Food and Greenhouse Gases: An Ominous Future?

Post written by C. Will

In a world increasing in population and wealth, food production needs to be steadily increasing to meet the growing demand. However, a recent study in Nature Communications (discussed here) argues the rate of yield gains in wheat and rice production have plateaued, despite increased investment in R&D and education. Other studies (for example Ray et al. (2013)) have also found evidence that the current yield gain in major crops is insufficient to reach the estimated 60% increase in production required by 2050. If wheat and rice production have approached a yield ceiling it provides an ominous future for food security.

Previous increases in yield gain have been driven by investment in technologies that were largely one-time innovations and cannot be repeated. For example, innovations in genetically modified grains, major investment in irrigation infrastructure and increased use of fertilisers and pesticides saw steady increases in grain production.

Is livestock agriculture also at risk of approaching a yield ceiling?

New Zealand has experienced significant annual increases in livestock productivity for more than 20 years.  As we discussed in a previous post even with existing technology there is room for significant ongoing improvement as less efficient farmers catch up with those who are more efficient. In the short term, constraints on yield per hectare (intensity) are likely to be environmental (water quantity and quality) rather than technological (as noted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on water quality). Internationally, the enormous differences in livestock productivity suggested by differences in emissions per unit of output suggest space for considerable yield gains.  

Globally we need to be making all the efficiency gains that we can to resolve the food security problem and New Zealand has an important role to play in this through the livestock sector.

Thin Ice

Post Written by C. Will

Thin Ice is a New Zealand created movie that follows Simon Lamb (Victoria University of Wellington) as he travels around the world meeting the scientists behind climate change. The film is intended to help people develop a better understanding of climate change. The film also gives an introduction to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report.

Livestock: The answer, not the problem?

Post written by C. Will

Seth Itzkan of Planet-TECH discusses how holistic management can restore grass lands and reverse the effects of climate change in his TEDx talk; “How global warming can be mitigated through holistic management”.

In the video, Seth discusses his experiences in Zimbabwe and how the village herders have changed the way they manage their livestock. Using holistic management, they have replenished grasslands and during the dry season surface water is occurring further upstream than before. Increased availability of surface water has made farming easier and removed the need for water pumps, saving money. Regenerating grasslands also increases soil sequestration, reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Holistic management uses livestock in a way that mimics wild herds which were a key component in the ecosystem when grasslands thrived. The wild herds would graze, naturally process the grass, fertilise the ground and then move onto a new area. The villagers are now replicating this process by running livestock in dense packs and moving them regularly just as a wild herd would. They also stick to grazing plans to prevent over grazing.         

Although his focus is on environments that have suffered desertification (the transformation of habitable land to desert), parallels can be made between the framework of holistic management and the way farmers in New Zealand manage their stock. Relative to farmers in Africa though, New Zealand farmers have lower emissions per unit of production and are more efficient. However, even in New Zealand many farmers can apply management strategies other farmers are already using to reduce their environmental impact. A recent Motu working paper, looks at such mitigation possibilities.

Holistic management was a way of managing resources originally developed by Allan Savory. Here Allan offers further discussion on holistic management and “how to fight desertification and reverse climate change”.

100% Perception: DCDs and our International Image

Post written by Hannah Griffin


The recent food safety controversies involving Fonterra have highlighted the critically important interdependence between NZ’s exporters and our international brand. Further controversy surrounding DCD traces followed by a botulism scare were linked with river water quality in a wide ranging attack by the UK’s Daily Mail, alleging our ‘100% Pure’ slogan was “pure manure”. Whilst some have claimed the 100% Pure line should be taken with a grain of salt, export bans put in place by unaffected countries demonstrates the serious consequences of mishandled communications.

In the past month, bans and suspensions of Fonterra’s products have variously occurred in Russia, Sri Lanka and most recently Bangladesh. Particularly unsettling is Sri Lanka’s focus on DCD residues and Bangladesh’s related “nitrate in the milk powder” concerns.

Regardless of the (disputed) extent to which DCD residues have been detected, it is absolutely essential that we effectively communicate with our trading partners to avoid our brand being unnecessarily tarnished. Although DCD is non-toxic and presents no food-safety risk, many international markets have little to no tolerance of any level of chemical residue in their food - there is no international standard prescribing an acceptable level of DCD.

But why are we using DCD in the first place? DCD (technically ‘Dicyandiamide’) is one of the most promising technologies available for reducing the environmental impact of agriculture - it is the only product recognised under New Zealand’s National Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Inventory as a mitigation tool. This, and its additional effect of reducing the level of Nitrate leaching into our waterways, makes its usage very compelling, from an environmental perspective.

