Chicken and fertilizers

Dolly Partons sings:

We've got chicken every Sunday and the preacher comes around
And every Saturday morning daddy takes us all to town

Today "Sunday Chicken" is no institution. Chicken is everywhere and in all shapes. And it is dead cheap. 

We eat chicken because of chemical fertilizers. Let me explain how & why. And why it might not be such a bargain in the end...


Historically livestock was fed on grass, silage and hay, all crops that can’t be eaten by humans. Small quantities of pigs and chicken, who largely eat the same as humans and don’t grow well on grass could be raised on waste products or seek their own feed in the farmer’s yard or manure heap – a very popular place for chicken. Historically this meant that pork and chicken were expensive. The tradition of “Sunday chicken” is an expression of this. Expensive and rare foods were eaten on the Sunday. 

With the introduction of chemical fertilizers, farmers could specialize in grain production and the proportion of land in grain as well as the yields increased a lot. This in turn allowed for even more mechanization, so that grain production use very little labor. The essence of this is that grain now has become very, very cheap in a historical perspective. And it is in light of this we should see that chicken consumption has increased five times in hundred years in the USA and ten times in Sweden, while beef consumption is more or less stable[i].

Nitrogen fertilizers give a tremendous boost to growth. According to the European Nitrogen Assessment[iii], synthetic N fertilizer has been estimated to sustain nearly 50% of the world’s population, but its use comes with a very big prize tag. The report states that the increased level of reactive Nitrogen in the biosphere might represent the greatest single experiment in global geoengineering ever made. 

In one of the most influential scientific articles last decade, ‘Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity, professor Johan Rockström and colleagues identify the nitrogen cycle as one of three areas - together with climate regulation and biological diversity - where human beings have surpassed a threshold for stable development. The quantity of biologically active nitrogen released annually into the biosphere has increased ninefold in 100 years, and it is projected to continue from 165 million tons in 2000 to 270 million tons in 2050 (MEA 2005). 

From the perspective of the individual farmer the use of Nitrogen fertilizer is profitable. The return of one euro invested in nitrogen fertilizer is estimated to between two and five euro. But someone else pays a bigger bill. Without knowing it, if you are a European, you might bear costs of over €500 per year for farmers’ use of Nitrogen fertilizers. “Environmental damage related to Nitrogen effects from agriculture in the EU-27 was estimated at €20–€150 billion per year. This can be compared with a benefit of N-fertilizer for farmers of €10–€100 billion per year, with considerable uncertainty about long-term N-benefits for crop yield”  says the European Nitrogen Assessment.

Overuse of nitrogen fertilizer is no European specialty; it is the same or worse in many places. In the US the Mississippi, the Columbia, and the Susquehanna rivers together discharge approximately 1 million tons of nitrogen in the form of nitrate per year to coastal waters according to a report from H. John Heinz III Center – this corresponds to about one tenth of the total quantity of nitrogen applied[iv]. In Rwanda, erosion causes loss of almost 1 million tons of organic matter, some 40,000 tons of nitrogen, 280 tons of phosphorus and 3000 tons of potassium—more than the total use of chemical fertilizers according to the Ministry of Agriculture. 

---

[i] http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/15/science/15food_graphic.html?scp=1&sq=meat%20consumption&st=cse

[ii] http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/crops_04.html

[iii] European Nitrogen Assessment

[iv] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx#26720

The greatest single experiment in global geoengineering

Without knowing it, if you are a European, you might bear costs of over €500 per year for farmers’ use of Nitrogen fertilizers. According to the European Nitrogen Assessment, synthetic N fertilizer has been estimated to sustain nearly 50% of the world’s population, but its use comes with a very big prize tag. The report states that the increased level of reactive Nitrogen in the biosphere might represent the greatest single experiment in global geoengineering ever made. Similar concerns were already expressed by the Millenium Ecosystems Assessment and later echoed by the by now famous article about Planetary Boundaries.

And while this Nitrogen drives yields, a lot of the nitrogen ends up where it isn’t supposed to.The nitrogen recovery (kg N taken up by a crop per kg applied N) for cereals varies between 30% and 0% across Europe, indicating that 40%–70% of the fertilizer N applied is lost to the atmosphere or the hydrosphere.

