Vasilis Symeou’s work, at Newcastle University, is about minimising the amount of phosphorous (P) excreted from growing and finishing pigs. P is easily leached from soils and excessive amounts can cause water pollution. It is a finite, costly resource which needs to be conserved, to help improve the environmental sustainability of pig production and reduce producers’ costs.

Vasilis said: “I have developed a simulation model to predict more accurately how much P a growing pig requires and match that with the amount of digestible P available from diets based on different feed ingredients. From this, we should be able to advise pig producers on how to maximize P digestibility and therefore reduce the amount of P used.

“A reduction in P use means lower cost to the producer and reduced excretion to the environment.”

Vasilis presented the early concepts of his work at the 2012 Digestive Physiology of Pigs Meeting in Colorado and a paper has since been published in the Journal of Animal Science.

Part of this work will also be presented by his PhD supervisor, Professor Ilias Kyriazakis, at the International Meeting on Modelling Pig and Poultry Nutrition in Brazil later this year.

During the final year of his studies, Vasilis aims to convert his ‘simulation’ model into a ‘population’ one. This will enable him to account for variation in pigs’ P requirements which will help develop strategies for reducing P excretion by groups of pigs of different sizes, genotypes or ages. On completing his studies, Vasilis hopes to pursue a career in the pig industry as a nutritionist.
For more information on the project, click here.

Source: Pig progress

Growth in agricultural production between 1990 and 2010 outpaced growth in emissions by a factor of 1.6, demonstrating increased energy efficiency in the agriculture sector.

The three most common gases emitted in agriculture are nitrous oxide, CO2, and methane. Methane is generally produced when organic materials—such as crops, livestock feed, or manure—decompose anaerobically (without oxygen). Methane accounts for around 50 percent of total agricultural emissions. Enteric fermentation—the digestion of organic materials by livestock—is the largest source of methane emissions and of agricultural emissions overall.

Nitrous oxide is a by-product generated by the microbial breakdown of nitrogen in soils and manures. Nitrous oxide production is particularly high in cases where the nitrogen available in soils exceeds that required by plants to grow, which often occurs when nitrogen-rich synthetic fertilizers are applied. Nitrous oxide is responsible for around 36 percent of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, carbon dioxide is released from soils when organic matter decomposes aerobically (with oxygen). The largest source of CO2 emissions within agriculture is the drainage and cultivation of “organic soils”—soils in wetlands, peatlands, bogs, or fens with high organic material. When these areas are drained for cultivation, organic matter within the soil decomposes at a rapid rate, releasing CO2. This process accounts for around 14 percent of total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Emissions from enteric fermentation rose by 7.6 percent worldwide between 1990 and 2010, but regional variation was high. At 51.4 percent and 28.1 percent, respectively, Africa and Asia saw their emissions increase, while emissions in Europe and Oceania fell by 48.1 percent and 16.1 percent. Europe’s significant reduction in emissions parallels the decline in its beef production between 1990 and 2010, but it may also reflect increased use of grains and oils in cattle feed instead of grasses.

“Adding oils or oilseeds to feed can help with digestion and reduce methane emissions. But a shift from a grass-based to a grain- and oilseeds-based diet often accompanies a shift from pastures to concentrated feedlots, which has a range of negative consequences such as water pollution and high fossil fuel consumption,” said Laura Reynolds, Worldwatch Food and Agriculture Researcher and the study’s author. “Aside from reducing livestock populations overall, there is no other clear pathway to climate-friendly meat production from livestock.”

Manure that is deposited and left on pastures contributes to global nitrous oxide emissions because of its high nitrogen content. When more nitrogen is added to soil than is needed, soil bacteria convert the extra nitrogen into nitrous oxide and emit it into the atmosphere—a process called nitrification. Emissions from manure on pasture were highest in Asia, Africa, and South America, accounting for a combined 81 percent of global emissions from this source.

These data indicate the huge share of global emissions that is attributable to livestock production. While reducing livestock populations is one clear way to reduce global emissions form agriculture, farmers and landowners have numerous other opportunities for mitigation, many of which offer environmental and even economic co-benefits. For instance, growing trees and woody perennials on land can sequester carbon while simultaneously helping to restore soils, reduce water contamination, and provide beneficial wildlife habitat. Reducing soil tillage can rebuild soils while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Some practices can even result in increased income for farmers—“cap-and-trade” programs allow farmers to monetize certain sequestration practices and sell them, while government programs like the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program pay farmers to set aside some of their land for long-term restoration.