Approximately half of NZ’s emissions relate to agriculture and of these, 20% are related to livestock emissions from nitrous oxide and a further 6% from Nitrogen-heavy fertilisers. Motu and Landcare Research studies have shown that regulating nutrient run-off in water catchments or GHG emissions will generally lead to improvements in both; this is largely driven by changes in land use but also on-farm management decisions. Other, pre-experimental modelling under the Pastoral 21 programme has suggested it may be technically feasible to enact a 30% reduction in N leaching using current technologies even with a 20% increase in production. This suggests that significant nitrous oxide reductions may also be possible.

But do the economics stack up? Since agriculture is not included in the emissions trading scheme, farmers cannot use DCD to directly benefit from the reduction in CO2-e emissions. Positively though, DCD usage can in some circumstances boost pasture production by 5-10% but most studies suggest that its use will still come at a cost to profitability. DairyNZ work suggests that 20% reductions in leaching may be possible on dairy farms in Canterbury, while maintaining farm profitability.

Technological advances in agriculture represent a huge opportunity to increase the sustainability of our farming systems, without compromising food safety. It is essential that we pre-emptively address the potential concerns of our trade partners so as to enhance, rather than jeopardise our clean, green reputation.

Behind the Brands

Post written by R. Cretney.

Oxfam has just released several pieces of interesting research into food and agriculture. One is a report on sustainable development in the Pacific which highlights the important role of agricultural projects - including providing access to high value international markets (Report available here). The other piece of research has resulted in an in-depth campaign aimed at getting us to think more about where our food comes from and how it's produced.

Behind the Brands

Consumers are increasingly voting with their wallets and choosing to buy products that align with their values. A recent study on organic agriculture found that the industry showed significant growth and is now considered "mainstream" in some centers, despite overall higher prices than conventionally grown food.

Organics Flourish in New Zealand

What does this mean for New Zealand agriculture?

Well, it provides an opportunity and a threat. Some consumers are willing to pay more for higher quality and more ethical produce. Domestically and internationally this could prove a growing selling point for New Zealand products.

The Oxfam campaign shows a growing move to highlight weaknesses or issues with some companies. This begs the question, how would our own companies stand up to such assessment?

Oxfam uses the criteria of 

1. Transparency at a corporate level

1. Women farm workers and small-scale producers in the supply chain

1. Workers on farms in the supply chain

1. Farmers (small scale) growing the commodities

1. Land, both rights and access to land and sustainable use of it

1. Water, both rights and access to water resources and sustainable use of it

1. Climate, both relating to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping farmers adapt to climate change.

We might score very well on some of these counts - but others may need further work. One way that this debate is being played out in relation to New Zealand is through the current criticism of Tourism NZ’s 100% pure brand. One man is even taking the country’s advertising slogan to the Advertising Standards Authority to protest at the inaccuracy of the statement.

Recent research, by Woods and Coleman, could not find statistical evidence that New Zealand producers can influence their market power or move towards higher value markets in response to changing commodity prices. However, some NZ producers may be receiving a premium locally for niche sustainability products. Mike Barton from Taupo Beef who participated in AgDialogue has benefited from marketing his beef products as sustainably reared on the shores of Lake Taupo. Such a scheme is similar to the Irish "Origin Green" label mentioned in a previous post here. Farmers engaged in these practices show real potential for protecting and strengthening "Brand NZ". 

Proactive banking

Post written by R. Cretney.

Some positive news this week from ASB Bank. ASB has just released its first proactive banking scheme that aims to achieve the right balance between productivity and sustainability.

Proactive banking was one of the prototype ideas that arose from Agdialogue. The concept is targeted at farmers who want to invest in reducing their environmental footprint and increasing their sustainability. This is achieved in the ASB scheme by providing a low cost loan that is competitively priced at ASB's cost of funding with no extra customer margins applied.

Mark Heer, ASB General Manager Rural says in the article that "farmers consistently tell us that they are doing their best to ensure that their farms are operating to the highest environmental standards...In offering this new loan, ASB wants to be part of the solution by providing farmers with a low cost funding option to get their farm to where it needs to be".

This is great news for farmers and the environment!

The ASB article can be found here.

Concerns and capabilities lead to action

The AgDialogue process Motu recently ran was designed to create a dialogue amongst agriculture sectoral groups, government, academics and individual farmers around dealing with New Zealand’s agricultural GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. One of the outcomes of this discussion was the creation of a matrix to describe how we can get action on wicked problems such as lowering agricultural GHG emissions: who can act and what can they do.

