Search

Grainoftruth.org

Ecological food production

Polytunnel and grain in Devon

The Toms and Melons in the poly tunnel are thriving. The filed feels like it has lots of potential, but five years might not be enough.

From this:

IMG_1600
Lots of beneficial seeds ready to sprout and help the soil

 

To this five months later:

Self-made Polytunnel.

Further to may last post about building a polytunnel with NO money.

 

 

The path is saw duct from a local wood mill and the soil in the side beds is from the Mare and Foul sanctuary. The wood, for the ribs, ends and doors is from the next door housing development. The temperature is reaching 40 degrees with high levels of humidity. The Tomatoes, Aubergines love it and I hope the soon to planted Melons will too. All seeds for from the http://www.reelseeds.co.uk.

Self made Polytunnel

How to make a poly tunnel with NO money:

Lengths of plastic piping – cut to the same length… or guess like I did. I’ll add here that the pipe was left on my field by the next door housing development. Id never buy it.

Metal rods to bang into soil – bang them in until they are solid. I used metal strengthening rods. Slip the plastic over the rods at 5 actual feet, the ones in your boots, lengths apart

2×2 wood to make ends and doors – cut to size and screw to pipe (oh yeah you need loads of screws long enough to go through the wood and into the piping.

Plastic to cover

Good soil to plant into – I’ve acquired mine from the local Mare and Foal sanctuary

IMG_1417.JPG

Plants – Toms, Peppers and Melons – (I bought some seeds from Reel seeds)

Planting day

IMG_2001.jpgThe first day of of realising the co-op. Thank you to Al, Eloise, Hayley and Saskatoon, Tom, Faze and ‘the Oracle’ for making it all happen…..

 

 

Fruit bush planting day 15th March

Hello,

This is the first community planting day – Sawmills orchard, shinners bridge. The field next to the new mini round-a-bout adjacent to the new housing.

The grain and food project is NOT about just food but also about the systems that create, distribute and trade our food. Human relationships embroiled in this are the most significant factor and I hope this day TUESDAY 15TH MARCH will start us on a journey to exploring this factor.

Anyone welcome – we have about 50 bushes to plant and a few KG of heritage grain.

Please pass on. Mail me if you have questions.

Meat or not to meat – is that the question?

What are the environmental impacts of the manufacture and consumption of protein in the UK?

 Introduction.

The livestock sector is the world’s largest user of agricultural land, according to the IPCC (2000). Whilst the sector provides high value food and many other economic and social functions, its resource use implications are large. Although the land area it uses in Western Europe has stabilised in the years 1961 – 2002 at 1,838 (Mha) it has increased in other parts of the world, through grazing and the use of feed crops, by an average of 18% (IPCC, 2000). Total agricultural land has increased in area by 10% from 4,562 (Mha) to 5,023 (IPCC, 2005). 75 per cent of this land and 23 per cent of the arable part of this land is used to raise animals, through growing crops for animal feed and through the use of pastures as grazing land (Chatham House, 2014). Putting it simply, cropland and pasture land account for 50% of the worlds ice free land (Clarke, M & Tillman, D, 2014). Numbers of livestock have also increased in the last 12 years; cattle numbers up 23%, sheep numbers are almost static, pigs up 13% and chicken numbers increased by a staggering 106% (Meat stats 9, 2014)

Million livestock 2012 Global EU UK
Cattle 1,458.2 86.6 9.7
Sheep 1,169 86.2 22
Pigs 966.2 148.6 4.3
Chickens 21,867 1,259 149
Total 25,460.4 1,580.4 185

Fig 1. MeatStats 9, Issued August 2014 | Global Livestock Numbers. UN Food & Agriculture Organisation, US Department of Agriculture, Eurostat, Statistics New Zealand, Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Between 1963 and 2014, meat production rose from 78 million tons to more than 300 million tons – a fourfold increase (Purcell, C. 2016). What is going on with our livestock numbers?

Our diets have also developed. According to the IPCC (2007) global calorie intake increased by 31% from 1961-70 (2,032) to 2001-2 (2,657) and animal sourced protein, as part of this diet, from 18% to 30% a 67% increase. UK diets, according to the UK government, currently stand at an average of 3,450 calories a day and protein at 70.6g a day (132% of RDI, of which 23% is from animal sources). The consumption of beef according to the FAO has increased 28% from 1961 – 2008/10.

