my bags, or I purchase more food than will fit in my bag, then I take plastic bags and I reuse them. I use them to pack my lunch or as a trash bag.

I know  a lot of people reuse bags, but if you always get plastic bags then I do not believe that there is any way to use all of the plastic bags you are collecting. Everything is okay in moderation.

 

More Wolves Doesn’t Mean Fewer Elk

We think we understand the environment and the complex relationships between species in an ecosystem, but we don’t. We know so little and understand even less about the world around us. And for this reason I believe humans should to try change and control nature as little as possible.

An example of this misunderstanding can be seen in the relationship between wolves and elk in Idaho and Montana. One would probably assume that as the number of predators increase the number of prey will decrease.

Do not get me wrong, this makes sense. Each wolf requires a certain amount of land and food to sustain itself and therefore if there are more wolves then more elk are need to support this population. Then once the number of wolves surpasses what the elk population can support, the wolves will die of starvation. This is a basic principle in ecology.

This model is not holding true in Idaho and Montana. On September 1st Montana and Idaho will be commence their wolf hunting season, now that the Obama administration has removed wolves from the Endangered Species Act. Defenders of Wildlife and other conserationist feel that the quota is too high. Up to 2/3 of the wolf population may be hunted. Hunters support the quota because they believe that the increase in wolves has lead to a noticable decrease in the number of elk. However in the last 25 years elk populations have increased by 5% to 66% in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, according to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Also almost three million acres of land have been conserved by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

To be clear, I am in favor of regulated hunting. I have not researched what an acceptable quota for hunt wolves should be. But I do think this is an excellent example of an instance when the wildlife numbers do not move as we predict.

Much of this information came from a TreeHugger post.

 

Mayans Given Up Environmental Ways End Up in Collapse

According to a TreeHugger post, a new study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science concludes that the ancient Mayans not only practiced effective forest management and conservation, but also that when they abandoned these practices, it was detrimental to their entire civilization and helped them find their way into Jared Diamond’s book, titled Collapse. Diamond claims that the Mayan people met their demise because of the damage they caused the environment, climate change and hostile neighbors. Interestingly enough, the TreeHugger article states that researchers discovered that the Mayan were prohibited from cutting trees in certain areas until the Late Classic period when Jasaw Chan K’awiil beat the Tikal Maya and took over. The reconstruction of the city of Tikal required a lot of resources, and the new rulers decided to tap into the off-limit forests to find the tall straight trees they needed. 

It is very interesting that the Mayan created these rules and followed them without having the scientific knowledge that we possess now. There is a lot of evidence indicating that the Mayan had very advanced understanding of the physical and natural worlds. Their calendar and knowledge of the solar system was surprisingly accurate. So, it’s not surprising that they knew that too much logging would impact their environment. However, as stated above they stopped following these guidelines and both sources believe that this lead to their downfall.

Both Collapse and the TreeHugger believe that it is important to learn from the past. Natural resources are very important to human civilization. This has not changed in the last 3,000 years. And just like the Mayan set up guidelines to ensure they did not take too much we must do the same. The term renewable resources seems to be misleading. Trees, for example, are a renewable resources but they do not grow back over night. It takes years for trees to grow. It takes years for animals to reach maturity and this timeline must be respected when we take from the natural world. When we take faster than the environment can replace we alter the landscape. Removing too many trees can lead to erosion or habitat loss for the animals that live or hide in those trees. 

When the Mayan started taking too much they collapsed we have the advantage of knowing their mistakes as well as having advanced scientific information. We must learn that we can not have everything now. We must set limits. We only have one Earth. Many of the civilizations that met their demise in Collapsed were isolated from the rest of the world and humans could live other places on Earth. Now we do not have that luxury. We have inhabited every corner of this Earth and there is no where left for us to go.

 

Only 121 Breeding Tigers Left in Nepal

If you were looking for an uplifting post after the last on, I am sorry this is not going to be it. The number of breeding tigers in Nepal has dropped to 121, in protected areas. The number one cause for the decline in tigers is poaching. Tigers are poached for their skin and bones as well as their many uses in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Other factors contributing to the decline in their numbers are encroachment, habitat loss and fragmentation. 

While their numbers are low in Nepal they have increased in Chitwan national park. While this increase is great news, the fact that their numbers have declined in Bardia national park and Shuklaphanta wildlife reserve for tiger populations is greatly troubling. Their numbers are also declining in India, which is considered the stronghold for the species. 

The Government of Nepal has approved and launched the ‘Tiger conservation Action Plan 2008- 2012’. A comprehensive management plan has been devised in which the target is to increase the population of tigers by 10 per cent within the first 5 year period of the plan implementation.

 

Source: Science Daily 

 

Fisheries Can Recover… How Much Action Should We Take?

The study, published in the journal Science, found that 63 percent of assessed fish stocks worldwide require rebuilding to reverse the collapse of vulnerable species. “Across all regions, we are still seeing a troubling trend of increasing stock collapse,” said lead author Boris Worm of Canada’s Dalhousie University. “But this paper shows that our oceans are not a lost cause.”

The study found that a range of management strategies helped protect and restore fishing stocks. One of these strategies involved switching to nets that allow smaller fish to escape and closing some key areas to fishing helped Kenya increase the size and amount of fish available and boost fishing incomes.

If the netting became mandated around the world then, at first, fisherman would complain about the regulations, but it would be adopted fairly easily. All over the world their are regulations regarding the size of the fish or lobster that can be caught, and smaller animals must be returned to the ocean, until they have matured. This gives the animals enough time to mature and reproduce, which maintains the stocks. 

Require nets to have larger wholes is only part of the solution. In five of the ten regions around the world, managers were able to decrease the rate of exploitation, or the proportion of total fish population that is caught. Rate of exploitation is the primary driver in the depletion of collapse, according to a Grist article. This decrease has allowed the fish populations to stabilize. However, preventing people from fishing, even if they are commercial fisherman will have a much larger public backlash. There are two angles here, if you reduce the number of fish caught, you will hurt the livelihood of fisherman, you will raise the price of fish and you will take away a source of protein from impoverished people around the world. However, if we keep fishing at the current rates fisheries will collapses and we have no idea what impact the extinction of these fish species will have on the ocean ecosystem as a whole.

So, we are debating which is more important, a potential longer term solution to the stabilization of fisheries or a short term solution to world hunger and the livelihood of fisherman. 

Those are the two sides. It seems obvious, as a first step, to take all of the smaller management strategies, like having larger wholes in fish nets. This will reduce the pressure on these fisheries but it will not solve this problem. Personally, I think it is important to prevent the fisheries from collapsing. I believe and this study confirms that our fisheries are not beyond repair. Therefore, we need to repair them. It’s unavoidable; we need to reduce the rate of exploitation, for the time being, to allow the fisheries to stabilize. If they collapse, the effects will be two fold. First, no one will be able to consume fish. And secondly, we face mass extinction and we have no idea what impact that will have on the ecosystem as a whole. We are not the only organisms in the world that are dependent on fish and protein to survive.