In this short video, Suzi Kerr explains the thinking behind the matrix.
 

Below is the matrix. Rather than being a large computer programme set up to create an alternate reality, the AgDialogue matrix is really a simple way of visualising what Suzi explains in the video.

Basically, an action intended to help reduce our agricultural GHGs can fit into one or more of the boxes in the matrix. The ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) for example, would fit into the top right box, as a national level regulation designed to incentivise emission reductions. The Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Center would fit in the top-middle box.

However, as Suzi points out in the video, we need adequate concern and capabilities as well as regulations to reward good and penalise poor behaviour. By using the AgDialogue matrix, we can identify who could undertake actions, and what these actions could aim to achieve. When we have populated it with a set of existing actions, if there are any gaps, we can come up with creative ways of filling in these gaps – as we did through AgDialogue.

A piece of research, done by Taciano Milfont at Victoria University of Wellington backs up the thinking behind the matrix. Importantly, his research was carried out in New Zealand – something that is very valuable as we often have to rely on research coming from larger countries, and apply their findings here.

Using data from a one year study, Taciano concludes: “Knowing more about global warming and climate change increases overall concern about the risks of these issues, and this increased concern leads to greater perceived efficacy and responsibility to help solving them.”

Taciano’s research paper can be found online for free here.

A special thanks to former Motu Research Analyst Zach Dorner for drafting this post.

Community involvement in environmental education and governance

Environmental education is crucial for engaging people from all walks of life to make informed decisions about issues such as biodiversity loss, climate destabilisation and resource depletion. Ardoin, Clark and Kelsey's recent paper "An exploration of future trends in environmental education research" has explored the possible future directions that environmental education may take. The authors' study was undertaken with an awareness of the increasing impact of global trends such as the technology revolution, the urban age, and the globalisation of environmental issues.

A number of interesting findings flow from the authors' research. One suggestion made is that that environmental education and research may broadening in focus from the individual to community level. The idea that education and research can be inclusive and collaborative is well-instanced in the project around which this blog was founded - the Agricultural Emissions Dialogue process. The project brought together farmers, iwi, economists, scientists, government and other experts to discuss issues around agricultural emissions. Whilst the group conducted no formal research, the dialogues proved to be the catalyst for a number of pieces of research by Motu (see the bottom of this page) and our recently published short film and teaching materials. Two of the earlier entries on this blog have specifically considered the process of dialogue - this post by Ana Ngamoki, and this post by Geoff Simmons.

It may be the case that environmental governance, like environmental education, will increasingly broaden towards a community-focussed approach. The Land and Water Forum's recent series of reports on how freshwater management in New Zealand can be improved called for community decision-making at catchment level, within a framework created by central government. The Forum's third report emphasised the need for community buy-in to ensure regulation is effective, and the importance of giving weight to community-specific needs and values in decision making.

Another issue that Ardoin, Clark and Kelsey touch on is the highlighted opportunity for engagement that social media brings. With that in mind, this is probably a good point at which to remind readers about ways in which they can engage with this blog. Comments are most welcome, as are suggestions for topics (email us at info@motu.org.nz). And to subscribe to receive updates when posts are made, simply enter your email address in the "Follow By Email" field to the right.

Agricultural Emissions Teaching Materials Released

Last month, we released a brand new short film on agricultural emissions. Today, we are pleased to announce the release of a set of free teaching materials to accompany the film. These consist of an editable presentation, complete with speaking notes, and further information on some of the figures that the presentation contains.

Our intention is that a wide range of people – including teachers, lecturers, farmers or people working with farmers – will be able to use the film and presentation to lead a discussion on what we can do about agricultural emissions. Potential audiences include secondary and tertiary students, as well as consumers and farmers. In other words, anyone who eats!

The materials can be downloaded by following the links below. In addition, we have just released the film in physical copy. If you would like to be posted a free DVD which includes the film and materials, please send your name and address to info@motu.org.nz.

We will be happy to support those who wish to use the film and materials by answering specific questions. We'll collate the questions and answers into an FAQ document which will be available soon on the blog and also on the Motu website. If you have any questions at all, please email them through.

The New Zealand Farming Story presentation (.pdf version)
The New Zealand Farming Story presentation (editable Powerpoint)
The New Zealand Farming Story speaking notes
Notes on figures for emissions from meat consumption in presentation

"Origin Green" - certifying the sustainability of Irish primary products

Rural News recently ran this article about a quality assurance scheme initiated by Bord Bai (the Irish Food Board). Called "Origin Green", the scheme guarantees the sustainability of certified foods to consumers. As the article explains, Beef and Lamb New Zealand Chair Mike Petersen thinks that there is scope for New Zealand to do something similar.