Further highlights from the report:

• Enteric fermentation accounted for 29 percent of emissions in both North America and Asia in 2010—the lowest share of all regions—but was the source of 61 percent of South America’s agricultural emissions, reflecting that continent’s world leadership in cattle production.
• Rice cultivation was responsible for 17 percent of Asia’s total emissions in 2010 but no more than 3 percent of emissions in every other region—indicating Asia’s dominance of global rice output.
• Four out of the top five countries with the highest emissions from cultivated organic soils were in Asia: Indonesia contributed 278.7 million tons of carbon dioxide from this source, Papua New Guinea 40.8 million tons, Malaysia 34.5 million tons, and Bangladesh 30.6 million tons— indicating the levels of deforestation and clearing for agricultural land.

PRINT/EMAIL | PURCHASE FULL REPORT HERE
Worldwatch Institute

The three banned insecticides are clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam. A recent assessmentfrom the European Food Safety Authority also found that there were “high acute risks” from the three insecticides.

In the recent EEA report ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings, volume II’, published in January this year, the EEA considered the body of evidence surrounding imidacloprid from scientific studies, beekeepers and industry, concluding that the chemical should be withdrawn from the market given the evidence of harm and scale of the risk. The insecticides may directly affect a wide range of organisms, both on land and in water. In addition, honeybees and other insects perform vital pollination to crops and wild plants.

The recently published Late Lessons chapter on imidacloprid has informed debate within the EU institutions, as it describes how mounting scientific evidence has been systematically suppressed for many years and early warning were ignored. Where such evidence exists, uncertainty should not be an excuse for inaction, the report states.

The ban, while welcomed, is limited in scope and should be seen as only a starting point on the discourse over the use of this class of pesticides. It only applies to three of seven neonicotinoids and only for use with “crops attractive to bees”, so it does not take into account the impacts of neonicotinoids on aquatic invertebrate species, birds or other insectswhich are also major areas of concern. Neither does the ban cover new neonicotinoid insecticide Sulfoxaflor which may come onto the market soon.

“Based on the body of evidence, we can see that it is absolutely correct to take a precautionary approach and ban these chemicals,” EEA Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade said.

“France has banned some of these chemicals on sunflower and maize since 2004, and it seems productivity has not been affected – 2007 was France’s best year for yield of these crops for over a decade. Also, any economic analysis should consider the almost immeasurable value of pollination carried out by honeybees and other wild bees. Indeed, continuing to use these chemicals would risk a vital service that underpins European agriculture,” Prof. McGlade said.

The project aims to reduce the use of blue water on farm by highlighting how beef and sheep farmers can use feed crop choice and management to improve their water use efficiency and showing them how to implement simple water saving measures.

It will also investigate methods for retaining water on farm and reducing run-off, thereby reducing the volume of grey water required. Grey water is a notional provision for the volume needed to dilute pollutants to levels that ensure water of good ecological quality.

“The water footprint of beef and lamb reared in the UK is already much lower than that produced in many other parts of the world, as our rain-fed pasture system takes advantage of naturally-occurring water, much of which goes back into watercourses,” said Kim Matthews, EBLEX head of research and development.

“However, there is still more that can be done to conserve water at a farm level, which has benefits not only in terms of environmental impact, but also offers potential cost-savings to producers and makes farms more resilient to periods of drought.”

The first stage of the project, which involved reviewing current literature, is now complete. The second stage involves establishing a number of case study farms around England in order to look at current water use and practice, with the aim of completing a water audit and identifying practical measures to improve current areas of weakness.

The project is due to be completed at the end of the year and will be followed up with a series of on-farm workshops, demonstrating to beef and sheep producers how they can reduce their ‘water footprint’.

TheCattleSite News Desk

In the May 2012 Water for Food Industry Leaders Panel, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Chief Executive Jeff Raikes declared “agriculture and water are inseparable.” Issues of water stress, therefore, are central to our mission of accelerating agricultural productivity growth.

We scoured the web for the best infographics that illustrate the relationship between water and agriculture. Click on each image to view the full size graphic.

————

Source: http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org

“Through this renewed commitment, USDA and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy will continue research that helps dairy farmers improve the sustainability of their operations,” Vilsack said. “This vital research also will support the dairy industry as it works to reach its long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.”

The Secretary signed the agreement this afternoon at the White House and was joined by representatives of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy and Dairy Management, including Thomas P. Gallagher, CEO of the center. One objective of the MOU is to increase the construction of anaerobic digesters and explore innovative ways to use products previously considered waste streams from dairy production, processing and handling.

USDA support for agricultural and waste-to-energy research has played a key role in the agreement’s success to date. Since signing the MOU, USDA has made nearly 180 awards that helped finance the development, construction, and biogas production of anaerobic digester systems with Rural Development programs, such as the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, Value Added Producer Grants, amongst others. These systems capture methane and produce renewable energy for on-farm use and sale onto the electric grid. Additionally, during this period, USDA awarded approximately 140 REAP loans and grants to help dairy farmers develop other types of renewable energy and energy efficiency systems at their operations.

