Population | Center for a Livable Future

100 years of artificial nitrogen – but how many left?

I recently was asked in an interview to name the one thing I would change in the world if I had the power to do so. Surprising even myself, I replied quickly “the Haber-Bosch (H-B) process for industrial nitrogen fixation. Imagine – a world without synthetic N! One can imagine the blank look I got when I pulled that one out of the blue.

My response came from a professional lifetime studying the good and bad of fertilizers, especially nitrogen. And it comes from much reading of the literature on food production and the ills of our advanced society. So, bear with me as I look into a reverse crystal ball for what-if, realizing all the while that there is no way of going back, but examining whether the reverse crystal ball could help us move forward.

Carl Bosch

Much of my background material comes from Vaclav Smil’s book, Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch and The Transformation of World Food Production (2001), sprinkled in with Smil’s Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century (2000) and L.T. Evans’s Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth (1998). There are many other books and papers I could cite, but most are repeating much of the same material.

So, what is the H-B process anyway, and how did it come about? A bit of history:

The world, especially Europe and China, had gained population in bursts, but around 1500 farming moved from subsistence to commercial. Farmers owned their land and developed cropping rotations centered on increasing carrying capacity for animals with fertility supplied through manures and nitrogen coming from clover. Soon, high-yielding cereals were introduced and population headed toward the first billion. Read More >

Increasing global food security: The next gold rush?

What do Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Coca-Cola, DuPont, Monsanto, Kraft Foods, and Wal-Mart have in common?

Some of the most financially successful companies in the world? Absolutely. Exploiters of workers and the environment? Some say so. The newest solution to global food insecurity and natural resource conservation? Apparently so.

These seven global companies, along with ten others spanning the agricultural value chain (including BASF, Bunge Limited, General Mills, Metro AG, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, and Yara International) are at the center of a new strategy presented at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland on January 28^th. Announced by Rajiv Shah, Director of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the strategy is called “Realizing a New Vision for Agriculture: A roadmap for stakeholders” and aims to increase food production in an environmentally sustainable way while spurring economic growth. Each decade, the initiative aims to: (1) increase agricultural production by 20% to eliminate hunger and undernourishment; (2) reduce greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of production by 20%; and (3) decrease rural poverty by 20%.

Why is a “new vision for agriculture” needed? First and foremost, even in our world of plenty, nearly a billion people remain undernourished, 98% of who live in developing countries. The world’s population continues to grow at a rate of about 200,000 people per day, putting greater pressure on food production systems. At the same time, the intensity of food consumption is growing in emerging markets such as China; as people’s incomes rise, so does their demand for meat and dairy products, foods which are much more land and energy-intensive to produce. Another challenge arises as urban populations grow. We passed the point at which just as many people live in urban areas as do rural areas in 2007. This trend of urbanization will likely continue, requiring additional resources for packaging, shipping, storing, and distributing food to urban populations.

More food is needed, but it must be produced in environmentally sustainable ways if we expect the earth to continue to support us. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment revealed the horrifying extent to which humans have degraded the natural environment through our efforts to secure food, water and fuel (most of this damage has occurred over the past 50 years). One of the most alarming repercussions of human activity on the environment is global climate change, which will have dire consequences for health – including food security – in the coming years. Agriculture both contributes to and is threatened by environmental degradation and climate change. Additionally, the current agricultural system is heavily reliant on oil, and considering that oil is believed to have reached global peak production, the food system must undergo a massive transition if it is to function in a world of energy scarcity. Read More >

Again Ethanol and Food are in Conflict

Once again the conflict between the use of corn for ethanol production and the amount of corn available for consumption by swine, beef, dairy and poultry has come into conflict.

Corn prices have increased an astounding 85% in 6 months.

There simply is not enough corn to go around, and thus the price of corn increases. When corn prices rise, prices of other grains also rise. Wheat, rice, even barley rise.And surprise, surprise, the price of processed food rises. Why is this?