From the perspective of the individual farmer the use of Nitrogen fertilizer is profitable. The return of one euro invested in nitrogen fertilizer is estimated to between two and five euro. But someone else pays a bigger bill. “Environmental damage related to Nitrogen effects from agriculture in the EU-27 was estimated at €20–€150 billion per year. This can be compared with a benefit of N-fertilizer for farmers of €10–€100 billion per year, with considerable uncertainty about long-term N-benefits for crop yield”  says the report.

This is no European speciality, it is likely the same or worse in many places. In the US the Mississippi, the Columbia, and the Susquehanna rivers together discharge approximately 1 million tons of nitrogen in the form of nitrate per year to coastal waters according to a report from H. John Heinz III Center. In Rwanda, erosion causes loss of almost 1 million tons of organic matter, some 40,000 tons of nitrogen, 280 tons of phosphorus and 3000 tons of potassium—more than the total use of chemical fertilizers according to the Ministry of Agriculture.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development assesses that the fertilizer uptake efficiency is less than 30 percent for rice production in South and South East Asia. Globally the nitrogen efficiency in grain production has deteriorated drastically and rapidly. Around 1960, each ton of chemical fertilizer resulted in an increase of grain yield of 75 ton, while in the end of 1990 resulted in just 25 ton, a glaring example of decreasing marginal utility, as nitrogen fertilizer use increased tremendously in the same period.

What comes in - will go out....

In the end there is nothing really surprising in the report. It has always been clear that not only 40%-70% of the nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere or the hydrosphere. It is rather 100% that is lost, as also what is captured in the grain or the grass, ultimately also will leak away, as long as nitrogen is not accumulating in soils. But it isn’t doing that, on the contrary.

Read more:

Overloaded with Nitrogen and approaching peak phosphorus
Scarcity starts to bite
Nitrogen in the biosphere - a cliffhanger
Nitrogen fertilizers destroy soil organic carbon
Plows into Swords and Swords into Plows

Scarcity starts to bite

Norway has a shortage of butter, newsmedia report. Do we see the end of cornucopia? Will scarcity become part of everyday life in the future? 

"A radical change in food consumption and production in Europe is unavoidable to meet the challenges of scarcities and to make the European agro-food system more resilient in times of increasing instability and surprise. "

Is one of many conclusions of a recent report commissioned and endorsed by the European Union’s Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR), an advisory committee comprised of representatives of all 27 EU member states plus 10 additional European countries, which is headed by the European Commission

Main messages of the report are:

1. The increasing scarcity of natural resources and destabilization of environmental systems represents a real threat not only to future food supplies, but also to global stability and prosperity, as it can aggravate poverty, disturb international trade, finance and investment, and destabilise governments. Price volatility, access restrictions and the interconnectedness of global commodity markets, as well as the increasing vulnerability of food production systems to climate change and loss of agrobiodiversity, will make food even more inaccessible for the poor in the future.

2. Many of today´s food production systems compromise the capacity of Earth to produce food in the future. Globally, and in many regions including Europe, food production is exceeding environmental limits or is close to doing so. Nitrogen synthesis exceeds the planetary boundary by factor of four and phosphorus use has reached the planetary boundary. Land use change and land degradation, and the dependence on fossil energy contribute about one- fourth of Greenhouse Gas emissions. Agriculture, including fisheries, is the single largest driver of biodiversity loss. Regionally, water extracted by irrigation exceeds the replenishment of the resource.

3. Drastic change is needed in regard to both food demand and supply. In an era of scarcity, the imperative is to address production and consumption jointly in order to introduce the necessary feedbacks among them and to decouple food production from resource use. Efficiency and resilience are the new priorities over production levels. This transition cannot be met by following the common narrative of increasing productivity. The narrative of “sufficiency” opens opportunities for transition into sustainable and equitable food systems by a systemic approach that deals with the complex interactions of the challenges founded on a better understanding of socio-ecological systems.

4. The average Western diet with high intakes of meat, fat and sugar is a risk for individual health, social systems and the environmental life support systems. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and cancer are wide-spread diet-related diseases. The promotion of a healthy diet also reduces the environmental footprint of food consumption in Europe and globally.

