High Food Prices = Riots

The New England Complex Systems Institute generated a recent report "The Food Crises and Political Instability in North Africa and the Middle East" that shows a solid correlation between rising food prices in 2008 and 2011 and global riots. Here is a striking graphic from that report (click on image for larger version):

 

The black line shows the rising price of food over time. The red lines are when riots broke out around the world marked by the country (and in parentheses the related deaths). The blue line is when the institute reported their finding to the US government.

Source: Lagi, Bertrand, Bar-Yam, "The Food Crises and Political Instability in North Africa and the Middle East", New England Complex Systems Institute, http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.2455, viewed Sept. 26, 2011 

UW-WSU Food Security Conference presentation

As a followup to my Dec 5th presentation, here is a link to my BHAG presentation regarding eliminate hunger and change accounting.

Below are links related to 'Beyond GDP' efforts.

If you have additions please feel free to place them in the related comments.

Thank you.

Sustainable Ag Indicators Research

Some links are to related articles trying to move beyond the GDP framework.

International

Bhutan Gross National Happiness

Canadian Index of Well-Being

UN Human Development Index

Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

Happy Planet Index

National

State of the USA

Key National Indicators System
- required, in new health bill

USDA Food Atlas

BEA Local Area Personal Income

MN Sustainability Indicators (Ken Meter)

Genuine Progress Indicator (US and Canada)

Time Banks

Regional

Earth Economics

Re-Imagining GDP
- City Club luncheon

Take Back Your Time

Seattle Area Happiness Initiative

Corporate

Wal-Mart Sustainability Index

Protected Harvest

Topical

Wallace Center Sustainable Food Indicators

Rain Forest Alliance

Articles, Research

USAID Sustainable Ag Indicators presentation

NYTimes Magazine: "The Rise and Fall of the G.D.P."

One critique of IMPLAN

The Food Assistance National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM) Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP

The USDA just released a study of the impact of stimulus funds spending on economic activity involving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

From USDA's webpage for The Food Assistance National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM) Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP:
USDA’s Economic Research Service uses the Food Assistance National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM) model to represent and measure linkages between USDA’s domestic food assistance programs, agriculture, and the U.S. economy.

From the report summary:
IOM and macroeconomic models have been used for assessing the multiplier effects from government expenditures authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), a Federal response to the recession that began in 2008.

What did they find?
The FANIOM analysis of SNAP benefits as a fiscal stimulus finds that:

• An increase of $1 billion in SNAP expenditures is estimated to increase economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion. In other words, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity. This multiplier estimate replaces a similar but older estimate of $1.84 billion reported in Hanson and Golan (2002).
• The jobs impact estimates from FANIOM range from 8,900 to 17,900 full-time-equivalent jobs plus self-employed for a $1-billion increase in SNAP benefits. The preferred jobs impact estimates are the 8,900 full-time equivalent jobs plus self-employed or the 9,800 full-time and part-time jobs plus self-employed from $1 billion of SNAP benefits (type I multiplier).
• Imports reduce the impact of the multiplier effects on the domestic economy by about 12 percent.
  

Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR103/, viewed Oct 8, 2010

Farm Aid makes the Economic Case

Farm Aid just released a report, Rebuilding America’s Economy with Family Farm-Centered Food Systems, that works to make the economic case for family farming. The report holds it's own set of extensive references and endnotes.

From the report comes this quick story:

The state of Michigan has ranked poorly in economic and public health indicators for decades. Importantly, much of the $1.9 billion worth of fresh fruits and vegetables consumed by Michigan residents comes from outside the state, despite the fact that state farmers produce the second-widest variety of farm products nationwide, just behind California. The authors estimate that Michigan farmers could generate almost 2,000 new jobs and $200 million in new income if they sell up to three times more fresh produce via in-state direct and wholesale markets. This scenario assumes no necessary shift in production, just the impact of re-localizing food dollars by utilizing Michigan’s existing cornucopia to meet consumer demand for fresh produce. In a state with many economic woes, a more localized and sustainable food system can play a critical role in establishing a stable economic future.

