Gobble Gobble - Turkey Time!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

As tomorrow is the big day, I thought I’d do a little topical post about farming in (or should I say for?) the festive period.

Now, many of us will be eating Turkey for Christmas lunch tomorrow (if you aren’t, or if you are a vegetarian going for the nut roast vibe this year, don’t feel like you can't read on!). Personally, I know very little about poultry farming, and so I thought I’d have a little dig to see what I could find out, and perhaps even see if anything might relate to environmental change! A lot has been said about bird welfare, but I want to focus on a more ecological and environmental perspective of the turkey production process.

Turkey is our most popular centrepiece for Christmas lunch (Source: longestacres.blogpost.co.uk)

Although very much considered as exclusive to one day of the year, more than 22 million turkeys are produced in the UK every single year, with the majority reared intensively. Intensive agriculture…environmental alarm bells ringing!

The ability of one Turkey farm to produce such vast amounts of meat (Bernard Matthews, I’m looking at you!) means that the production of large volumes of animal waste in such small areas is a real environmental challenge . Animal waste runoff contributes significantly to high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in natural habitats such as water systems, with particularenvironmental damage borne by local regions. Manure has been seen stacked high in fields, which is then washed into river systems when it rains…there is no mechanism or practice in place for the prevention of this transportation. Consequences of eutrophication, among others, are serious and have very severe repercussions for the aquatic environment specifically.

Turkey production is one of the most intensive forms of agriculture (Source: grist.org)

Moreover, due to the large numbers of birds produced in one location, the fossil fuels burned (and hence the pollution released into the atmosphere, contributing to the global warming phenomenon) to transport our Christmas lunches to our local supermarkets worsen the industries environmental impact. Of course, this factor is not exclusive to our festive birds, but it is a significant element of how intensive poultry systems are damaging to the environment.

Of course, turkey farming isn’t all bad, and you should definitely not feel guilty when you tuck in tomorrow, but the intensive side of turkey production which is so dominant due to seasonalised demand has significant detrimental impacts on the environment. I think this provides another example of how intensive agricultural systems, although currently necessary to meet our growing demands, have to be recognised as having detrimental environmental effects, and for the specific practices generating such impacts to be identified and modified.

I hope you all get what you wished for from Santa Claus, and no one has to chomp through dry turkey meat tomorrow!

How Much Water is Embedded in Everyday Life?

Following on from my posts relating to freshwater use in agriculture, I've come across a fun little interactive tool on the National Geographic website.

How much water is embedded in everyday life? (Source: National Geographic)

I recommend just having a little play, and I almost guarantee you'll be surprised by some of the figures! Half a kilo of beef requiring 6810 litres of freshwater to produce seems crazy!! It's this mass consumption of water that is a real growing concern. As you will discover from this informative tool, the meat that more of us around the world consume requires huge volumes of water...could you be a vegetarian to save the world?!

Go and Explore!

New Agricultural Water Policies, But We Still Have Problems

A couple of posts ago, I discussed the issues surrounding agriculture’s use – and overuse – of freshwater. Recently, I came across an article by the National Farmers Union (NFU) that was raising the issue that water policies must give farmers the ability to grow food to meet demand.

Extensive irrigation (source: National Geographic)

Water Use and Food Security

On 3^rd December, the Government’s Water Bill reached the parliamentary committee stage. The NFU is calling on the government to ensure that policies recognise the critical link between water and food security, and that they help to allow farmers to use enough water to grow our food.

Without irrigation, we would not be able to produce enough food to feed our growing global population, and so there is a key link between agricultural water consumption and food security. The less water agriculture utilises, the less secure our supply of food. However, it could be argued that current rates of water use are severely detrimental to future food security.

‘Sustainability’ – An Unreachable Concept?

For me, this raised an interesting point, and it is one that seems to underpin many debates in regard to environmental change. Are we able to meet the current needs of our global population without harming future generations, and vice versa?