We are using more land for livestock agriculture, and this increase is not confined to land that is unsuitable for growing food for human consumption (uplands, scrub lands etc) adding to the complexity of deforestation. Simon Fairlie in ‘Meat The Benign Extravagance’ puts this mainly down to land speculation, others put it down to growing soya and then more still to cattle grazing. I would argue also that the political situation in South America – as that’s the area we think of when we talk about deforestation in the main – and global industries’ exploitation of this has a part to play. Namely that there are land grabs by both socialist governments and global mining companies to grab resources from the region in the form of metals and minerals. Soya and cattle are merely a precursor to this process. We are also cultivating too many animals and producing too much meat. Consequently or even concurrently we are eating too much food, in the form of calories, meat and protein from livestock (eggs and dairy).

As a consequence, global livestock production and associated activities, including land-use change, are estimated to account for 7.1 Gt CO2e per annum or 10 – 20% of global anthropogenic emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006. J. Vermeulen, et al,. Smith et al., Smith P., M et al,.,2014I). Methane emissions account for 2.2 Gt or, 30% of these emissions, similar to the relative contribution of N2O, while land use and land-use change, together with deforestation related to provision of grazing, account for 2.7 Gt (38%) (Bruce, J, P1996 & IPCC, 1996). These emissions have increased by nearly 17% from 1990 to 2005, an average annual emission increase of about 60 MtCO2 -eq/yr (IPCC, 2007). The report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, 2014. puts the numbers like this:

 

Together, field-level practices represent approximately 15 per cent of total human-made greenhouse gas emissions, in the form of nitrous oxide (N2O) from the use of organic and inorganic nitrogen fertilizers, methane (CH4 ) from flooded rice fields and livestock, and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the loss of soil organic carbon in croplands and, due to intensified grazing, on pastures. In addition, the production of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, the tillage, irrigation and fertilization, and the transport, packaging and conservation of food require considerable amounts of energy, resulting in an additional 15 to 17 per cent of total man-made greenhouse gas emissions attributable to food systems.

 

 

The chart below illustrates a broad analysis of numbers quoting CO2e figures from various scientific reports of recent years:

Fig 2. CO2e released from agriculture

 

Report Agricultural total – Meat and Dairy Direct (livestock) emissions N2O, CH4 Indirect emissions Agricultural Land use
IPCC 2005 10 -12% 5 – 6% – methane 3.3%. Nitrous Oxide 2.8% 40% – 50% of worlds total land
IPCC 2007 13%
Chatham House 14.5%
J. Vermeulen, et al,. 15 – 25%
Worldwatch 51% 18%

from the report ‘livestocks long shadow’

33% – breathing CO2, Land change, livestock numbers increase over time, cooling, cooking, disposal, production,

marine activity and waste in all parts of the chain

8%
Smith et al,. 10-12% 15% – deforestation 37% of earths terrestrial surface
Barker et al. 14% 14%
Van der Werf et al,. 12% – deforestation
FCRN (UK) 19% 7%
Livestock dialogue.org 14.5%

 

Fig 2: A review of reports relating to GWP (global warming potential) for agriculture, livestock and land use and their contribution to CO2e per year. Researchers own, 2016.

 

The GLEAM 1.0 – Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential gives us some great graphics to illustrate and bring to life the research we are trying to undertake here.

gleam figure 3

Fig 3. Global significance of sector’s emissions. GHG emissions values are computed in GLEAM for 2005, while IPCC estimates are for 2004. GLEAM emissions estimate includes emissions attributed to edible products and to other goods and services.

Emissions by species

Cattle are the main contributor to the sector’s emissions with about 4.6 gigatonnes CO2-eq, which represents about 65 percent of sector’s emissions, see figure 4. Beef and dairy cattle generate similar amounts of greenhouse gases, see figure 4. Pigs, poultry, buffaloes and small ruminants have much lower emissions, representing between 7 and 10 percent of sector’s emissions. (see figure 5).

gleam figure 4

Fig 4. Global estimates of emissions by species. It includes emissions attributed to edible products and to other goods and services, such as draught power and wool. Beef cattle produce meat and non-edible outputs. Dairy cattle produce milk and meat as well as non-edible outputs.

 

gleam figure 5

Fig 5. . Global emission intensities by commodity. All commodities are expressed in a per protein basis. Averages are calculated at global scale and represent an aggregated value across different production systems and agro-ecological zones.