Sources:
FarmAid Report: " Rebuilding America’s Economy with Family Farm-Centered Food Systems", http://www.farmaid.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=qlI5IhNVJsE&b=2723877&ct=8540339&notoc=1, viewed July 28, 2010

Example story from Cantrell, Conner, Erickcek, & Hamm, " Eat Fresh and Grow Jobs, Michigan", Beulah, Michigan, Michigan Land Use Institute, C.S. Mott Group. September 2006, http://www.mlui.org/farms/fullarticle.asp?fileid=17086, viewed July 28, 2010

Economic Impact of Organic Production Systems

From the National Research Council recent report Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century come these factoids related to the economic impact of organic productions systems:

... Production costs per acre for the organic system were lower. Total labor for the organic system was higher, but because it was spread more equally through the growing season, the organic system had fewer off-farm hired workers.
- p. 228

... despite the lower yields of organic crops compared to conventional crops, organic systems can still be more profitable than conventional systems because of lower input costs and organic price premiums. When organic premiums were not included, conventional systems were generally more profitable.
- p. 229

... Organic practices tend to be more labor intensive (Klepper et al., 1977; Pimental et al., 2005) and often need more intensive management time (Porter et al., 2003) than conventional agriculture. In general, unpaid family members provide a larger proportion of the overall farm labor (Tegegne et al., 2001; Macombe, 2007; MacRae et al., 2007). As a result, the economic performance of organic farming systems can depend heavily on the input costs attributed to unpaid family labor (Hanson et al., 1997; Brumfield et al., 2000).
- p. 229

So, to push forward some discussion points:

• Organic production systems may create year round jobs better than conventional systems, thereby assisting the stability and growth of rural communities.
  
• Some organic producers may be profitable because they receive free labor.
  
• Organic needs a price premium in order to achieve profitability, to cover the additional labor costs (and other costs?). A price premium of 10% may be the magic number, but this is determined by the market pricing.
  
• Hiring people is always seen as a drain on the bottom line; however what we need is job creation.

Can we consider that hiring and paying people to work is good business?

Regional Food Economic Impact Research Highlights

A quick compilation of factoids from around the country related to the economic impact of regional production for regional consumption:

King County
“A shift of 20% of our food dollars into locally directed spending would result in a nearly half billion dollar annual income increase in King County alone and double that in the Central Puget Sound region.”
Source: Viki Sonntag, “Why Local Linkages Matter: Findings from the Local Food Economy Study,” Sustainable Seattle, April 2008, http://sustainableseattle.org/Programs/localfoodeconomy

Oregon
“ For every food dollar spent locally by the two school districts, an additional 87 cents was spent in Oregon, generating a multiplier of 1.87 for farm to school spending.”
“Dollars spent in Oregon agriculture reverberated into 401 of 409 of the state’s economic sectors.”
Source: Ecotrust, " Farm to School Investment Yields a Healthy Return into State Coffers", March 18, 2009, http://www.ecotrust.org/press/f2s_investment_20090318.html, viewed March 19, 2009

Iowa
“ If Iowans purchased a quarter of their produce from Iowa farmers, it would create $139.9 million in new economic output and more than 2,000 jobs for the state.”
Source: Sarah DeWeerdt, "Local Food: The Economics", Worldwatch Magazine, Worldwatch Institute, July/August 2009

“ Iowa State University research showed that if that region’s consumers ate five locally-grown fruits and vegetables each day for only the three months when they are in season, it would create $6.3 million of labor income, and 475 new jobs within the locale.”
Secondary Source: Ken Meter, "Local Food as Economic Development" Crossroads Resource Center October, 2008, http://www.crcworks.org/lfced.pdf
Primary Source: Swenson, David, “Economic Impact Summaries” covering Black Hawk County region. March. University of Northern Iowa Center for Energy and Environmental Education, 2008

Illinois
“A 20 percent increase in local production, processing, and purchasing will generate $20 to $30 billion of new economic activity annually within the state’s borders. Thousands of new jobs will be created for farmers and farm-related businesses.”
Source: Illinois Local and Organic Food and Farm Task Force, " Local Food, Farms & Jobs: Growing the Illinois Economy: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly By The Illinois Local and Organic Food and Farm Task Force", March 2009, http://www.foodfarmsjobs.org/ , viewed May 14, 2009