The Irish scheme is very similar to an idea developed within New Zealand by the Agricultural Emissions Dialogue and a version of it is already being developed by one of the members, Mike Barton, through his Taupo Beef programme. Mike discusses Taupo Beef in our short film.

More information on Origin Green is available here.

 

The New Zealand Farming Story: Tackling Agricultural Emissions

Today we are very excited to release our new short film on New Zealand’s agricultural emissions. Although the topic may sound dry (though hopefully not too dry if you visit this blog!) our filmmaker Jess Feast has done an excellent job of making an engaging film on an extremely important topic for the future of our country, our planet, our people and our stomachs. (She also made our films about improving the water quality in Lake Rotorua).

The film covers a wide range of topics, and many of the ideas in it come directly from what we learnt through the AgDialogue process. Importantly, we cover how we might be able to achieve some real reductions in New Zealand’s agricultural GHGs (greenhouse gases). You will get to meet some of the participants and experts from AgDialogue, including two of our star farmers, Mike and Megan.

The film speaks for itself, so you are better off watching it than reading about it. But before you do that, I’d just like to acknowledge all the hard work that went into making the film. To all those in the AgDialogue who gave their time and those who have done related research in the past few years, this film is dedicated to you and the hard work you have done.  Also thank you to our filmmaker Jess and the Ministry for Primary Industries for its support. The work will pay off in creating a more sustainable and prosperous future for us and future generations.

Oh, and if you like the film, please share it far and wide. New Zealand is uniquely placed to be able to make a big difference to levels of agricultural GHGs (greenhouse gases) around the world. And everyone in this country can make a difference.

UPDATE: Teaching materials to accompany the film have now also been released. These can be found here.

Motu's agricultural GHG emissions research in the news

"We can't design systems assuming we're going to fail. Let's assume we're going to succeed and what the world will look like in 30-50 years given that we have succeeded."

There was an interesting article in the Timaru Herald’s Central South Island Farmer feature last week, which discussed a speech Dr Suzi Kerr gave to the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural science. The article is a good summary of many of Motu’s conclusions from the AgDialogue group, stressing rewarding farmers who make changes towards best practice guidelines for reducing emissions and making long-term, carefully considered policy decisions instead of rushing into dramatic changes.

The article can be found here.

Biological Farming and soil carbon – green wash or climate saviour?

This blog post is by Motu Research Analyst Zack Dorner.

Earlier this year, AgDialogue participant Rick Braddock sent us through this article, written Clayton Wallwork from the Carbon Farming Group, about Biological Farming. Rick Braddock is Operations Director of Farming New Zealand, an agricultural investment fund established to aggregate large pastoral farms under a New Zealand ownership model, as well as a trustee of the Carbon Farming Group.

Biological Farming is a farming practice that is still being developed and aims to use natural rather than synthetic fertilisers. We at Motu decided to ask some soil scientists about the potential for Biological Farming to store soil carbon, as a way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

As noted in the Carbon Farming Group article, evidence to date around Biological Farming is largely anecdotal, and each farm has different Biological Farming techniques applied to it, based on its unique circumstances.

Troy Baisden from GNS Science told us about what may cause changes in soil carbon in traditional intensive farming system, and how this might differ under a Biological Farming system. Biological Farming systems may be less prone to losing soil carbon compared with traditional intensive systems, but Troy emphasises there is no clear evidence Biological Farming will gain soil carbon. Therefore more research is needed before it can claim to be a reliable way of helping to address climate change.

Troy explained to us that it is almost impossible to store carbon in soil without nitrogen, typically at a ratio of around ten carbon particles to one nitrogen particle. Therefore, understanding the amount of nitrogen being stored in the soil is important for understanding how much carbon is stored in the soil (see image below).

This image was pulled from this useful article in NZ Science Teacher magazine

With intensive farming, by trying to push more nitrogen through the system (by using more nitrogen fertiliser or importing more feed to produce more product), farm nitrogen budgets show that despite increasing nitrogen inputs, many farms lose more nitrogen than they gain. Counter intuitively, it seems that cycling more nitrogen faster and faster through the soil might eventually start to cause the overall level of nitrogen and carbon in the soil to drop. 