5. Coherence between food, energy, environmental and health policies and across all levels of governance are prerequisites for a timely transition to sustainable and equitable food systems. A new quality of governance is needed at local, national and global level, with a substantial contribution by the State and civil society. Research should strongly support this improvement, and the role of social sciences may be crucial.

6. Diversity and coordination are key for increased efficiency and resilience of the future agro-food systems. It is a fact and a strength that food consumption and production systems are diverse. This diversity has to be maintained, or diversification be fostered, between different regions and farming systems. Diversity in research directions will keep all options open for reacting to surprises.

7. Research, innovation and agricultural knowledge systems must be fundamentally reorganized. To speed up transitions, tightly and actively integrate 1) multiple disciplines from ecology, economy, agronomy, social science, 2) research, innovation and 131 communication, 3) farmers, food retail, technology, industry and agricultural research, and organise research and innovation as learning processes.

8. Make Europe the world leader in efficiency and resilience research of food consumption and production. Ensure a strong role of public research, in particular to guarantee a better understanding of the underlying processes of ecosystem services and the interactions among the scarcities. The continuation of cooperative thematic research in environmental topics and food production and consumption is as critical as the maintenance and further development of European research infrastructures in these areas.

9. Sufficiency-oriented research, innovation and communication must become the priority. Explore new opportunities and ecological approaches to boost research and innovation on efficiency in resource use in agricultural production, including new farming systems that balance the three dimensions of sustainability, and food processing, including cascading uses and waste reduction. Address consumer behaviour and supply chain strategies (including information and communication) in favour of healthy sustainable diets that save food and feed resources and can help curb the increase in global food demand.

10. A radical change in food consumption and production in Europe is unavoidable to meet the challenges of scarcities and to make the European agro-food system more resilient in times of increasing instability and surprise. Europe has already taken up the climate change challenge in industry and is intending to make new energy technologies a win-win-win strategy for market, labour and human welfare. Now the agro-food sector has an opportunity to positively take the challenge and be the first to win the world market for how to sustainably produce healthy food in a world of scarcities and uncertainty.

The report point outs the far-reaching effect of energy scarcity on food production: 

Oil scarcity may affect the food system in two ways: (1) shocks, that are a sudden deviation from normality; and (2) stresses, which are a continuous trend of intensification of the problem. Shocks would strike most where the system is most oil dependent: for example, the British system is very efficient, but heavily dependent on long distance sourcing, and a crisis in the energy sector may put food access of the Britons in danger. In countries with less efficient power distribution, the damage and chaos resulting from a black out could be much worse. Stresses could manifest themselves in a trend of rising prices, and if unattended, could bring to forms of adaptation which might be far from
efficient. Among the possible effects of stresses on agriculture related to oil prices there could be:
· Increase of costs of production, bringing a reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use, especially by resource poor farmers, and therefore a reduction of yields and / or impoverishment of soils (Jaggard et al., 2009).
· Increasing profitability of energy production from agriculture, that would generate problems for land use competition and consequently to further rise in food prices
· Reduction of consumption and changing dietary patterns, that may lead to an increase in
malnutrition.

I would add the affect of reduced global competition which would follow as a result of increased energy prices. This reduced competition pressure would increase food prices for the benefit of farmers and local production.These kinds of effects are the ones that really will shape the world when energy is getting more and more costly. And the effects are not necessarily bad. All in all, increasing energy prices are likely to be a blow to the industrial agriculture model, but not necessarily bad as it will make better methods, such as organic more competitive. The changing dietary pattern following energy scarcity is also more likely positive rather than negative.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The report is written by: Annette Freibauer (chair), Erik Mathijs (rapporteur), Gianluca Brunori, Zoya Damianova, Elie Faroult, Joan Girona i Gomis, Lance O´Brien, Sébastien Treyer 