Detroit
“Just in the city of Detroit, shifting twenty percent of food spending would increase annual output by nearly half a billion dollars. More than 4,700 jobs would be created, paying $125 million more in earnings. The city would receive nearly $20 million more in business taxes each year.”
Source: Michael Shuman, “Economic Impact of Localizing Detroit’s Food System”, Fair Food Foundation, http://www.fairfoodnetwork.org/pdf/handout070617.pdf , viewed May 18, 2009

New Jersey Fresh
“The study showed that each dollar spent on the Jersey Fresh program increased farm revenues by $31.54 … and $54.49 of increased economic output in the State. With a current budget for Jersey Fresh being about $800,000, this means an increase in farm revenues of $25.2 million, and a total increase in economic output for the state of $43.6 million.”
Source: New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture, 2004 Annual Report: Agricultural Statistics, http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/04AnnualReport.pdf

Washington Food Expenditures

Trying to calculate how much Washington State citizens spend on food I compiled and created these quick stats:

U.S. total annual food expenditures per capita (2008 dollars): $3,888
Source: US GAO report,” U.S. Agriculture: Retail Food Prices Grew Faster Than the Prices Farmers Received for Agricultural Commodities, but Economic Research Has Not Established That Concentration Has Affected These Trends”, GAO-09-746R June 30, 2009, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-746R, viewed Jan 20, 2010

Washington State Population: 6,549,224
Source: 2008 US Census

Total food expenditures for Washington citizens: $25,463,382,912

The Economic Impact of Increasing Production of Healthy food for Regional Markets

The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture continues to kick out strong, timely research. In March 2010 the center released Selected Measures of the Economic Values of Increased Fruit and Vegetable Production and Consumption in the Upper Midwest. From the executive summary:

Two separate analyses were conducted. The first provides state-only estimates where the economic values are compiled considering each state’s farmers and each state’s consumption as a distinct and closed study area. The second analysis evaluates individual counties within the six-state region considering both their capacity and potential to produce fresh fruits or vegetables to serve medium to large metropolitan regional markets with populations in excess of 250,000 persons. This second analysis is indifferent to state boundaries.

Both research scenarios also presuppose that 50 percent of the local fruit and vegetable production will be marketed via producer-owned fruit and vegetable stores. The economic values of those activities also are partially estimated.

These are the relevant findings:

Under the first scenario:

* 270,025 cropland acres would be needed to produce the partial-year demands of 28 fresh fruits and vegetables in the six-state region. That is roughly equivalent to the average amount of cropland in one of Iowa’s 99 counties. Those acres would produce $882.44 million in farm-level sales, which would be worth $3.31 billion when sold at retail.
* Considering all industrial linkages, farm-level production would result in 9,302 total jobs region-wide, earning a total of $395.12 million in labor incomes.
* The land required to produce those fruits and vegetables would have to come from conventional agriculture as the amount of cropland is fixed. Considering all industrial linkages, corn and soybean production on those same acres supported 2,578 jobs and $59.12 million in labor incomes.
* If 50 percent of that production were sold via producer-owned markets, the region would need a total of 1,405 establishments staffed by 9,652 jobs earning $287.64 million in labor incomes.

Under the second scenario:

* The 28 metropolitan markets would require 195,669 fruit and vegetable acres to produce $637.44 million in farm-level sales.
* Considering all relevant multipliers, that farm-level production would support 6,694 jobs and $284.61 million in labor income in the six-state area.
* The land required to produce those fruits and vegetables would have to come from conventional agriculture as the amount of cropland is fixed. Considering all industrial linkages, corn and soybean production on those same acres supported 1,892 jobs and $42.517 million in labor incomes.
* It would take 875 fruit and vegetable markets to distribute these crops using the producer-retailers in the metropolitan areas that are actually within the region, which would in turn support 6,021 jobs in those establishments earning $180.7 million in labor incomes.