More specifically according to recent peer reviewed journals, protein supply (as this is what we are really trying to analyse in this report) – shown in fig 6. – shows enormous variation, but again, cattle CO2e per KG of protein delivered, according to the majority of reports, is the main contributor. This is backed up by fig 5 (above), which also emphasizes the enormous variations in emissions figures. This I would surmise is down to variations in the system the animal is part of, but we must mindful; there is not a direct relationship between the broad ‘type’ of system and the amount of Kg of CO2e it emits. The relationship is more complex and diverse that this ham fisted attempt at labeling. Further studies would have to undertaken to give credence to this line of thought.

 

CO2e Kg emissions per kg of protein

 

Type * CO2e KG per Kg LCA ** CO2e kg per kg of protein FAO *** CO2e kg from the production of commodities in the UK, the rest of Europe and the rest of the world for direct UK consumption. **** CO2e KG per KG of livestock protein eaten LCA ***** CO2e kg per kg of body weight ****** CO2e kg per kg food UK shipped to Sweden all energy
Cattle 342.00 56.40 24.00 5.45 23.00
Milk 1.19 1.10
Cheese – soft 2.00
Cheese – hard 6.10 12.00 8.80
Lamb 112 – 165 14.61 36.00 9.45 24.00
Pigs <100 10.10 8.00 3.97 9.20
Poultry <100 16.00 13.00 3.25 6.60
Eggs 3.80 5.50
Butter 8.10

Fig 6. CO2e emissions from a range of recent peer reviewed reports compiled by the researcher, 2016.

* Flysjö, Anna (2014)

** http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/

*** http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_low_report_1.pdf

**** http://tinyurl.com/cerrtef

***** Zervas, G (2012)

****** Gonzalez, A, et al,. 2011

LCA – Life cycle assessment. This type of assessment seems to be the industry standard for understanding total on farm and post farm gate emissions.

NB. There are large differences in kg CO2e emissions because of the models and methodologies used. For example cattle 6.5kg of CO2e emissions for 1kg of protein – dead weight; cattle 23kg of CO2e emissions per kg of protein including all energy uses post farm.

NB. The results are pulled together from various sources and represent a spectrum of opinion, therefore there is variation.

The next table illustrates how the our diets compare when looking at CO2e kg and how this converts to travel and emissions, as this is something we seem to understand to a greater degree.

Table 3. Six diet variations showing kg of CO2e emitted per day and for a year.
(kgCO2e/day) (kgCO2e/year)
High meat eaters (>= 100g/d) 7.19 2624
Medium meat eaters (50-99g/d) 4.67 1705
Low meat eaters (<50g/d) 3.91 1427
Fish eaters 3.81 1391
Vegetarians 3.81 1391
Vegan 2.89 1055

Fig 7. Scarborough, P, et al,. 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters and vegans and vegetarians in the UK.

 

  • A flight from London to Melbourne Australia uses 1,300kg CO2e. A change in diet from high meat eater (>= 100g/d) to vegetarian would mitigate this.
  • A flight from London to New York (960kg CO2e) could be mitigated by changing from high meat eater to low meat eater.
  • A family running a 10yr old car for 6k miles has a carbon footprint of 2,440 kgCO2e – roughly the same as moving two adults from high meat eaters to vegetarian diets. www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

 

Animal proteins large scale production by means of factory farming is a major driver of biodiversity loss, according to E. O. Wilson this may be the biggest depravity our generation leaves behind. A diet transition back to less animal protein could make a difference Aiking, H (2014)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix:

 

Fig 1. MeatStats 9, Issued August 2014 | Global Livestock Numbers. UN Food & Agriculture Organisation, US Department of Agriculture, Eurostat, Statistics New Zealand, Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Fig 2: A review of reports relating to GWP for agriculture, livestock and land use and their contribution to CO2e per year. Researchers own, 2016.

 

Fig 3. Global significance of sector’s emissions. GHG emissions values are computed in GLEAM for 2005, while IPCC estimates are for 2004. GLEAM emissions estimate includes emissions attributed to edible products and to other goods and services. Accessed 1st Feb 2016 @ http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/

 

Fig 4. Global estimates of emissions by species. It includes emissions attributed to edible products and to other goods and services, such as draught power and wool. Beef cattle produce meat and non-edible outputs. Dairy cattle produce milk and meat as well as non-edible outputs. Accessed 1st Feb 2016 @ http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/

Fig 5. Global emission intensities by commodity. All commodities are expressed in a per protein basis. Averages are calculated at global scale and represent an aggregated value across different production systems and agro-ecological zones. Accessed 1st Feb 2016 @ http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/

Fig 6. Fig 6. CO2e emissions from a range of recent peer reviewed reports compiled by the researcher, 2016.