Overloaded with Nitrogen and approaching peak phosphorus

We have loaded the farming systems with more and more nitrogen and phosphorus. Initially, the soil could take care of it, but now it leaks into the water and the air everywhere. Eutrophication[1] is a substantial problem in all countries where modern, industrial farming, is practised. Use of nitrogen fertilizers increased from 11 million tons 1960 to 85 million tons 2003 (MEA 2005), see figure. At the same time farming lost 95 million tons 1990, i.e. most nitrogen is simply wasted through denitrification, leaking, erosion and volatilization of ammonia. In Rwanda, erosion causes loss of almost 1 million tons of organic matter, some 40,000 tons of nitrogen, 280 tons of phosphorus and 3,000 tons of potassium - more than the total use of chemical fertilisers (Minagri 2009). Through denitrification, nitrogen is lost as nitrogen gas (which in essence is harmless) but some 5-7% is emitted as nitrous gas, which is a potent green house gas. Nitrogen losses will continue, and increase at the same rate as the use of nitrogen fertilizers (Ayres 1998). In the USA, half of the fertilizer used is used to compensate the nutrient losses caused by erosion (Montgomery 2007). These losses are not only representing an economic and agronomic problem but in an even higher extent an environmental problem. The Mississippi, the Columbia, and the Susquehanna rivers together discharge approximately 1 million tons of nitrogen in the form of nitrate per year to coastal waters (H. John Heinz III Center 2008). The production of Nitrogen fertilizers is very energy consuming and in addition, it incurs great emissions of laughing gas, one of the greenhouse gases. Mono-cropping of grain which is rather closely associated to the use of synthetic fertilizers[2] leads to a reduction of carbon in soils and thereby increase the green house gases.

In the high income countries, a lot more nitrogen is used than what is taken out from farming in the form of products. Countries like South Korea and the Netherlands, with very intensive farming systems, used, in the end of the 1990s, more than 250 kg of nitrogen per hectare more than they took out, and these figures are not even including all nitrogen sources (OECD 2001). The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development[3] (IAASTD 2009) assess that the fertilizer uptake efficiency is less than 30 percent for rice production in South and South East Asia. Globally the nitrogen efficiency in grain production has deteriorated drastically and rapidly. Around 1960, each ton of chemical fertilizer resulted in an increase of grain yield of 75 ton, while in the end of 1990 resulted in just 25 ton, a glaring example of decreasing marginal utility, as nitrogen fertilizer use increased tremendously in the same period.

Over and above the use of chemical fertilizers, there is a substantial supply of nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixation. This is partly done by bacteria living in symbiosis with (mainly) leguminous plants and partly by bacteria and algae which fix nitrogen independently. Biological nitrogen fixation represents one third of the nitrogen brought to farming (Vitousek et al 1997). Even if nitrogen in chemical fertilizers and nitrogen in biological nitrogen fixation are both from the same source, the air, one can’t see them as totally equal sources, especially not regarding their effects in the soil. In theory, there could be substantial nitrogen leakage caused by biological nitrogen fixation; in practice, it is difficult to substantiate that. One reason is that the process, as most natural processes, to a large extent is self-regulating; if there is a lot of free nitrogen in the soil, nitrogen fixation from the air ceases, as it is easier (it ”costs” less) for the organisms to take it from the soil than from the atmosphere.  

We have mainly looked at nitrogen, but there are similar problems with phosphorus. A main difference is that phosphorus leaks mainly through erosion. Phosphorus is mined and is thus a limited resource and there are indications that we approach “peak phosphorus”, i.e. the point at which less phosphorus can be produced than previously, because of limited supply. A complication with phosphorus fertilizers is that they often contain cadmium, a highly toxic heavy metal of which the load in our food is already alarmingly high. Rich countries can chose the cleaner phosphates, or even clean contaminated ones, while low income countries are left with the contaminated fertilizers. 

(modified extract from Garden Earth)

---

[1]       Over-abundance of nutrients leading to algal blooms etc.

[2]       It is nitrogen fertilizers that have enabled farmer to skip sound crop rotations and go for mono-cropping, so it is not so far-fetched to “blame” nitrogen fertilizers for being a major factor for increase in mono-cropping.

[3]       The IAASTD is an intergovernmental agency with representation of UN agencies, the World Bank and international and regional NGOs. Its main report was published in 2008. www.agassessment.org