Source: David Swenson, "Selected Measures of the Economic Values of Increased Fruit and Vegetable Production and Consumption in the Upper Midwest", Department of Economics, Iowa State University, March 2010, http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing_files/midwest.html

Satisfying Human Food, Feed, and Fiber Needs

Recently the National Research Council released a comprehensive report entitled Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. I have grabbed a few key quotes from that report and encourage you to go purchase a copy of the almost 600 pages of information. From that conclusion chapter:

" As discussed in Chapter 1, satisfying human food, feed, and fiber needs is one of the sustainability goals in agriculture. Although practices for improving sustainability require taking some land out of production (for example, maintaining wetlands and riparian buffer strips), many farming practices for improving environmental sustainability do not compromise productivity and might even enhance yield (for example, cover cropping, crop rotations, and integrated pest management), as reported in Chapter 3. The determination of the production potential associated with various farming practices or systems at a regional or global level is actually a complex result of several interacting factors: production potentials (typical per acre crop yields or indicators of livestock feed efficiency and growth rates), land and input requirements, and biophysical resource qualities (Smil, 2000). Many studies have shown that with the right conditions and management, low-input and organic systems can have yields, productivity, and economic returns that are comparable to conventional systems (Liebman et al., 2008; Posner et al., 2008)."

Source: Committee on Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture, "Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century", National Research Council, 2010, p. 207, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12832.html

Profitability of US Farm Sector

Another NRC factoid:

" Statistics on the aggregate profitability of the U.S. farm sector disguise considerable variation in the economic performance of individual farms. For example, in 2007, only 47 percent of all U.S. farms reported positive net farm income, a drop from 57 percent of all farms in 1987. Most farms that lost money were relatively small operations that relied principally on nonfarm sources of income. Most farms in the United States are essentially family businesses that rely mainly on farm family members for their labor force (Gasson and Errington, 1993; Hoppe et al., 2007), and the majority of farm families also gain income from off-farm work. Nonfarm work or transfer payments are commonly used to supplement income from the farm business. The proportion of farm operators who work off-farm increased from 44 percent in 1979 to 52 percent in 2004. The proportion of spouses working off-farm grew from 28 percent to 45 percent during the same period (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2007). The contribution of off-farm income to the total household income of U.S. farmers rose from about 50 percent in 1960 to more than 80 percent in 2004 (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2007)."

Source: Committee on Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture, "Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century", National Research Council, 2010, p. 68, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12832.html

Current state of small and mid-size farms

Another factoid from the NRC/NAS report:

" The mid-sized family farms (sales between $100,000 and $500,000) are examples of the prototypical “family farm” that has captured much of the public imagination and public policy debates over the future of American agriculture (Browne et al., 1992). According to the 2007 census, these mid-sized farms represented just under 10 percent of all U.S. farms, produced 16.5 percent of all farm sales, and managed another quarter of the nation’s farmland and nearly 30 percent of its cropland.

" Small and mid-sized family farms together owned two-thirds of the total value of farmland, buildings, and equipment and managed roughly 60 percent of all U.S. farmland and cropland in 2007."

Source: Committee on Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture, "Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century", National Research Council, 2010, p. 49, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12832.html

Local food markets account for a small but growing share of total U.S. agricultural sales

From USDA's Economic Research Service Report "Local Food Systems:
Concepts, Impacts, and Issues":

• Direct-to-consumer marketing amounted to $1.2 billion in current dollar sales in 2007, according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, compared with $551 million in 1997.
• Direct-to-consumer sales accounted for 0.4 percent of total agricultural sales in 2007, up from 0.3 percent in 1997. If nonedible products are excluded from total agricultural sales, direct-to consumer sales accounted for 0.8 percent of agricultural sales in 2007.
• The number of farmers’ markets rose to 5,274 in 2009, up from 2,756 in 1998 and 1,755 in 1994, according to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.
• In 2005, there were 1,144 community-supported agriculture organizations, up from 400 in 2001 and 2 in 1986, according to a study by the National Center for Appropriate Technology. In early 2010, estimates exceeded 1,400, but the number could be much larger.
• The number of farm to school programs, which use local farms as food suppliers for school meals programs and promote relationships between schools and farms, increased to 2,095 in 2009, up from 400 in 2004 and 2 in the 1996-97 school year, according to the National Farm to School Network. Data from the 2005 School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment Survey, sponsored by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, showed that 14 percent of school districts participated in Farm to School programs, and 16 percent reported having guidelines for purchasing locally grown produce.