First, one has to look into the dark world of agricultural economics. Corn, in many ways similar to oil, is a world-wide commodity. Many countries produce corn (for example, China grows more corn than the United States, but has a lot more people to feed). But only a few countries have enough left over to sell on the world markets. Argentina along with the United States are the main exporting countries. And when the corn crop declines in other consuming countries such as China or Mexico, they buy more corn on the open market. And as these countries move “up the food chain” to consume more red meat, pork, dairy and poultry, they need more corn. So they buy corn from those few countries that have some to spare. But with several countries bidding for corn and a limited supply, the price goes up. It is an “inelastic” situation. If corn is not available, wheat will do nicely, so will sorghum, etc. So these grains become more valuable. And “wala” food prices rise. Most affected are foods that rely on corn, such as pork, beef, chickens and eggs. But bread soon follows. and this brings food riots. Even the recent uprising in Egypt is being blamed in part on rapidly increasing food prices (I feel this is a stretch,but do not claim to be well-informed in such matters). Even the price of tamales goes up in Mexico. Sure they use white corn, but white corn is also good pig feed so it is bidding against our yellow corn.

Ethanol plays a central role in this fray. Processing a bushel of corn gives about 2.8 gallons of ethanol (less if one converts the energy in ethanol to a gallon of gasoline). The government in its wisdom has mandated that we must use about 12 billion gallons of ethanol by next year. That translates to a lot of corn, about 25% of all the corn grown in the United States. In Iowa, by far the largest ethanol producing state in the nation, about half the corn goes to ethanol. So when supply goes down while demand goes up, the market “bids” for corn. They buy corn from other uses by paying a higher price, and the higher price encourages farmers to plant more corn next year. More grassland and highly erodible land go into cultivation. This increases erosion and water pollution, and turns the countryside even more into a row crop desert.

It seems pretty clear that changing climate is impacting the discussion. This past year, corn production dropped in the United States by about 9%, a huge decline. Bad weather in other parts of the world have cut down on grain production as well. In the meantime, demand for meats and for foods made from corn continues to increase.

The struggle between the farm state politicians who push for ethanol from corn (and they must or they are summarily dismissed by the farm block supporters such as Farm Bureau and National Corn Growers) and the rest of the country who are being pressured by food wholesale and retail interests, as well as by swine and poultry growers). It is all part of the farm bill, no matter how altruistic the discussion may be.

I have said for years that ethanol policy was really corn policy. Its objective was to assure a demand for corn and a stable high price. Well it worked. Now we have the unintended consequences. At least for the next few months higher prices for many food staples will increase. And to hear some say it, corn based ethanol is to blame. I tend to agree, but as you can see, it is not simple. But then nothing in the convoluted world of farm policy is.

On Tuesday, the US Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) released a draft report that, given their usual alignment with agricultural interests, is surprisingly straightforward in its assessment of the inadequacy of conservation practices in place on farms in the Chesapeake Bay region. The report titled “Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Region” is the second in a series from the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), initiated by the USDA in 2003.

Through the CEAP, USDA aims to (1) take stock of conservation practices currently used in watersheds and the effects they have on water quality, (2) estimate the need for additional conservation practices, and (3) calculate the potential outcomes if additional conservation practices were put into place. To generate data for the report, the USDA employed various methods including a farmer survey to assess current usage of conservation practices; a statistical survey of conditions and trends in soil, water and other natural resources; and three environment and watershed models. Read More >

Agricultural Biotech and Chemical Industry Put on Greenwash Show at Iowa State University During World Food Prize Week

In mid-October of every year, Iowa State and Central Iowa sees its fair share (or more) of dignitaries, current and former agricultural lobby folks, Farm Bureau top brass and even usually a cabinet officer or two. This is not the presidential primary, but the World Food Prize week. This year, over 1,000 policymakers, researchers and other experts will be involved in the programs, including the keynoter, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, now chair of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. A number of lectures and side events occur during this time. The award ceremony is modeled after the Nobel Prize ceremonies.

The award winners this year are perhaps the most deserving ever. The WFP laureates for 2010 are David Beckman, who is head of the Christian-based Bread for the World, and Jo Luck, CEO of Heifer International. Both organizations have worked with small farmers in alleviating hunger and building incomes. A full description of Beckman’s and Luck’s activities are at the WFP webpage. Their lectures at the Borlaug dialogue were superb.

The World Food Prize has become a going concern. It was started about the time I came to Iowa State as director of the Leopold Center and over time grew from a luncheon in the Marriott Hotel in Des Moines to its present configuration and as the place to be seen if you are in agriculture. Norman Borlaug, the 1970 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, originated the prize and soon it was embraced by Iowa industrial leaders. It has been a good business model.

