The New Zealand Land & Food Annual 2017: Volume 2

all.

Reducing our carbon foodprint

Ralph Sims

School of Engineering and Advanced Technology,

Massey University

OUR GROWING DEMANDS for food, water, energy and natural resources have created huge stresses on the ‘global commons’ and the entire planet. The international debate on food security has arisen due to concerns about exponential population growth, climate-change impacts, food price volatility, malnutrition, and consumption rates of natural resources. A wide range of socio-economic and Earth system indicators that illustrate global growth parameters from 1750 to 2010 confirm the ‘Great Acceleration’ that has become particularly evident over the past six decades (see Figure 1). Competition for scarce supplies of food, freshwater and natural resources could ultimately result in conflict, exacerbated by the growing concerns about future water quality and scarcity, land degradation, loss of soil fertility, increasing desertification and the costly need to adapt to climate change.

The only indicators appearing to have slowed in recent years are marine fish capture (probably because of a significant decline in commercial fish stocks, with one-third being overfished) and the percentage of total land area used for domesticated agricultural production (probably because most land suitable for pasture or crops is already being farmed, and also the area of degraded land has increased as existing farmland becomes less fertile).

Figure 1. Selected global indicators between 1750 and 2010 for socio-economic development and Earth systems relating to agri-food supply chains and land use.¹

Concerns over these trends have led to an analysis of nine ‘planetary life-support systems’. Their capacities to cope by staying within safe boundaries (that is, before human life is threatened) are being compromised.² The boundaries for climate change, biodiversity loss and bio-geochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus already appear to have been exceeded. It is clear that we cannot continue along the current pathway towards ever-increasing economic growth based on exploiting our planet’s limited natural resources.

If we can improve the efficiency of food production and consumption, this will provide the opportunity to reduce future demands on land, water and energy as well as reduce related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Global food supply chains, influenced by powerful multinational companies, are currently unsustainable from the natural resources perspective.³

Around one-third of the world’s total end-use energy demand is needed to bring food to the table, from farm production and harvesting to processing, transport, storage, retailinging and cooking. Around a quarter of annual global GHGs are emitted as a result, including nitrous oxide from fertiliser use and animal urine, and methane from ruminants and paddy fields.⁴ Food production systems are also responsible for almost two-thirds of terrestrial biodiversity loss, a third of degraded soils, the depletion of two-thirds of commercial fish stocks and over-exploitation of a fifth of the world’s aquifers.

As a result, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has expressed concerns about being able to feed the world’s future population, projected to be around 9.8 billion by 2050. Exacerbated by the increasing protein demand per capita from the rapidly growing middle classes in India, China and elsewhere, over 70 per cent more food will be required by 2050 compared with today.

Our failure to consume around one-third of the food we produce in the world (due to pre-consumption losses post-harvest and in storage, and consumption losses from serving excessive portions, throwing food away at its ‘best before’ date, etc.) does not help the food security problem. Neither does excessive food consumption leading to unhealthy obesity. Over two billion people are thought to be obese, compared with two billion suffering from some level of nutrient deficiency and 800 million hungry, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. The good news is that the number that are hungry has declined from around one billion in 1990.

The aim of this chapter is to outline the global complexities of food supply, identify the reasons why the industry is currently unsustainable in the longer term, and present some possible solutions that will enable the world’s population to be well fed in the future. The following sections discuss issues along the agri-food supply chains relating to land use competition, soil nutrients, water use, energy and climate technologies, agri-ecological systems, moving away from animal proteins, and the need for systems thinking to provide solutions.

AROUND 1580 MILLION hectares (Mha) of cropland and 3350 Mha of pastureland, together covering around one-third of the Earth’s total land area, are used to produce food and fibre to meet the needs of the present human population.⁵ A relatively small area of land is also used to produce biomass for heat, power and transport biofuels. The total land area available for agricultural production has increased by 11 per cent since 1961, mainly as a result of deforestation (with the consequent loss of biodiversity). This land, mainly in South America and South East Asia, has helped to offset the decrease in the area of farmed land in Europe and North America. For example, soybean for cattle feed imported from South America has displaced some arable land in Europe that was used in the past for local fodder crop production.

To satisfy future growth in food demand as well as for biofuels and bio-materials, and to compensate for soil losses from urban development and soil degradation, and allowing for increasingly higher crop yields in the future, it has been estimated that the total area of productive land will need to increase between 320 to 849 Mha (21 to 55 per cent) by 2050.⁶ However, this is thought by some to be unachievable⁷ since it would then exceed the total cropland area of 1640 Mha estimated by the International Resource Panel of the UN Environment Programme to be within the ‘safe operating space’.