Feedlot cows produce more methane than pasture cows

As more researchers work to understand where ghg emissions occur in ag practices, we can begin to parse growing practices to determine which have a lower carbon footprint.

Environmental Health Perspectives posted recent research, Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change, that does some of this parsing by combining the results of various related studies.

Here are some emerging facts from that article:

1. "Animal agriculture sector accounts for approximately 9% of total CO2 emissions, which are primarily the result of fertilizer production for feed crops, on-farm energy expenditures, feed transport, animal product processing and transport, and land use changes (Steinfeld et al. 2006)."
2. "Burning fossil fuels to produce fertilizers for feed crops may emit 41 million metric tons of CO2 per year (Steinfeld et al. 2006)."
3. " Farm animals and animal production facilities cover one-third of the planet's land surface, using more than two-thirds of all available agricultural land including the land used to grow feed crops (Haan et al. 1997). "
4. "Typically, cattle confined in feedlots or in intensive confinement dairy operations are fed an unnatural diet of concentrated high-protein feed consisting of corn and soybeans. Although cattle may gain weight rapidly when fed this diet (Pollan 2002), it can cause a range of illnesses (Smith 1998). This diet may also lead to increased methane emissions."
5. And this: "The standard diet fed to beef cattle confined in feedlots contributes to manure with a "high methane producing capacity" (U.S. EPA 1998). In contrast, cattle raised on pasture, eating a more natural, low-energy diet composed of grasses and other forages, produce manure with about half of the potential to generate methane (U.S. EPA 1998)."
   

So feedlot cattle appear to produce twice the methane as pasture due to the diet. I assume this does not include the any methane from fertilizer or feed growing practices.

The first response seems obvious: eat less meat. The counterpoint is that we need protein. We can of course grow more pasture beef, but at current consumption habits we would have to expand land use for cattle quite significantly if we consume meat at current levels. Also, as health efforts (partially) succeed in getting us to reduce our red meat consumption in this country, as economic progress grows in developing nations, particularly China and India, meat consumption increases potentially negating any ghg reduction we have accomplished.

Ugh. So what can we do?

Since the climate is a global issue the pathway forward needs to incorporate global, national, and local concerns:

1. Reduce feedlot cattle consumption everywhere.
2. Increase the production of pasture beef.
   
1. Which also decentralizes manure production and reduces the necessity of using fossil fuels to create fertilizers, and then transport them to buyers.
   
3. Generate large consumer awareness programs in developing nations that as they turn their diets towards more red meat consumption that they request pasture beef.
1. Other research shows that pasture beef has more omega 3 fatty acids than feedlot beef (will get source).
   
4. Encourage trade policies that incentivize the production of low carbon meat.
   

Secondary source (primary sources in brackets, available in article): Koneswaran G and Nierenberg D, Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 116, Number 5, May 2008, www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/11034/abstract.html

Shipping emisssions recalculated

The UK Guardian ran a story last week entitled "True scale of CO2 emissions from shipping revealed: Leaked UN report says pollution three times higher than previously thought". The story is based on a report leaked from the UN to the Guardian that "calculates that annual emissions from the world's merchant fleet have already reached 1.12bn tonnes of CO, or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of the main greenhouse gas." This number, 1.12 bn tons, is almost three times higher than previous estimates of a maximum 400 tons.

The report also mentions these points:

• " CO₂emissions are set to rise by a further 30% by 2020."
• " Other pollutants from shipping are rising even faster than CO₂emissions. Sulphur and soot emissions, which give rise to lung cancers, acid rain and respiratory problems are expected to rise more than 30% over the next 12 years."
• " A recent peer-reviewed study of shipping emissions found world shipping led directly to 60,000 deaths a year."

Does this mean that ocean transport is not the preferred shipping method with regards to carbon footprint? Doubtful, but it may take some pressure off of the concerns around air shipments which the reports.

The best metric is still around volume or weight measurement. How much cargo is shipped that generates 1.12 billion tons of carbon for ships? How much cargo is shipped that generates the 325 million tons of airborn-shipping carbon?