In terms of agricultural water consumption, the term ‘sustainability’ doesn’t seem to fit. Farmers need access to water if their production is to meet our consumer demand. If current usage is to become more sustainable, irrigation techniques must become more efficient (see Terry Howell's 2001 Agronomy Journal paper for more detailed information), genetically modified crops requiring less water must be more widely grown, and we must adapt our diets to aid in the reduction of agricultural water consumption.

Freshwater Ecosystem Services - Down the Plughole?

Anthropogenic activities are causing environmental change. With environmental change comes an alteration of the variety, magnitude and spatial range of freshwater ecosystem services, which our societies have come to rely upon in one way or another.

Agriculture has been a primary force in environmental change, and is also an industry that heavily relies on freshwater. One obvious example of how agriculture - and more specifically recent agricultural intensification - has damaged ecosystem services is eutrophication, with a loss of water quality, toxicity and diversity loss. There is a need to realise the damages to and loss of freshwater ecosystem services so that these trends can be curtailed. In their informative journal article, Walter Dodds and colleagues provide discussion around this concept, and attempt to quantify the human impact on freshwater ecosystem services through the development of a composite index.

Dodds et al. (2013) diagram of the calculation of the proportion of ecosystem services used and overall impact

I want to focus on the drivers of human freshwater impact that they selected. Both the intensity of agricultural land use modification and of agricultural production. I find this interesting, and actually not very surprising. What I have learned is that both land-use modification for agricultural purposes and production intensification increase freshwater demand as well as frequently damaging the surrounding environment (which, of course, includes local hydrological systems). So, these will be key drivers of human freshwater impact and thus the changes to freshwater ecosystem services we are observing. The thirst of agriculture is a real environmental issue, and without action detrimental environmental change in relation to freshwater systems is likely to continue.

Modern Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation

I came across a publication by the EuropeanCrop Protection Association (ECPA), which is an organisation representing the pest control industry and promoting modern agricultural technology in the context of sustainable development. Maybe the source of this publication is slightly biased because of the publisher, but I thought it raised a few interesting points in relation to my previous post about farms as supporters of biodiversity.

Agriculture Benefitting Biodiversity

ECPA suggest that the evolution of European agriculture has actually enriched biodiversity, through the conversion of relatively homogeneous woodland vegetation into a heterogeneous ‘mosaic’ of cultivated fields with boundaries that provide a range of different ecosystems and habitats. As a result, they claim that many plant and animal species are now dependent on agriculture.

These may seem quite rash claims, but there is evidence to support some of these assertions. For example, floral diversity in grasslands and alpine meadows are maintained by stock (sheep and cattle) pasturage, and without this agricultural input these areas would revert to scrub vegetation that is less biodiverse. There are a number of bird and plant species that are promoted by agriculture, with the skylark and yellow wagtail two prominent examples as well as cornflower and corncockle.

The Skylark can be seen in fields in the UK (Source: birdforum.net)

As long as landscape heterogeneity is maintained, agriculture will continue to support biodiversity.

Modern Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation

An increase in land used for agriculture is a major threat to biodiversity. However, as ECPA suggest, the intensive practices of modern farming can play a role in minimizing land conversion and hence aid the conservation of biodiversity. The proportional growth in global cropland is far smaller than the growth of the human population (10 times smaller between 1961 and 2005!).

By increasing yields on existing agricultural land, modern agriculture has contributed to biodiversity conservation by leaving more land for conservation purposes than there would otherwise be in the absence of such intensive technologies and practices. This issue has been highlighted by the European Commission on debates relating to deforestation, raising the point of a need to invest in increasing yields on existing farmland to halt further habitat conversion.

What this publication summarises is the role of agriculture in promoting and supporting biodiversity, both within the agricultural landscape and externally to it. Agriculture, if practiced appropriately, can help in biodiversity conservation. Of course, if poorly managed and practiced, farming presents a real threat to biodiversity. The key is to find a balance between production and environmental protection, so that both systems can continue to prosper in the face of climatic change and increasing demand from growing global populations.

Farms as Supporters of Diversity

Debates through the lenses of an environmental change perspective tend to portray agriculture in a bad light. Well, as someone from an agricultural background I would challenge those that assume agriculture is a wholly damaging practice that is causing losses of biodiversity.

