The yield per hectare isn't the same as the total amount of energy used per ton produced by the way. More intensive inputs can produce higher yields but at the expense of more embodied energy. The study referenced in this thread is broadening out the 'food miles' debate by looking at *all* energy inputs not just the energy used in transporting the products to market. It is the 'grand total' (cradle to grave/total lifecycle) that is important in terms of the environmental impact of the food consumed, or any other product for that matter (and even better than this would be to do a LCA for all impacts, not just energy). The actual yield per hectare doesn't actually help us directly assess overall environmental impact.
Economist hatchet job on local food activism
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
Exactly.newbie said:
Sorry but I don't buy this at all. I can't think of any examples of computer crashes or power cuts causing starvation. On the other hand I can think of many examples of the fialure of 'local food systems' causing starvation. Feel free to give me some counter-examples.
I don't see this is a rational or reasonable question to ask. In fact I don't even understand what you are going on about. Hand woven what-the-fucks?
At what point did I suggest abrogating responsibility?
My point is that that if we are going to save the planet we need to get stuck into redesigning the mainstream systems and developing an approach that is adapted all round the world, not withdraw into some little bubble where we are satisfied with putting a lot of effort into choosing the contents of our own shopping baskets: just as solving social problems involves general taxation and the creation of public services rather than individual acts of kindness and charity (as good and worthy as these are). It isn't either/or, but out of the two, the collective and political action is far and away the most important and the one that really does stand a chance of making a difference, as opposed to individual 'ethical consumerism'.
The report is here: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story9430.html (number 285)dash said:
Just to take one bit:
NZ production:
Fuel use (litres of diesel per hectare) 436
Electricity Use (kWh per hectare) 1,180
Nitrogen (kg) 80
Phosphorus (kg) 8
Potassium (kg) 60
Lime (kg) 1,042
Herbicide (kg ai) 3.2
Fungicide (kg ai) 15.6
Insecticide - General (kg ai) 2.2
Insecticide – Oil (kg ai) 29.0
Total Production = 950 MJ/tonne apples
UK production:
Fuel, Electricity and Oil (litres of diesel equivalent) 794
Nitrogen (kg) 78
Phosphorus (kg) 11
Potassium (kg) 55
Herbicide (kg ai) 1.46
Fungicide (kg ai) 6.21
Insecticide - General (kg ai) 1.24
Insecticide – Oil (kg ai) 3.51
Plant Growth Regulator (kg ai) 0.17
Total Production = 2,961 MJ/tonne apples
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Not sure what that table is telling me, seriously, or how it gets to the MJ/tonne comparisonTeeJay said:
Is it just me, or are our New Zealand cousins going a bit overboard with the herbicide, fungicide and insecticide?
Maybe this means they don't have to expend as much energy zipping round in their tractors or whatever, but is it really desirable?The "table" (list in fact) is telling you how much of each item is used (per hectare) in NZ and UK apple production. As you can see the amount of each input varies between the two.lighterthief said:Not sure what that table is telling me, seriously, or how it gets to the MJ/tonne comparison
The details about how the researchers converted each input into an 'energy equivalent' is set out in the report that I have linked. You can have a look at it for yourself, there's little point cutting and pasting it here.
I can't say. Maybe, maybe not.Is it just me, or are our New Zealand cousins going a bit overboard with the herbicide, fungicide and insecticide?
However, the point is that "food miles" are an issue because they use up energy and produce CO2 which impacts on climate change - however, these researchers are showing that it is more coherent to look at *all* the energy inputs for a certain food item, not just one energy input alone (ie energy used in transport).
This report looked at *energy*. A comprehensive cradle-to-grave lifecycle assessment of a product measuring total environmental impact (along with social impact) will look at all types of impacts including phosphates, nitrates, pesticides, destruction of habitat, other air, ground and water pollution and in fact any and all negative externalities. That wasn't the aim of this report however, which was to illustrate the shortcomings of the "food miles" idea in comparison to a more comprehensive assessment.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
That is, in all seriousness, a very interesting report.
For example, they have taken into account the energy impact of importing fuel/generating electricity itself. So NZ gets less bang for its buck from oil (as it has to transport it thousands more miles from the middle east, making it less efficient) but on the other hand sources 64% of its electricity from hydroelectric schemes, which have a virtually nil energy cost.
<goes off to read some more>
For example, they have taken into account the energy impact of importing fuel/generating electricity itself. So NZ gets less bang for its buck from oil (as it has to transport it thousands more miles from the middle east, making it less efficient) but on the other hand sources 64% of its electricity from hydroelectric schemes, which have a virtually nil energy cost.
<goes off to read some more>
david dissadent
New Member
I would love to see the cost of greenhouse gasses between meat and veg. As an avowed meat eater I would not be suprised if the cost of eating meat in terms of global warming is massively disproportionate to getting your energy from apples, no matter where they come from.
Having said that rice will not exactly come of smelling of roses either.....
(Im thinking in terms of methane)
Having said that rice will not exactly come of smelling of roses either.....