Source: John Vidal, "True scale of CO2 emissions from shipping revealed, The Guardian, Wednesday February 13 2008, viewed online Feb. 20, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution

Economics of Buying Local, Part 1

Buying local has caught on around the country. Good for people, good for communities, good for health, good for farmers, good for ag land preservation, good for air, land, water, climate .... The beat goes on.

But is it good for the economy?

Separating out the economic return of growing local food for local consumption is gaining momentum as more governments and communities measure the economic return of going local.

New Jersey is one state that has measured such efforts. The state supports a Jersey Fresh program with an annual expenditure from state funds. From the 2004 NJ Agriculture Annual Report comes this fact:

Jersey Fresh Economic Impact – Using federal funds, a study was conducted to determine the economic impact of the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program. The study showed that each dollar spent on the Jersey Fresh program increased farm revenues by $31.54. That increase boosted farm-related businesses by an additional $22.95 of sales in agricultural support industries. In total, each dollar spent on Jersey Fresh promotion resulted in $54.49 of increased economic output in the State.

With a current budget for Jersey Fresh being about $800,000, this means an increase in farm revenues of $25.2 million, and a total increase in economic output for the state of $43.6 million.

Pretty good return.

Source: New Jersey Agriculture 2004 Annual Report, Agricultural Statistics, New Jersey Department of Agriculture / National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/04AnnualReport.pdf

Ethanol and E Coli

New reports are emerging around a concern that the increase in ethanol production is fueling an increase in E. coli contamination. The connection is distiller's grain, a byproduct of ethanol production, that is becoming a cheap source of food for cattle.

As reported in the Des Moines Register on Jan 27, 2008: "Studies at two universities suggest that feeding cattle a byproduct of ethanol production known as distillers grains may increase levels of a deadly form of E. coli bacteria.

"Concerned about those findings, U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists have recently put 300 cattle on a diet of distillers grains and are testing them regularly for the bacteria. Results won't be known until later this year."1

The article continues to say that "Researchers at Kansas State University noticed the possible E. coli connection to distillers grains in 2005. A second study found a twofold increase in E. coli levels in cattle fed the product compared with those that ate only corn. Research at the University of Nebraska showed mixed results. Cattle fed a diet comprising 10 percent to 30 percent distillers grains actually had lower rates of E. coli than cattle on a diet of all corn. But cattle fed 40 percent to 50 percent distillers grains showed higher E. coli rates.

"That would suggest that there was something about these distillers grains diets that influenced the ability of these cattle to shed E. coli," said David Smith, one of the scientists who worked on the Nebraska research."2

Richard Raymond, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's undersecretary for food safety, was referenced as saying "the government had no intention of restricting the use of distillers grains even if the E. coli link is confirmed, and would instead leave it to the industry to decide how to address the issue. One possibility, he said, is to vaccinate cattle."3

This is an ironic twist to progressive policy solutions and shows that we are indeed in a new world needing new solutions for new problems. By increasing biofuels we are increasing the economics of 'factory farms'. "Closing the loop", or turning a waste in to a product, has meant that in ethanol production wet grain mash is being reused as a feed supply for cattle, thereby lowering the production costs of cattle and increasing the economic returns of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs, a.k.a factory farms). As well, a wet grain is more energy efficient since you do not use additional energy to dry the grain after ethanol production, which means the net energy balance of corn based ethanol is better with wet distillers grain than dried grain.

As well, recent federal legislation encourages the expansion of ethanol production. This will mean an increase in distiller's grain. Will it mean an increase in E. coli as well?

Makes the stomach turn just thinking about it.

Sources:
1) Philip Brasher, "Scientists study possible link between ethanol byproduct and E. coli", Des Moines Register, January 27, 2008, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080127/NEWS/801270330
2) Ibid.
3) A quote from same article, not exact quote from Raymond.

Food's enviro impact as great as transportation and housing

In May 2006 the European Commission released the results of research in to the Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO). Using life cycle analysis and some input/output methods they concluded that products in three sectors had the greatest environmental impact: food and drink, private transport, and housing. The report did not rank these three but says that " together they are responsible for 70 to 80% of the environmental impact of consumption, and account for some 60% of consumption expenditure." Also from the report:

Food and drink cause 20 to 30% of the various environmental impacts of private consumption, and this increases to more than 50% for eutrophication. This includes the full food production and distribution chain ‘from farm to fork’. Within this consumption area, meat and meat products are the most important, followed by dairy products. Food and drink were covered by only some of the studies so the results for that area should be treated with more caution. However, the general conclusions can be taken with a reasonably high level of confidence.