The work of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) to maintain soil health through sustainable land management practices could contribute to this required expansion of fertile land area. However, given that a third of total land area is currently classed as highly or moderately degraded, leading to a lower area of good cropping land, and only 10 per cent of degraded land has been improved in recent years,⁸ there is much work left to do.

Ownership of degraded land can be a constraint to investing in improving it. Often those farming the land are not the owners of it, so capital investment by them is not feasible. However, these farmers have the opportunity to employ management practices that minimise loss of soil nutrients and soil moisture, and for very low capital investment. For example, minimum tillage, composting and precision farming techniques could all help improve productivity, which would help reduce the necessary projected increase in cropland.

MAINTAINING SOIL HEALTH is essential to ensure crop and pasture productivity does not decline. Nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, plus sulphur and various trace elements, are the major critical inputs for high-yielding crop and pasture production. These nutrients are removed from the land when products are harvested, as well as being lost from run-off to waterways and from evaporation (particularly nitrogen). Most farmers rely heavily on the manufacture and application of mineral fertilisers to replenish nutrients. This can be energy intensive (such as urea manufacture using natural gas) or dependent on natural resource extraction (such as phosphate and potash rock).

Organic growers avoid using mineral fertilisers and rely on composting, animal manure, sewage sludge, etc. as sources of nutrients. Some key nutrients, such as phosphorus, for example, can be recycled from food-processing plant wastes, composting of crop by-products, animal dung, and the effluent/sludge co-product from anaerobic digestion plants that produce biogas from a range of organic waste materials, including animal wastes, sewage sludge and crop residues. Whether in organic or mineral forms, the more efficient and timely application of nutrients through precision farming techniques based on the stages of crop and pasture growth, and the recycling of nutrients, can reduce the losses and wastes and hence the costs. It is more a case of applying plant nutrients more efficiently as part of the future ‘circular economy’ rather than eventually running out of reserves. For example, a recent study tour by the author with the Moroccan phosphate company OCP Group, served to confirm that over 80 billion cubic metres of reserves and resources are available in Morocco and the Western Sahara alone⁹ and these will last for many decades at current extraction rates.

Over the past five decades, global crop production has tripled due to a doubling of the total area irrigated and a fivefold increase in fertiliser application.¹⁰ Pesticide use has also increased significantly, aiming to reduce losses from diseases, insects and other pests. However, the annual rate of increase of crop yields is beginning to slow down and local pollution from the increased use of agrochemicals has become more evident in waterways, aquifers and estuaries, with a concomitant effect on wildlife biodiversity.

AGRICULTURE ACCOUNTS FOR around 70 per cent of total freshwater extraction. The main use is for crop irrigation, so more efficient application techniques to save water (and hence save electricity and/or diesel fuel for powering pumping systems) are imperative. By more precisely applying the water where and when it is needed (for example, based on frequent measurements of soil moisture content), crop yields can also be increased. Israel, Jordan and Morocco have been the leaders in drip-irrigation systems and other water-saving innovations out of necessity under their dry conditions; Australia reduced water demand by 40 per cent between 2001 and 2009 using cost-effective efficiency and demand-reduction measures.¹¹

The challenge is to widely disseminate the relevant knowledge on how to save water so that farmers and food processors can benefit from innovative ideas. Government incentives or regulations can also help in supporting ‘smart irrigation’ schemes. Conversely, in countries where water supply and use is subsidised, efforts to conserve water are unlikely to be successful.

Last century the rate of growth of consumption of clean water for human use, including for animal consumption and irrigation of crops, was double the rate of growth in the global population over the same period. As a consequence, withdrawal of freshwater has now reached around 4500 billion cubic metres per year, with agriculture consuming nearly three-quarters of the total volume (excluding direct rainwater onto non-irrigated land) and the rest divided equally between domestic and industry water supplies. Coupled with adverse climate change impacts and contamination of some water sources, this is leading to freshwater stress and depletion in many countries, especially in Africa and South East Asia.

The 280 cross-border freshwater catchments between two or more countries necessitate close co-operation to resolve any stress issues and hence avoid possible conflict. By 2050, it is projected that global water demand will rise by over 50 per cent to reach a demand of 6900 billion cubic metres a year. Because this volume greatly exceeds the total available from known reliable and accessible supplies, and because of the probable climate change impacts reducing precipitation in some regions, it is projected that by 2050 around three to four billion people will be living in severely water-stressed river basins, which will lead to risks to their food-supply security.