Troy says “We’ve been surprised at the level of losses that seem to be occurring, and at the observation that large N [nitrogen] losses seem to be taking carbon out of the soil as well.” Unfortunately it remains difficult to understand why these losses are occurring and work out the exact numbers without long-term experiments that run for decades. The one long term study to date provides some evidence that almost three quarters of a tonne of carbon per hectare per year are lost on traditional intensive dairy farms (Schipper et al. 2010).

In terms of Biological Farming, Troy says:

...the main argument [is] that you’re trying to work with a system that regulates itself better. So it will simply tell you “no” when you try and push it too hard. ... That’s the magic of it. ... One of the reasons why you can’t [push the system] is you’re not going to add bag nitrogen fertiliser.

By relying on natural nitrogen fixation, such as through clover in the soil, the soil is prevented from becoming saturated with nitrogen to the point where it loses more than it is gaining, and the total level of nitrogen in the soil starts to drop. The natural nitrogen fixers shut down when the system is being run too hard, though of course this will also place a limit on the total output of the farm. Though this might mean a Biological Farming system isn’t losing soil carbon, it’s unclear whether Biological Farms actually gain soil carbon.

There is very limited evidence that organic farming systems (which are similar to Biological Farming systems) limit nitrogen losses much better than a conventional farming system, but we still don’t understand fully why that might be (and Troy is not aware of this evidence having been published).

So, Biological Farming could be better at managing stores of carbon if it is better at managing stores of nitrogen. But the jury is still out.

Jacqueline Rowarth, Professor of Agribusiness at Waikato University who holds a PhD in soil science, is even less positive about Biological Farming. It’s a very complicated picture, as carbon has many ways into and out of the soil within a farm system. For example, Jacqueline points out that drought could be the major cause of loss in soil carbon in the Schipper et al. (2010) study, given the study’s period and the effects of drought during that time.

There are a number of ways in which carbon will find its way onto and off of a farm. Like any plant, the grass will naturally remove carbon from the atmosphere and use it to form its structure as it grows, including its roots in the soil. On a dairy farm carbon is regularly being exported in milk tankers, having been removed from the soil and grass through grazing, and turned into part of the milk by livestock, rather than being put directly into the atmosphere (this also applies to nitrogen). Less carbon will be exported less regularly from a sheep and beef farm, through removal and slaughter of animals.

Carbon is also being added through any inputs brought into the farm, including extra feed such as palm kernel (though of course this may have climate impacts elsewhere). Fertilisers such as urea will only add nitrogen directly to the soil, and not carbon.

Another dimension within a farming system is level of grazing. The growth of grass on soil can have a bearing on the amount of carbon in the soil. More grass on the surface supports more litter in the soil, which increases soil carbon. Also, different types of grasses will support different levels of carbon being stored in the plants and soil.

With lower levels of production from Biological Farming, and little evidence to support the claims around it, Jacqueline says that proponents of Biological Farming, though well meaning, may be heading down the wrong track. Strong scientific backing is vital to informing decisions around farming systems and environmental impacts.

With all the mysteries surrounding soil carbon, we are a long way off measuring and rewarding those storing carbon in their soil (see this Parsons and Rowarth 2009 article on measuring soil carbon under Kyoto on pages 2, 5 and 6). So, if you wanted to start Biological Farming only to store carbon in your soil, then perhaps you should wait for more evidence. And you need to be careful who you decide to listen to. Though Jacqueline is sceptical, Troy Baisden thinks that there’s a reasonable chance that Biological Farming doesn’t lose soil carbon, even if we may not be sure whether it would gain soil carbon.

In terms of switching from an intensive farming system to a biological farming system then, it’s a big risk to do it just to store more carbon in your soil. To decide to become a Biological Farmer, you would have to be convinced by some the other arguments outlined in the Carbon Farming’s document, attached to this post. No doubt, as evidence starts to accumulate, the debate on Biological Farming will continue for some time.

Many thanks to Rick Braddock, Troy Baisden, Jacqueline Rowarth and Louis Schipper for their help in putting this post together.

Reference

Schipper, L.A.; Parfitt, R.L.; Ross, C.; Baisden, W.T; Claydon, J.J.; Fraser, S. (2010) Gains and losses in C and N stocks of New Zealand pasture soils depend on land use. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment. 139: 611–617. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.10.005.

Further reading

Parsons, A.J.; Rowarth, J.S., Newton, P.C.D. (2009) Managing pasture for animals and soil carbon. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association. 71: 77-84.

Thorrold, Bruce (May 2012) The Biological Farming Debate. Grassland News. New Zealand Grassland Association. 2-3.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html