The report continues to say that passenger transport has a total impact range of 15-35%, and housing (including furnishings and appliances) has a range of 20-35%.

The next step in this work is to study the environmental improvements of products (IMPRO). how to lessen the impact of meat and dairy is to be researched with initial results due late in 2007.

Source: "Environmental Impact of Products - Analysis of the life cycle environmental impact related to the final consumption of the EU-25", European Commission Joint Research Centre, May 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/eipro_report.pdf

Potential GHG reduction for regionally-directed food purchasing

A team of University of Washington students and professor(s) recently released a comprehensive report on the local food system entitled the "Seattle Food System Enhancement Project". Within this work is their Greenhouse Gas Report that compares the ghg emissions of a local plate of food to a comparable global plate. The team used a life cycle assessment approach using the ISO 14040 definition. Their methods are an attempt to create "A benchmark for examining the greenhouse gas impact of cultivating and transporting specific items of food into the city of Seattle."

The foods compared, and their ghg emissions:

• Regional plate
• WA apple, asparagus, potato; Alaska wild salmon
  
• GHG emissions = 2,102 grams CO2e
  

• Global plate
• New Zealand apple, Peruvian asparagus, Idaho potato, Norway farmed salmon
• GHG emissions = 3,083 grams CO2e
  

Net savings for local plate: 981 grams CO2e

I decided to start playing with this number and try to calculate potential ghg reductions if this was applied to a segment of the whole state population for part of the year.

There are about 6.4 million people in WA state. The major assumptions for my calculations are that 20% of the population would eat a comparable plate of lower carbon food for half the year (182 days). These assumptions are further tied to carbon savings that are comparable with this plate of food. Why such variables? Well, the research is just not there to elaborate on this pressing issue. We absolutely have to do more of these calculations to understand where ghg reductions can occur, but in the meantime I am going to work with such estimates. I also understand that people are not going to eat this same meal for half the year, but I will assume that 20% of the people could eat a plate of food, or total food for the day, that has a comparable ghg savings.

From these parameters comes the notion that if 20% of WA state residents ate a similar plate of lower carbon food for half the year we could reduce our food carbon footprint by 228,534 Metric Tons CO2e per year (.23 MMT CO2e/yr).

Here is a screenshot of my spreadsheet (click for larger image):

These types of savings are no small potatoes. I am a member of the Agriculture Technical Working Group for WA State's Climate Advisory Team. A medium reduction goal is 0.1 to 1.0 MMTCO2e per year by 2020.

Items for further research:

1. What are the ghg reductions for other regional products?
2. What are the economic impacts of such a change in purchasing?
1. Local multiplier work shows a strong positive gain.
2. Impacts on this trade-dependent state less clear.

Source: " Seattle Food System Enhancement Project", Program on the Environment Certificate in Environmental Management Keystone Project, 2006-2007, p.79, http://courses.washington.edu/emksp06/SeattleFoodSystem/Index.shtml

Carbon footprint: vegan diet vs. Chevy Suburban

The paper Diet, Energy and Global Warming compares the carbon footprint of plant and animal-based first to each other, and then to the carbon footprint of a Toyota Prius and Camry Solara, and Chevy Suburban. From the paper:

Narrative description
" The greenhouse gas emissions of various diets varies by as much as the difference between owning an average sedan versus a Sport Utility Vehicle under typical driving conditions."

Scientific description
" While for personal transportation the average American uses 1.7 × 107 – 6.8 × 107 BTU yr−1 , for food the average American uses roughly 4 × 107 BTU yr−1 . Thus there exists an order of magnitude parity in fossil energy consumption between dietary and personal transportation choices." The key number here is the 1.7 and 4 comparison since the exponent is the same.

Source: Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, Diet, Energy and Global Warming, Earth Interactions, May 2005, http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutri3.pdf