MOST LANDOWNERS AND many food-processing plant operators have good access to local renewable energy resources, particularly wind, solar, small hydro and biomass. There are also numerous ways to reduce the electricity, heat and liquid fuel demands through energy-efficiency measures on farms, in food-processing plants, during transport and in storage systems. These are well understood, usually cost-effective with short payback periods, and, where fossil-fuel inputs are avoided, they also reduce GHG emissions. Such energy-smart food systems have been analysed for small and large farming systems in both developing and developed countries.¹²

Small farms. The most basic forms of small-scale, agricultural and fishing activities produce food solely for local consumption. Subsistence farming has very low energy inputs, usually from human and animal power. Energy access and livelihoods are the main priorities for subsistence farmers and fishers, but they are often constrained by lack of finance availability. Small family units are commonly based around smallholdings where vegetables, rice, cassava, maize, etc. are grown and, depending on the degree of modernisation, animals are also raised, with, for example, dairy herds ranging between five and 100 cows.

Small businesses for agri-food production and processing are classified at a slightly larger scale than family businesses, with the assumption that they employ one or more staff and often have greater opportunities to implement energy-efficiency improvements as well as develop renewable energy systems on-site. Many small businesses utilise direct renewable energy, such as solar heat for crop drying, biogas for cooking and process heat (e.g. for milk pasteurisation), and maybe solar or mini-hydro electricity to meet lighting and refrigeration demands (see Figure 2). Improved access to markets and local community benefits may also result.

Large farms. At the other end of the spectrum, corporate agri-food systems are highly dependent on high levels of direct, external energy inputs throughout the supply chain (see Figure 3). Examples include owners of fishing trawler fleets, sugar companies, rice mills, chicken farms and palm-oil plantations. The land and buildings can be owned and managed either by the processing company or by a grower-owned co-operative (whereby some benefits are more likely to flow to the local community). Large corporate organisations usually have access to finance for capital investment in advanced energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies with the energy carriers used on-farm or sold off-farm to earn additional revenue.

Figure 2. Example of a small-scale, low-input, family-managed farming enterprise showing energy inputs (ENERGY FOR) and outputs (ENERGY FROM) flowing through the system. The products are primarily fresh food for family consumption, delivered to local markets, or sold to small processing companies. Along with human and animal power, some direct energy inputs can be obtained from other sources such as solar thermal, solar PV systems and biogas produced using simple on-farm anaerobic digesters.¹³

Using milk, rice and vegetables as examples, in 2015 the FAO conducted a broader analysis of applying climate technologies and energy demands throughout agri-food supply chains.¹⁴ Various co-benefits were identified other than just reducing fossil fuel demands and the related GHG emissions. These included improving health, saving time, reducing drudgery, saving water, increasing productivity, improving soil quality and soil nutrient levels, protecting biodiversity, improving livelihoods and quality of life, and improving food security. The social and environmental benefits should all be taken into account when developing local or government policies to incentivise the uptake of climate technologies.

Figure 3. Energy flows through a large-scale, high-input, corporate business enterprise with the raw food products mainly supplying local and regional processing plants, supermarket chains and exporters. Renewable energy resources, when available from farms and processing plants, can substitute for on-site, purchased direct energy inputs, or they can be exported off-site to end-use consumers to create revenues from both food and energy products.¹⁵

A forthcoming follow-up publication by the FAO has evaluated the costs of implementing a range of climate technologies. In addition, in association with the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development and the International Energy Agency, the FAO is developing a methodology for a government or large company to prioritise investments in climate technologies (such as solar water pumping, conservation tillage, drip irrigation, cold storage systems, etc.). By using such a methodology, informed decisions are based on the specific local conditions and on the mitigation potential under existing conditions. It also takes into account several other considerations such as technical parameters, financial and economic feasibility, support for local communities, and future sustainability issues. The methodology also aids the implementation of specific climate technologies and provides suggestions for policy approaches to stimulate market penetration of the technologies.

HOW, THEN, TO feed nearly 10 billion people after mid-century? Since 1990 alone, meat consumption has nearly doubled, and protein demand is set to soar even further. Supplying protein in the form of meat and milk products has a far higher land, carbon and water footprint than an equivalent amount of protein produced from crops such as soybean and pulses. A unit of human nutrition derived from animals requires around five times more land than its plant-based equivalent. In addition, a unit of animal-derived protein produces many more GHGs, particularly if the animals being farmed are ruminants (e.g. cattle, deer and sheep, which produce methane from bacterial fermentation in their gut) rather than monogastric animals (e.g. pigs, poultry).

A detailed evaluation of agricultural emissions and the challenges of climate change mitigation for this sector can be found in a recent report by the Royal Society of New Zealand,¹⁶ so only a brief discussion is included here. The report showed that whereas the transport, industry and building sectors have good potential to achieve zero GHG emissions around the middle of this century, the agricultural sector is a clear outlier.

Currently, agriculture produces almost half of New Zealand’s total annual GHG emissions and, in spite of recent high levels of investment in research and international collaboration, methane and nitrous oxide emissions (arising from animal urine and heavy use of nitrogenous fertilisers) remain hard to reduce. Some carbon dioxide emissions also come from diesel fuel and electricity use on farms and from the manufacture of fertilisers, but CO2 is a relatively small portion of agricultural emissions when all these GHGs are added and measured in terms of ‘carbon dioxide equivalents’.

