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.

Retracing the Footprints of our Livestock

Post written by H. Griffin

Carbon footprinting has become commonplace these days. Go online and you’ll find articles about the footprint of just about anything – your diet, your travel and even your pets. There are also various calculators available that can figure out the totality of your own personal footprint, if that’s what you so desire.

Footprinting is done for many agricultural products. It enables us to compare and contrast across different countries as well as among products.

AgResearch has put together various footprint studies on New Zealand produce, such as lamb and beef. These studies are important in strengthening our understanding of where emissions could be decreased along the supply chain.

But what actually goes into putting the numbers together?

AgResearch uses a “Life Cycle Assessment” approach, examining greenhouse gas emissions from production to consumption. At each stage of this chain, they assess each component that contributes to emissions. For example, in terms of on-farm beef emissions this means looking at natural processes of cattle consuming pasture as well as fertiliser, electricity and fuel use.

For beef, the total GHG footprint AgResearch calculated was 2.2kg CO2-equivalents for a 100g portion. Broken into segments, this equated to 90.3% for the on-farm stage, 2.1% for meat processing, 4.2% for transportation, and 3.3% for the consumption phase.

Their beef footprint study also outlines next steps for emissions improvements for the industry. Recommendations range from increasing productivity and tree-planting at the farm level to reducing the speed of shipping vessels.

On-farm emissions contribute by far the largest portion of the pie. Natural processes are the main source of these emissions and are the most challenging to mitigate. With the first petri dish grown beef burger eaten just over a week ago, there is a possibility that someday in the distant future we’ll be able to cut on-farm emissions altogether!

In the meantime we can work on minimising emissions where possible. This means taking the opportunities available in every phase from production to consumption. As consumption accounts for 3.3% of beef’s footprint, our behaviour can also play a role in minimising the footprint of what we consume. As consumers we can do things such as reducing food wastage in our homes.

We can also take responsibility for the footprint of our diet. As explored in a previous blog, a shift towards less red meat intensive diets could play a role in this.

The Economics of Drought in New Zealand

Post written by H. Griffin.

The drought earlier this year was the worst New Zealand has seen in decades. Measures of soil moisture deficit were at their highest since the 1970s and a drought zone was declared over the entire North Island and parts of the South Island. With climate change the likelihood of more frequent and severe droughts is increasing. With this, so too is the need to better understand how the New Zealand economy reacts to such events.

 

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has recently released a paper exploring the macroeconomic impact of droughts in New Zealand. It focuses on the direct impacts to the agricultural sector as well as the indirect flow-on effects to other parts of the economy.

Their models predict that the 2013 drought will lower economic growth by 0.4% in the second quarter. Annual GDP (the average across all four quarters) is predicted to be 0.3% lower than without the drought. Beyond this, they predict GDP will recover to normal over the following years.

The RBNZ paper highlights the complexity of economic reactions to climatic events. Their models show that drought in New Zealand is associated with higher world dairy prices. The models predicted that the drop in export volumes following the drought in 2013 would be initially followed by a rise in export prices. With this, the models suggest nominal GDP (GDP not adjusted for inflation) could rise following the 2013 drought. Such increases have the potential to offset some of the initial negative economic implications of a drought.

Food Security and Climate Change

A recent article in the Guardian highlights the increasing importance of food trade globally. Of the countries investigated in the study, 66 currently do not produce enough food to feed their people - roughly 16% of the global population. By 2050 the study predicts that over half of the world’s population will rely on imported food – making global food security more reliant on international trade. The predictions do not take into account the impact of climate change on food supply which could exacerbate the situation.

It is now thought that climate change is going to significantly impact our global food system by shifting where food is grown, in what seasons and in what quantities. Including these possibilities into the predictions of global food security is a necessity if we are to think ahead.