Fig 7. Scarborough, P, et al,. 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters and vegans and vegetarians in the UK.

Aiking, Harry. “Protein production: planet, profit, plus people?.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 100.Supplement 1 (2014): 483S-489S.

 

Baily, Rob, Antony Froggatt, and Laura Wellesley. “Livestock–Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption.” (2014) PDF

 

Bruce, James P., Hoe-sŏng Yi, and Erik F. Haites. Climate change 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

 

De Schutter, O. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. Final report: The transformative potential of the right to food.”Human Rights Council of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www. srfood. org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20140310_finalreport_en. pdf(2014).

 

Fairlie, Simon. Meat: a benign extravagance. Chelsea green publishing, 2010.

 

Flysjö, Anna, Mikkel Thrane, and John E. Hermansen. “Method to assess the carbon footprint at product level in the dairy industry.” International Dairy Journal 34.1 (2014): 86-92.

 

GLEAM, (2016), GLEAM 1.0 – Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential. Accessed online at: http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/ Last viewed 1st Feb 2016.

 

 

González, Alejandro D., Björn Frostell, and Annika Carlsson-Kanyama. “Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation.” Food Policy 36.5 (2011): 562-570.

 

IPCC, 2000: Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 

MeatStats 9, Issued August 2014 | Global Livestock Numbers. UN Food & Agriculture Organisation, US Department of Agriculture, Eurostat, Statistics New Zealand, Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 

Scarborough, Peter, et al. “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climatic change125.2 (2014): 179-192.

 

Smith, Pete, et al. “Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 118.1 (2007): 6-28.

 

Smith P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E.A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N.H. Ravindranath, C.W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

 

Steinfeld, Henning, et al. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food & Agriculture Org., 2006.

 

Tilman, David, and Michael Clark. “Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health.” Nature 515.7528 (2014): 518-522.

 

Zervas, G., and E. Tsiplakou. “An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock.” Atmospheric Environment 49 (2012): 13-23.

 

Q: How do you make money from grain without having to farm 100 + acres of land?

This is the question I am trying to answer here in Devon UK. As a new agri-person learning about the natural balance of life, systems and food networks, trying to grow grain (mainly wheat), I am naturally trying to steer clear of the synthetic wagons so ridden on by western farmers that constantly try and encircle me. I am constantly rebuffed by the winds of flatulence leaked out through the stomachs of these greedy neoliberal business people emitting from these wagons. They include the globalisation of wheat that means the UK (2014) imports 60 to 70% of its organic grain from Kazakhstan, before that it was Canada. This means that the price grain is suppressed by global markets and feeds billions of pounds a year into traders pockets and away form the farmer. This subsequently means that an acre of organic wheat, grown naturally like I am doing, will only generate around £200. In order to make a living in this system you’d be pushed into large scale production and all the smelly flatulence that comes with it. Harvesting and processing of wheat in the UK is either table top or industrial meaning that small, but still farm, scale operations, like the one I am trying to initiate have to think radically – farmhacking, designing and making your own equipment – this takes a lot of time and some money to facilitate.

How do you overcome these two major obstacles?

Work with a bakery and integrate the grain into the business maybe?

Thats what I am trying to discover whilst working at thealmondthief bakery in Totnes. Can the growing of heritage grain be integrated into the bakery in its current form, physically and economically?

Planting winter wheat in Devon

A lot of action, some sedate and some more action packed, has occurred on the field in the last two weeks. But before I detail what went on I’d like to take you through the philosophical, ecological and romanticized cognitive dance that preceded this.

  • Fossil fuels are running out and it must be better to use non-fossil fuel means of processing
  • Soil is precious and should be treated with reverence and not squashed and bitten and chewed up (thats how I see a ploughing tractor)
  • More people on the land can only be a good thing. There are less than then 1% of the population employed on the land in the UK a drop from 40% a hundred years ago. A clearer more obvious connection to food through working with the soil, the seed and the products that come from it will remove people from their subservient relationships with food retailers – who in Totnes (Morrisons and Co-op) take 27m out of the local economy whilst returning very little economically, culturally or socially
  • Horses are a great way to work the land; less impact, shallower plough (cutting though less of the mycelia network)
  • Working with horses necessitates a connection to the wider ecosystem, being in the outdoors and not cocooned in a cab like a tractor driver is, being part of the audible soundtrack of the field
  • Phenomenologically I wanted this process to be about experiencing audibly, bodily, cognitively and intuitively this meant treading as light as possible on the soil and dispersing the seeds among their cohorts with a a flick of the wrist
  • A contractor is simply there to get a job done