In developing countries, animal production is key to many farming systems where small and subsistence farmers tend to integrate cropping with sheep, goat, pig, poultry or cattle production in order to provide food security for their families and local communities. It is therefore not feasible that the world should aim to move totally away from producing meat and milk products. However, it can be argued that for many people, particularly those living in developed countries, a lower intake of animal protein per capita than at present would ease demands on water and fertile land, reduce GHG emissions, and possibly also improve human health. So someone wishing to reduce his or her personal carbon footprint could choose how and what to eat, and avoid wasting any food wherever feasible to do so.¹⁷

Insects are also a useful source of protein, and although entomophagy (eating them) has been common in many cultures for centuries, it remains at an early stage of development in Western society. That said, cricket flour, produced by grinding up specially bred crickets, has recently reached the New Zealand consumer. Higher in protein than wheat or corn flour and lower in carbohydrates and starch, it can be successfully substituted for grain flours in certain recipes.

In general, though, the world is moving towards vegetable proteins to meet growing demands. What does this mean for New Zealand agriculture? We may be able to continue to export the animal products that we currently rely on for most of our GDP, but perhaps only to niche markets as global competition from vegetable protein increases. For example, soy milk has been on the supermarket shelves for many years, but new biochemical processes based on fermentation of products containing plant proteins have also now reached the market. A life cycle comparison with cow or sheep milk, in terms of total energy and water inputs and land area required per unit of protein, would be an interesting exercise. For an analogy, consider how synthetic fibres (such as nylon) produced from oil-based polymers have largely replaced natural fibres (cotton, wool) globally over recent decades.

Of even greater interest perhaps is the slow, but growing, trend towards producing synthetic meat biochemically. Investment in bio-companies developing such products is growing fast. Such ‘meat’ can be grown cleanly and efficiently under factory conditions from just a few cells, and it is claimed that multi-storey ‘tower factories’ in the future could achieve a land density (in terms of yield per hectare) 70 times greater than that of field crop production. There would no doubt be a high energy penalty, but if this could be met by renewable-energy systems the carbon and water footprints would be far lower than from farming animals.

Perhaps over the next few decades strong social drivers will see synthetic meat accepted as a means of maintaining self-sufficiency and food security for the 70 per cent of the world’s population that will be living in mega-cities by mid-century. For example, based on research at Stanford University, a new US company, Impossible Foods, is already employing around 75 staff to produce synthetic hamburgers, which have reached the market in New York City.

So given the time and cost of rearing animals for slaughter, concerns about the reliability of future freshwater supplies due to climate change impacts of increased floods and droughts, managing the animal waste streams whether kept in paddocks or farm buildings, and the potential for 3-D printing a synthetic fillet steak that looks, smells and tastes like a beef steak, New Zealand agriculture should maintain a close watch on the rate of uptake of these potentially competing food products. Should they take off as quickly as smart phones have during the past decade, who knows what the future may hold?

HIGH-INPUT, LARGE-SCALE INTENSIVE farming systems tend to produce greater environmental impacts per unit of food production than do low-input, small farming systems, but the latter are often less productive. And yet, for smallholders with relatively low income potential per hectare, investing in ways to increase fertiliser and water inputs to enhance productivity may not always be economically viable. A more sustainable and integrated approach may be the solution to breaking this cycle. Improving crop productivity and reducing GHG emissions without high investment costs may be possible by using an agro-ecological approach: encouraging organic production of crops and animals, undertaking conservation agriculture, and developing agroforestry or integrated crop/livestock systems. Where crop residues and animal wastes can be recycled to the land, nutrients return to the soil, the carbon content builds up, and soil losses from wind and water erosion are reduced. Farm management systems based around conservation farming can increase diversity, improve crop and animal health, and provide greater resilience.¹⁸ Sustainable food production systems can result for relatively low investment costs.

One such example is in Zambia, where 160,000 small farmers were encouraged to inter-crop maize between leguminous acacia trees. Acacias were selected because they become dormant and shed their leaves during the crop-growing season, so they would not compete with the maize for light, water or nutrients. For the crops grown under the tree canopies, maize yields averaged 4.1 tonnes per hectare: over three times the average yield of the crops planted outside the canopies.¹⁹

Other countries in Africa will need to consider such actions to produce more food than at present while safeguarding biodiversity and the natural resources of land, soil, water, forests and genetic resources on which food security depends. The challenge will be to feed the continent’s growing population, since, of the expected 2.4 billion increase in global population by around 2050, over half of these people will live in Africa, rising to 3.2 billion more people than at present by 2100.