A new study in New Zealand is aiming to look into these issues for our own country. The CCII or Climate Change Impacts and Implications for New Zealand study led by NIWA and Landcare Research will explore the consequences of different climate trends for New Zealand so we can better prepare for these coming issues. The study will generate improved climate projections for New Zealand based on the latest global modelling and evaluate key pressures on and responses of five important environments (alpine, hill-country, lowlands, coastal and marine). The study will also explore feedbacks, cumulative impacts and limits at the national level from the interaction of climate, population, land-use change, economic development, and increase the relevance of climate change in decision making processes. The aim of this project focuses on extending New Zealand's foresight into the issues of climate change and how primary industries such as agriculture can respond to these challenges.

Another part of the equation of global food security is that New Zealand is currently a global food producer. If these predictions come to play and the world is significantly dependent on imported food - New Zealand may be a source of those food supplies for other countries. The increase in demand may offset the economic losses resulting from lowered agricultural production from extreme weather events. The potential negative and positive impacts of these shifts in agricultural production show how complex these issues are.

For more information, check out these condensed and interesting resources on what we know in New Zealand about the interactions between climate change and agriculture.

New Motu Note: Tackling Agricultural Emissions - Potential Leadership from a Small Country

Post written by R. Cretney.

A new and exciting Motu note has been released by Suzi Kerr and Zack Dorner addressing the issues of tackling agricultural emissions in New Zealand.

This is one of the outcomes from the AgDialogue process which gathered together individuals from across New Zealand farming, policy and science sectors to discuss issues of climate change and agriculture. In this paper, Suzi and Zack detail the challenges and potential solutions to integrating agricultural emissions in an Emissions Trading Scheme that emerged as a result through this process. They also emphasize the important role a small nation, such as New Zealand, can play in the global community to reduce emissions from agriculture through collaboration and innovation.

Check out the new paper here and let us know your thoughts on New Zealand's role in the global community for reducing emissions in the comments section.

The complexity of the diet and climate change debate

Post written by R. Cretney.

You are what you eat – or so the common saying goes. But as a global community are we what we eat? The issue of how our personal dietary choices effects social and environmental issues has long been a contentious issue. Considering the recent critique of  the undesirable impacts of quinoa’s popularity on poverty in Bolivia, it is understandable that many are left confused over what is the best choice, socially and environmentally. While the increase of organic, fair trade products has eased the social conscience of some, the issue of greenhouse gases, and in particular meat consumption, has proved a more tricky issue to deal with.

Some advocate that a world dominated by vegans and vegetarians is the only possible way to sustain the human population on a planet with finite resources. But what does the science say to support this?

Let us start with the issue of meat. As is quite well known, particularly in New Zealand, ruminant animals release Methane and Nitrous Oxide into the environment. These greenhouse gases (GHGs) contribute to our emissions profile as a country and as individuals. But is the complete elimination of meat and dairy products from our diets necessary?

A paper by Jennie MacDiarmid and others released in 2012 suggests otherwise. In this paper, the authors look at the optimum diet that maintains ideal standards of nutrition while maximising the possible GHG reductions in the United Kingdom. Food such as most vegetables, fruits and grains were considered low greenhouse gas emitters, certain fruits and vegetables, eggs, chicken, dairy products, nuts and sweet foods were considered moderate greenhouse gas emitters while red meat, turkey, cheese, pork and fish were considered high greenhouse gas emitters.

This backs up what many have argued, that red meat contributes significantly to our carbon footprints. But the issue is far from clear cut – the MacDiarmid (2012) article suggests that actually the most nutritious yet low GHG diet includes red meat but in smaller quantities than is currently consumed. Another recently released study by Darmon and others in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition also suggested that moderation was key. This research studied the entire life cycle of the food and took into account all GHGs produced except those resulting from transport from the store to the home. The authors found that overall the emissions for meat products were 15 times that of fruit and vegetables. However, when taking into account the amount of energy in kilocalories that the food provided, meat products only emitted 3 times the GHGs as a comparable amount of energy derived from fruit and vegetables.