(Im thinking in terms of methane)
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Feedlot meat, where you feed something that humans could eat, say grain, to animals to fatten them up, is about x10 less energy efficient than feeding that grain to humans, e.g. as flour to make bread. The figures get better if you assume you just pasture the animals, but that uses more land, on the other hand you can pasture them on land that wouldn't grow e.g. grain very well, so there are a number of trade offs to be considered. (Source, Pimentel et al "Food, Energy and Society" 1996 edition)david dissadent said:
This is one place where letting markets control things can cause real problems.
Ideally what you'd want to do, looking at it from a sustainability point of view, is optimise food production to the different environmental conditions, so if you have X amount of land that's best used for e.g. sheep, then (ignoring other land use choices that might be equally valid in terms of sustainability for the sake of a simple argument) that's what you use it for and that's going to give you the upper bound on how many sheep you can raise sustainably.
With markets what happens is that consumers decide they prefer beef to lamb say, and because it's more tender, they also tend to prefer feedlot beef, so that's what agribusiness sets itself up to do, whether it makes sense in sustainability terms or not.
lighterthief said:
But the real irony is that more 'choice' actually means far LESS choice - as the near disappearance of thousands of varities of apples shows. 'Food miles' are an example of what economists [and the Economist] call 'externalities' - but there are other kinds of externalities which are simply not captured by the kind of analysis being sold here.
I'd like apples that actually have some flavour instead of the watery /flour consistency of cold stored imported or domestic ones. I'm becoming more persuaded that the only way I can do that is to grow my own and as you suggest do without when not in season. I refuse absolutely to buy strawberries that are out of season since they do not taste anything like strawberries - nor will I buy other kinds of expensively packaged soft fruit.
As far a tropical fruits are concerned - since I once lived with someone from the Caribbean, I always look for 'island' bananas rather than the those grown on the big estates by the likes of United Fruit or Del Monte. If I knew more about oranges I'd be looking for where and how those are grown as well.
Economists - who needs them . . .
but I very much agree with finding out more about how things are grown and the REAL costs of growing them. I'm fed up for instance of my bacon shrinking to half its size in the pan and all the white gunge that comes out of it - while being reminded that British agriculture is the most efficient in the world, it even says on the packet that they are allowed to sell me 15% by weight of water rather than bacon
Sorry starting to RANT . . .
Gra
PS 'the consumer' is another abstraction invented by economists - when I find this consumer who asked for my bacon to inflated with water, I'm going to beat the shit out of them.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
That's monopoly power in action. I've got some statistics someplace upstairs, but it's late and I'm not going to go dig them out right now. The gist is that most of global agriculture is now owned by about 5 companies, so if they find it more convenient to feed us bacon from a drugged up pig that spends most of its sad life in a cage and whose meat is then pumped up with water, that's what we're going to get. This is the flip side of all of those supply-chain efficiencies.davgraham said:
What you describe are not really externalities as they are costs which are borne by the consumer and factored into the price they are willing to pay for the product.davgraham said:
An externality is: "An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affect somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in PRICES. For instance, smoke pumped out by a factory may impose clean-up costs on nearby residents; bees kept to produce honey may pollinate plants belonging to a nearby farmer, thus boosting his crop. Because these costs and benefits do not form part of the calculations of the people deciding whether to go ahead with the economic activity they are a form of MARKET FAILURE, since the amount of the activity carried out if left to the free market will be an inefficient use of resources. If the externality is beneficial, the market will provide too little; if it is a cost, the market will supply too much." The Economist "Economics A to Z"
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Good thread, interesting discussion.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
newbie said:Stand by the bacon counter and watch. The cheap packs- those with the most water & white gunge- sell much greater quantities than the organic ones. Ask the people why- just say you're from the Campaign for Expensive Food and they'll explain all about being a consumer
Yes, I'm sure they would. But you actually end up with more bacon for your money, as opposed to water and gunge, if you buy the farmers' market bacon rather than the supermarket 'value' stuff. So it's not an objectively better value for money option.
It's stuff like the farmers market only runs once every two weeks and is somewhere inconvenient, that has people who care about value for money buying the gunged up bacon if they're not simply fooled by marketing.
Supermarket 'organic' bacon is of course vastly more expensive, but that's because they know they can apply a huge mark-up, and still passes through the supermarket supply chain, so loses any localisation advantage and acquires petrochemical packaging etc.
The convenience aspect is interesting, because it raises all kinds of questions about social labour. A lot more options become open when you e.g. have one partner who works and another who looks after the home, than when both partners work and you simply have to go for the maximally convenient option wherever possible, because nobody has enough time left after work for the luxury of the probably more sustainable and certainly tastier option.
newbie
undisambiguated
Bernie Gunther said:
I'm hesitant about discussing "objectively better" in the absence of hard evidence, and us non-abstract punters wondering what to have for tea simply don't have that evidence.
Most of the time our interest in bacon is mainly as fuel to enable us to do something more interesting than shop/eat. Also, of course, we're aware of the opportunity costs of the time/cash finding and buying 'better' bacon.
We can, perhaps, skim academic research, but we'll be cynical about the sources of funding and suspicious as the agenda widens to include peripherals like localisation and social labour or value judgements like taste.
We've listened to the Food Programme and we can identify a foodie a mile off.
None of which is to suggest that corporate manipulation into buying lowest common denominator produce is particularly positive. The Campaign for Expensive Food is making headway and that's no bad thing, so long as we have the choice.
Similar threads