The agrarian landscape, which has come to define the British countryside, can provide a space for certain species to thrive. If you think about the iconic animals of our countryside – Fox? Hare? Rabbit? – they all spend a great deal of time on land managed for agricultural production. Birds, like pheasants, buzzards, and the barn owl (notice the word barn…!), all love the rural landscape too. It is important that we don’t forget the importance of farmland as a wildlife and plant habitat.

Hares can be seen boxing in the Spring (source: robertefuller.blogspot.co.uk)

A Reliance on Farmland?

I came across an interesting article recently that presents the findings of a research study conducted in Africa and Asia, which suggested some threatened species needed farmland for survival. The study found at least 30 bird species that would have been driven to extinction without the existence of farmland. The species under particular threat were dependent on farming for all of their primary needs (land for nesting, breeding, and food). A comment I found particularly interesting was that of Dr Wright, who pointed out that most conservation efforts in the developing world focus their attention on forest species and pristine habitats, to the detriment of those that rely on farmland. Is this because of a general assumption that farming practices are damaging diversity, not supporting it? I think this is a real possibility.

The Danger of Intensification

Of course, as was pointed out in this study, the intensification of agriculture is a threat to many species. Agricultural practices must look to promote biodiversity and ecological functions, with habitats managed sensitively. Indeed, if agricultural intensification continues, those species currently reliant on farmland may suffer. Organic farming practices and new forms of management such as eco-agriculture provide possible strategies for ensuring these landscapes remain important wildlife habitats. At the very least, the maintenance of traditional and mixed farming should be actively encouraged.

But, taking everything into consideration, we should recognise farmers as important managers of our landscape, as farmland does indeed support many species.

Intercontinental Biotic Connectivity and Tipping Points

It is perhaps fairly clear that agricultural expansion and/or intensification is very likely to have an impact (and more so a detrimental one) on the surrounding habitats and environment. The conversion of terrestrial biomes into agricultural landscapes has reduced habitat areas available to species and can have many negative impacts for globally important ecological processes (Foley et al., 2005). As Sanderson and colleagues (2002) quantify, 'Human Footprints' can be identified across 83% of Earth's land surface, influenced by high population density, agriculture, or infrastructure. Therefore, a considerable proportion of Earth's natural environment has experienced change as a direct result of local agricultural changes.

Deforestation for conversion to agricultural land in South America (Source: plant-talk.org)

However, whilst reading a thought-provoking paper by Barry Brook and colleagues exploring the concept of tipping points within the terrestrial biosphere, I unearthed an interesting concept of 'direct intercontinental biotic connectivity' and the coupled regime shifts. Essentially, the interconnectivity of ecosystem responses translates on a global scale to biotic connections between both biomes and continents, which facilitate the diffusion of localised changes across the terrestrial biosphere. Moreover, if these teleconnections permit changes to be felt fast enough, a global tipping-point response could be created. (In case you're not 100% sure about tipping points, they are where systems shift radically to a different state, potentially irreversibly.)

So, how could agriculture play a role?

Well, I'll start with an example. Intensive agriculture in the western USA resulted in habitat change, which in turn appears to have caused abrupt losses of Arctic ecosystem structure and biogeochemical cycling, essentially meaning biodiversity and functional loss. It is suggested by Robert Jefferies and colleagues that this stems from the increased populations of migrating snow geese through their subsidisation by agricultural food supplies. Here we see that agriculture has the capability to play a role in environmental change through teleconnections.

Snow geese in Missouri, USA (Source: dailymail.co.uk)

Not all changes have a teleconnection to another part of the globe. Limiting these direct biotic linkages could be physical barriers to species movement (oceans and mountain ranges spring to mind) as well as species niches (so the range of climatic conditions specific species are adapted). Thus, not all changes caused by agriculture will contribute to a change elsewhere. But certainly, agriculture has the ability to be a direct cause of change felt in separate regions due to 'intercontinental biotic connectivity'.

Irrigation circles in Colorado (Source: ecolibrary.org)

The number and magnitude of these connections will determine the chances of a tipping-point pattern. So, if environmental changes continue globally, we could see a tipping point within the terrestrial biosphere in the future. Naturally, as it is practiced worldwide and is identified as a significant infringer on habitats and environments, agriculture (through its expansion and intensification) could play a very real role.