But beneath the gloss lurks the soul of industrial agriculture. After the glitter has settled one wonders if this is a classic greenwash for the biotechnology and pesticide industries, their associated lobbyists, and the ever-omnipotent Farm Bureau. Indeed, no better setting could be found than mid-Iowa and Iowa State University, the heart of industrial agriculture.

A prime example is the side-event I attended was the Biodiversity World Tour, October 12, on the Iowa State University campus “to bring together farmers around the world to discuss what they are doing on a daily basis to preserve our planet and how they see these practices improving in the future.” It featured U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, and a five-member panel including an vegetable farmer from India (who recently published in The Wall Street Journal on why India needs to participate in the “Gene Revolution”), a corn-soy farmer from Brazil, a corn-soybean farmer (and member of the National Corn Growers and the Iowa Corn Growers Board) from Iowa, a professor of entomology at the Seed Science Center at ISU, and a staff person for the International Food Policy Research Institute. Read More >

Baltimore City Data Day Aims to Empower Baltimore Communities through Democratization of Data

As I intend to dedicate the better part of my career to research, I am often confronted with the fear that even the highest quality data can end up out in the ether of peer-reviewed publications that never make their intended splash, seen by a limited few and impacting even fewer. Last Friday I attended Baltimore City Data Day, held at the University of Baltimore, which was the product of the work of AmeriCorps Vista volunteers, in collaboration with the Baltimore City Department of Planning and Health and the Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance – Jacob France Institute (BNIA-JFI). The goal of the free-to-register conference was to inform community organizations and residents about how to access different neighborhood-based data in order to “help communities expand their capacity to use technology and data to advance their goals.” The idea of allowing data that is collected at all tiers to be used for bottom-up action and advocacy sits well with me. Filtering data back to the communities that they are collected from, in order to strengthen the communities’ own agendas, begins to quell my fears about an academic research career and the uneasiness I feel about the town-gown tension that has historically plagued Johns Hopkins University.

The conference crowd was a mix of community organization representatives, interested citizens and data collectors and researchers. All in attendance received a binder of references for data resources, organized by neighborhood resources, economic development, crime and public safety, public health, housing, environment and 2000 Census information. In addition, there was a grants section with lists of diverse grants available for community organizations and residents to apply to and tips on writing strong grant applications. In this post, I will summarize some of the key resources I encountered throughout the day. For more information on the conference, the agenda, and some of the final presentations, click here.

The morning started with a poster session, followed by a panel discussion on Perspectives on Exploring Your Community Through Data. Kathryn Pettit, Co-Director of the National Neighborhoods Indicators Partnership (NNIP) and Senior Associate at the Urban Institute, highlighted the need to spend resources wisely and to look at communities as a whole, to avoid the warring between silos that may fight for different causes, but share the goal of improving their community. NNIP is a collaboration between the Urban Institute and 34 local partners nationwide that focuses on direct data use by stakeholders to advance the state of practice, build and strengthen local capacity and influence local and national policy. In 2004, they were instrumental in repealing a Rhode Island ban that stopped felons convicted of selling drugs and the felons’ families from ever receiving benefits from the Family Independence Program or Food Stamps. They did so by using data on how many children of felons were being adversely affected by the ban. Read More >

Biological Food in the Netherlands – Big Presence, but Ambiguous Labels, Cost and Disparities Still Issues

When I first arrived in Amsterdam, I was thrilled to see that there was a good-sized and well-stocked organic market on the corner of the street I was staying on. I immediately saw that the awareness of and demand for biological (organic) foods was widespread. I saw organic markets littering many neighborhoods in Amsterdam, along with biological options for almost any kind of food offered in regular supermarkets. In many of the restaurants and cafes I visited, there was often an asterix next to the meat on the menu, with “biologische” in the footnote. The only chain fast-food restaurants I saw were in the busiest most tourist-ridden part of the city. However, my initial enthusiasm was a bit blunted by my eventual discovery that the Netherlands seems plagued by some of the same food systems issues as the United States.

German biological lemonade popular in the Netherlands

After Amsterdam, I moved on to visit a friend for a week in University town about 30 minutes away by train, Ütrecht. Ütrecht was also littered with biological markets and even clothing stores. I saw the same presence of biological foods in menus, supermarkets, cheese shops and butcher shops. I began to believe I needed to move there.