Darmon’s paper has been criticised by some proponents of vegetarianism who pointed out that most vegetarians do not eat the large quantity of vegetables that were used to compare emissions to a small portion of meat. Instead they argue that because they eat less vegetables than the nine pounds used, their carbon footprint is lower than the study suggests. Regardless, Darmon’s research is still useful, especially in combination with the MacDiarmid paper as both studies look into the increasingly grey area of the impact of our food choices on climate change.  

Here are some New Zealand figures that compare the GHG per kilogram of meat or milk solids as food for thought. The studies referred to before deal largely with European food production systems. As Saunders and MacDonald (2011) note, several types of meat production in New Zealand, such as lamb, are produced with much less emissions than those produced in Europe. This information shows that unlike the MacDiarmid study, New Zealand poultry and pork are actually low emitters (as opposed to moderate emitters in Europe) while sources of red meat are still high emitters. To put this data in context, a flight from Wellington to Auckland would release approximately 67.1kg of Co2 per passenger. The source of this data is the latest New Zealand legislation for emissions trading and the Air New Zealand carbon calculator.

Type of food	Kilograms of Co2 e/per kg at slaughter (See Climate Change (Agricultural Sector) Amendment Regulations 2012 Legislation)
Sheep, Beef and Goat	12.7kg
Milk solids	8.5kg
Poultry	0.20kg
Deer	21.0kg
Pork	1.76kg

While we may not be able to expect the entire world to become strict vegetarians, in the long run, a shift towards less red meat intensive diets could encourage a reduction in GHG emissions while acknowledging the importance of consuming meat for many economies and cultures. In the meantime there are less GHG intensive farming options to explore such as the adoption of more efficient farm management techniques. These options can be explored by farmers in New Zealand who will be able to market their products to those wishing to remain meat eaters while watching their carbon footprint (Clark et al 2011).

 Articles cited:

Clark, H.; F. M. Kelliher and C Pinares-Patino. 2011. "Reducing CH4 Emissions From Grazing Ruminants in New Zealand: Challenges and Opportunities", Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science, 24:2, pp. 295-302.

Vieux, F., Darmon, N., Touazi, D., & Soler, L. G. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: Changing the diet structure or consuming less?. Ecological Economics, 75, 91-101.

Macdiarmid, J. I., Kyle, J., Horgan, G. W., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A., & McNeill, G. (2012). Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet?. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 96(3), 632-639. 

Saunders, C., McDonald, H., Driver, T. 2011. “Enhancing Value for New Zealand Farmers by

                        Improving the Value Chain”, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit Report No. 324.

       Accessed From: http://www.motu.org.nz/files/docs/Saunders_McDonald_Driver_Value_Chain.pdf

Positive Environmentalism - the role of fun and games

"Consultant Paula Owen hopes the 12-month study will encourage people to change their behaviour and reduce their environmental impacts. She said that people did not engage with 'doom and gloom' messages, leaving them feeling powerless."

One recent article by the BBC has highlighted the role of positive thinking and games in encouraging pro-environment behaviour. These games are targeted at people who have not been involved with environmental issues before. Researchers found anecdotal evidence that through engaging with the games in a positive way environmental education and awareness was improved, now they working on quantifying this evidence.

The games in this research are similar to the environmental games that were used in the AgDialogue meetings. These games were created by Motu to facilitate understanding of emissions and water trading schemes. Players of the game 'run' a dairy or sheep/beef farm (water quality) or a smelter or power plant (emissions). Changes to regulations are introduced in the game and players have to respond by altering the operation of their farms/facilities. You can find more information on these games here.

The reasoning behind using games to increase environmental awareness is also being re-enforced by a new area of psychology that looks into the psychology of sustainability. Niki Harré’s recent book "Psychology for a Better World" highlights this research and discusses the importance of positive emotions in driving shifts in behaviour. Her work is more related to personal behavioural actions but it is easy to see how her work supports the importance of the fun and playful ways of learning about environmental issues. Below is a quick introduction to her book and short film.

---

. 

Post written by R. Cretney.