Agriculture: A Thirsty Industry

Agriculture uses 70% of the Earth’s surface freshwater, which makes it comfortably the greatest consumer of freshwater. Because of this great thirst, it has a central control on the health and sustainability of freshwater ecosystems, and the biodiversity such systems support.

The world’s freshwaters support up to a third of all vertebrates and at least 40% of global fish diversity, and when considering that they only make up 2.5% of the world’s surface water, freshwater ecosystems are a vital source of global biodiversity. What concerns many scientists is the increasing threats facing freshwater biodiversity, of which agriculture is a significant one.

Continuing intensification, with greater applications of artificial fertilisers and pesticides, and expansion in response to growing global populations, as well as inefficiency in freshwater usage (60-80% is lost via evaporation and seepage), mean that agriculture is threatening freshwater biodiversity. As the graph below demonstrates, sourced from Martin Jenkins’ journal article for Science, over the last 30 years freshwaters have suffered most in terms of biodiversity degradation. This coincides with an intensification of agriculture worldwide.

Species population indices for forest, marine, and freshwater ecosystems, as included in the 2002 WWF Living Planet Index (Source: Jenkins, M. (2003) in Science, 302)

David Dudgeon andcolleagues go as far to say that ‘freshwaters may well be the most endangered ecosystems in the world’ (2006: 164), and I would be inclined to agree in face of the evidence. The Aral Sea and Lake Victoria provide two definitive examples of how human interference, and in particular the contributions of agriculture within the catchment, have decimated freshwater biodiversity. Inefficient and unsustainable freshwater use and immensely excessive chemical applications led to the demise of the Aral Sea and the biodiversity it supported. Similarly, the contribution of agricultural intensification in the catchment of Lake Victoria exacerbated aquatic biodiversity degradation.

Satellite imagery showing the shrinking of the Aral Sea, Central Asia (Source: www.fansshare.com/aralseadesertification)

Agriculture –in particular intensification and unsustainable water usage – has severely damaged freshwater ecosystems in the recent past, and with the trend of intensification and expansion expected to continue, the threats to freshwater biodiversity currently posed by agriculture will only increase. There is a real need for agriculture to become more sustainable and efficient globally, and to specifically recognise how intensification or expansion in a particular region will impact freshwater ecosystems. The ignorance of the Soviet Union, in regard to implications on the Aral Sea of cotton production in Uzbekistan, is a real example of how damaging a lack of awareness can be for freshwater biodiversity. If the world’s current freshwater biodiversity decline is to be curtailed, such mistakes cannot be repeated.

If we can quench agriculture's great thirst for freshwater globally, or certainly reduce how much it spills from its glass, then that will be a real step in the right direction for freshwater biodiversity.

Agricultural Expansion: Still a Cause for Concern

Recently I have been reading some interesting articles on global biodiversity scenarios for my ‘Global Environmental Change’ module (the module for which I started this blog). As I have been discussing fairly specific topics in my last few posts I thought this was a perfect opportunity to get my head out of the hives (see previous posts if you’re struggling with that pun…) and talk more generally about environmental change.

By now most of us realise that with environmental changes come changes to biodiversity levels. In a paper written by Henrique Pereira and his colleagues habitat loss is picked out as a key metric for biodiversity change, with land-use a dominant driver of change in terrestrial systems. Straight away my ears pricked up and the light bulb appeared over my head…agricultural expansion!

Agriculture is a key land-use across the globe, and throughout history it has expanded to enable growing world populations to meet their food production demands. Quantitative scenarios still hold the conversion of natural and semi-natural habitats into agricultural landscapes as a substantial contributor to future global biodiversity changes. As conversion can often lead to habitat loss and degradation it is hardly surprising agriculture plays such a large role in global environmental change.