I went into a couple of cafes that did not advertise themselves as organic, but in fact, had all biological items on the menus. At one such café, the waiter told me that you have to be careful when considering businesses’ and products’ claims of being organic. It is his impression that there is very little enforcement of biological guidelines in the Netherlands for meat production and produce farming, so it is wise to be wary about what you are being sold. The owners of this café had decided to provide food produced in ways they believed in (organically). They know their meat sources and butchers and have visited them multiple times. But because of the lack of credibility in organic advertising, they operate their business without it. Read More >

Green Lecture Series at National Building Museums Puts Planners and Architects on the Right Track

I recently attended the lecture series at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. The topic of the talk was urban agriculture. What I found most interesting was that the lecture series was targeted at architects, planners and builders; even though the topic seemed to be directed at the sustainable food movement. I think this is a really important development because urban planners, builders, architects need to be aware and skilled in urban agriculture as they design our cities for the next century. The monthly lecture series is called “For the Greener Good.” Future lectures include “sustainable schools” and “greening the supply chain.”

The four people on the panel of this discussion were Josh Viertel, President of Slow Food USA, Liz Falk, co-founder of Common Good City Farm in D.C., and Steve Cohen, food policy and programs from Portland Oregon’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. The discussion followed the expected path of most discussions that I’ve heard in the past about the development of community gardens, urban farms, CSA’s, and Farmer’s Markets etc, and the growth of backyard and front yard gardens. Seven million families installed new home gardens last year, which to me signifies a very tangible trend reminiscent of the “victory garden” movement during World War II. During that period, only 60-odd years ago, over 1/3 of all produce grown in the United States was grown in home gardens. Read More >

Atlantic gets it wrong! School Gardens cultivate minds not failure

As a disclaimer, I used to be a high school teacher in Richmond, Calif in the exact urban schools of which Caitlin Flanagan writes about.

This post is in response to the recently published article in the Atlantic magazine by Caitlin Flanagan titled, “Cultivating Failure.”

Ms. Flanagan makes the argument that the school garden movement building in California and nationwide is somehow stripping students of valuable time to become “educated,” dooming urban students to a life of poverty and “cultivating failure” as her title expresses. She begins with the idea that immigrant students from Mexico, who come to the United States in search of an education are being pushed back into the fields of manual labor through their middle school garden. I wish I could just claim how ridiculous this viewpoint is and be done with it, but I take her feelings seriously and feel the need to correct the record.

In her article, she makes the claim that she traveled to deeply urban areas near Compton, Calif., and found a bountiful harvest of cheap, healthy produce in the local Ralphs and other supermarkets backing up her claim that there is no need for school gardens that provide “access” to healthy food because it is everywhere. There are some serious flaws with this argument. First off, a recent study released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture tells us that 14.6 percent of American households, approximately 17 million households are “food insecure” meaning that they can’t afford a healthful diet or lack dependable access. Many communities like West Oakland, Calif., Baltimore and Richmond, Calif., lack supermarket chains within a reasonable distance. Her contention thus smacks of a very dangerous fallacy of composition. A second problem I have with Ms. Flanagan’s assessment is that even if there was incredible access of all of our urban and rural residents to great healthy produce, which there is not, it not would diminish the importance and need for school gardens and even more intensive food production-focused endeavors like The Food Project in Boston, Urban Roots in Austin, Urban Tilth in Richmond, Calif., and Alice Waters’ edible schoolyard. With staggering obesity rates in the United States, our children have not just lost access, they have lost their connection to food. Gardening is less about manual labor than it is about re-connecting to your body, to food and to health. Read More >

Is the UK Abandoning the Precautionary Principle on Genetically Modified (GM) Crops?

The latest posting by FoodforeThought summarizes recent debate in the United Kingdom about the role of genetically modified (GM) crops in planning for future food security. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) report, Food 2030 was released at the Oxford Farming Conference. The comments below by William Surman captured the mood of sustainable agriculture supporters, a group critical of industrial agriculture in the U.K. who held a concurrent meeting called the Oxford Real Farming Conference:

“The government is ‘dangerously deluded’ if it believes genetically modified crops will solve the world’s food security issues,” members of the breakaway Oxford Real Farming Conference warned. Professor John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientist, told the Prime Minister on Wednesday, January 8, that genetic technology would help deliver ‘a new and greener food revolution’ for Britain.

But Colin Tudge, a science writer and organiser of the rival farm conference, which took place alongside the Oxford Farming Conference, said farmers did not need ‘novel and untried’ technology. Instead he said the Government must ‘free farmers from the shackles of economic dogma’. Read More >

Twitter