The battle I had in my head had a few key moments: One horse I had hoped to meet died, the next horse who’d agreed to some feel sick, the trail of horse people and the horse went cold. That skirmish was lost, so I turned to the contractor. In full celebration the tractor arrived ploughed, drilled and left, all in a day (with a few days in-between). I had then to admit that I had been defeated in my quest, but the feeling was better then I had thought. The contractor had done a great job (ok the soil was bitten, chewed and spat out) the seeds were in, the field was perfectly set for growing, the previous compaction was lessened, in the top 80cm (the depth of the plough) and it had set me, most importantly, on the path to growing a Devon land race wheat, a magnificent unique achievement, here in Devon. And started me on a path to link the soil and the seed with the loaf and the consumer.

Prior to any preparation, devoid of life, striped of all nutrient.
Prior to any preparation, devoid of life, striped of all nutrient.
20 Holes and two worms of limp character
20 Holes and two worms of limp character
Turkish red winter wheat from seed banks - 20cm gaps
Turkish red winter wheat from seed banks – 20cm gaps

Two types of winter wheat planted

Planting - Clovers, chicory, yarrow, lupins
Planting – Clovers, chicory, yarrow, lupins
The magnificent machine seeding at the right spacing, depth and amount
The magnificent machine seeding at the right spacing, depth and amount
ready for growing - one acre of Devon Blue red chuff planted by hand
ready for growing – one acre of Devon Blue red chuff planted by hand
Lots of beneficial  seeds ready to sprout and help the soil
Lots of beneficial seeds ready to sprout and help the soil
Three weeks old and growing strong - lots of weeding to come
Three weeks old and growing strong – lots of weeding to come

Soil sampling – Counting earth worms in Sawmill orchard

The easiest way to test soil health is to dig holes and count earth worms. So thats what I did. I found two limp and small ones in the first line. IMG_1408

I found two earth worms in eight bulb planter samples of 20cm x 5cm. Their bodies were limp and small reminiscent of an overworked under nourished miner after a seven day week. The sick looking worms were struggling to find food in the thick synthetics soup that is consistent with 30 years of western agriculture common in the UK. The field has been intensively framed – corn and wheat – for 30 years. The soil would of been privy to a holiday every now and again, but basically it was used as a holding ballast for the synthetics of the chemical industry, long since shamed by Rachel Carson in Silent spring, helped by James Lovelock (Lovelock, J, 2014). I can see the soil is devoid of health, the plants are tiny, the Viola flowers are the size of a babies finger nail, and the touch of the soil is hard unforgiving, but I still feel the need to test for earth worms to enable comparisons further down the line in soil improvement. I would of liked to of tested for respiration, but I don’t have a budget for that as its £700 for a single test, so earth worms are a grand substitute for gaging life and health in the soil.

Because of the lifelessness I have embarked on a mission to build the organic matter back up:

Wood chip compost. Working with landscapers and tree surgeons to build piles of wood chip

Working with a local wood yard to build piles of sawdust – I’ll add plant matter as the year goes on.`

Talking to Devon county council to look at the possibilities of building a community compost for Dartington

100’s of tonnes of top soil from local sources built onto the field

The nest stage is a horse and harrow to level the top soil and disturb the top layer of the rest. I’ll then plant the following seeds – in kg’s to the right:

White Clover – small leaved    £8.00/kg   or  £14.00/kg *organic*  1-3kg/acre

1

White Clover  – medium leaved £7.00/kg    1-3kg/acre

1

Alsike  £6.00/kg   2-4kg/acre

1.5

Late Flowering Red Clover    £5.00/kg   3-4kg/acre

2

Sainfoin    £5.00/kg *organic*    25kg/acre minimum

14

Egyptian Clover  £6.50/kg

2

Persian Clover  £7.00/kg   3-4kg/acre

2

Crimson Clover  £6.50/kg *organic*   5-6kg/acre

3

Yarrow     £23.00/kg   1kg/acre or less

1

Ribwort Plantain    £11.00/kg    3-4kg/acre

2

Puna Chicory   £11.50/kg     3-4kg/acre

2

lupin

Bye for now, thanks for reading.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 770 other followers