Pereira and his colleagues highlighted conversion of forest to agricultural systems as the most important habitat change affecting global biodiversity levels, with particular losses occurring in the tropics. In the western world such conversions are no longer extensive, and are in fact in reverse due to overall gains in forest. However, these gains cannot directly compensate for forest losses in temperate regions in terms of biodiversity, as the forest habitats of the northern hemisphere support comparatively lower levels of biodiversity than those in tropical and subtropical regions. This is reflected in the fact that models of global biodiversity scenarios still suggest species declines in terrestrial systems.

Deforestation, to make space for agriculture, in Brazil (source: forestjustice.org)

One issue I am taking from this is that no matter what regulation changes are taken in the developed world to improve agricultural practices in terms of environmental sensitivity, or even those to restrict agricultural intensification and expansion, global biodiversity levels are still facing a future of decline. Agriculture is a global phenomenon, with global impacts, and hence any attempts to drive improvements in the health (and future) of the natural environment through changes to agriculture must be implemented on a global scale. This is where geopolitics becomes hugely relevant, but that is more the realm of a human geographer!

The World Continues to Buzz About Colony Collapses

Whilst doing some hunting around the topic of bee declines for my last post, I came across this (very) informal video that summarises what’s been going on in the world of bees and suggests what actions we need to be taking.

I think the main points to pick up on are:

• If bees disappear, a lot of our ecosystems will follow
• A loss of bees will not only have direct effects for crops we consume, but also knock-on effects for livestock industries
• The ban on neonicotinoids in the EU (commencing in December) isn’t likely to make a (significant) difference in reducing bee declines
• The loss of our bees is most likely a combination of a variety of factors, all contributing to their demise. Hence, multiple actions need to be taken

Hopefully any skeptics left out there after my last post will be convinced by this video!

Bee Aware!

I briefly mentioned in my last post that there has been a recent degradation of pollination services, which has severe consequences for agriculture in the future.  Bees are the greatest pollinating machines in agriculture, and without our little bumbling friends plants would be unable to reproduce and crop-bearing plants would not be sufficiently fertilised. Resulting from their pollination of 70% of the 90% of crops that the world population relies on for food, the commercial value of pollination services provided by bees has been estimated at as much as $153bn worldwide every year. In the UK alone, Friends of the Earth have estimated that bees are worth £510 million a year to the UK economy.

Bees are the ideal pollinator, with 'flower fidelity' making them incredibly efficient (Source: pdphoto.org)

Some of us may think that a decline in bees could be a blessing – we all know that anything that can sting isn’t welcome at a picnic – but the scientific and agricultural communities are expressing real concern over recent declines, with the 4 million colonies in the USA of the 1970s dropping to around 2.5 million today. Colony losses in Europe could have reached up to 35% between 2002 and 2010.

So, what’s caused this worrying decline?

Well, here lies another big issue…nobody really knows! The scientific community is yet to agree on a single coherent theory explaining current bee population trends, and this makes combatting the issue much more challenging. Agricultural intensification has been identified as a key cause of bee declines globally, and it is hard to argue against this being at the very least a significant contributing factor. Pesticides are toxic by design, leaving bees more vulnerable to disease and poor nutrition. Greenpeace have their own strong opinions, but not everyone shares such aggressive views against intensive farming. The National Farmers Union argues that the blame attributed to farmers and pesticide overuse is an unfair attack on the industry, failing to consider the good work farmers do to increase farmland biodiversity.

I am inclined to agree with Dr Chris Hartfield  – a leading NFU scientist on bee health – and say that this is a “multi-factorial” issue. A combination of habitat loss, pesticide use, fungal diseases, and mite infestations has contributed to such widespread losses. Moreover, climate change should be considered as a factor, as harsher winters and wetter springs in Europe reduce winter survival rates and suppress re-emergence in the spring.

Worker bees and honeycomb (Source: blogs.discovermagazine.com)

What can we do?

Agriculture has a key role to play in helping to reverse recent declines in bee populations. Measures taken to promote biodiversity on farmland and increase landscape diversity could provide new habitats for bee populations, and a conscious effort to avoid excessive chemical use could go some way to aiding bee recovery. We, the general public, can drive this process through increased consumer demand for ecological and organic farming products. So if we all start buying organic then maybe we can keep the world buzzing.