Also, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has provided $257 million in funding since 2009 that has helped more than 6,000 dairy farmers plan and implement conservation practices to improve sustainability. NRCS support for the dairy industry has resulted in 354 on-farm and in-plant energy audits as well as 18 conservation innovation grants for dairy-related projects during the past three years.

Anaerobic digester technology is a proven method of capturing methane from waste products, such as manure, and converting into heat and electricity. The technology utilizes generators that are fueled by the captured methane.. Dairy operations with anaerobic digesters routinely generate enough electricity to power hundreds of homes per year.

Gallagher added, “We have a long and strong relationship with USDA and Secretary Vilsack, and dairy farmers and the dairy industry are very happy that USDA is entering into the next MOU with the Innovation Center. We are all interested in sustainable agriculture and producing good food responsibly, while bolstering an important rural economy, and this new MOU lays out the roadmap for more improvements. That’s good for dairy, good for the economy and good for consumers.”
President Obama’s plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the President’s leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way – strengthening America’s economy, small towns and rural communities. USDA’s investments in rural communities support the rural way of life that stands as the backbone of our American values. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are committed to a smarter use of Federal resources to foster sustainable economic prosperity and ensure the government is a strong partner for businesses, entrepreneurs and working families in rural communities.

USDA has a portfolio of programs designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America.

USDA

Transmission of MRSA ST398 to humans is known to occur most frequently for people in direct contact with farm animals. However, a second recent Dutch study found that people living in livestock-dense areas who don’t have direct contact with farm animals are also at increased risk of being carriers of MRSA ST398 [3].

Peter Melchett, Soil Association Policy Director, said; “Scientists already knew that people working on intensive farms had increased health risks such as reduced lung function and exposure to MRSA ST398, but they are now finding evidence that people living near these farms could be affected too. The greater the numbers of animals being kept, the greater these risks are likely to be. It is wrong for people to be exposed to huge numbers of animals by building large scale intensive farms near where they live. The Soil Association urges Derbyshire County Council to consider these new findings when making the decision on the planning application for the intensive pig farm near Foston.”

Further to these findings, a European study of MRSA ST398 prevalence in 17 countries found that proximity to, without direct contact with pigs and veal calves may be a risk factor for acquiring the bacteria [4]. The Dutch scientists said their own findings ‘provide a warning that where one lives may play a critical role in one’s risk of disease’ [3][5].

Just as worryingly, a large German study examined 7,000 people and found that those living within 500m of intensive livestock farms had a significantly reduced lung function (their forced expiratory volume in one second was reduced by 8%) [6]. An American study in North Carolina similarly found reduced lung function in residents sitting outside their homes for 10 minutes twice a day. Increased concentrations of endotoxins (bacterial toxins which are found in greater concentrations near intensive farms) were also associated with more sore throats, chest tightness and nausea [7][8].

Peter Melchett added; “Pig farmers are caught between a rock and hard place, with some feeling high feed costs and cheap imports make trying to achieve ever greater economies of scale their only option. But very large scale, indoor pig farms aren’t the answer here in Britain – with research in countries where they have been established now revealing their animal and human health problems. We need to work together to solve the problems that make it hard to make a living keeping pigs outdoors, on a scale that fits with the communities living nearby. The recent horse meat scandals give all of us involved in UK farming the opportunity to champion high standards of production and short supply chains.”

Source: Pig progress

In the EU, the consumption of food and drink is responsible for 20-30 per cent of the overall environmental impact and more than 50 per cent of eutrophication.

The production of an average Danish diet emits 1684 kg CO₂-equivalents per person per year, and about 13.5 per cent of this is from the food we waste, primarily in households. By reducing this waste, the burden can be considerably eased.

This is the conclusion of a report, ”Madspild i fødevaresektoren – fra primærproduktion til detailled”, prepared by scientists from Aarhus University for the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, which has just been published by DCA – Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture at Aarhus University.

The report focuses on food waste (fish excepted) in the part of the food chain that includes primary food production, the retail sector and commercial kitchens.

“It is important that our food is used to the last morsel. If we throw out food, this creates an unnecessary burden on the environment,” say the authors of the report.

Food Waste Defined

In order to overcome the problem of food waste, it is necessary to get a more detailed idea of the extent problem and how it arises. The report from Aarhus University is based on the literature in the area.

On this background, ‘food waste’ was defined as food that is ready to be eaten by humans but instead ends up being thrown out.

When you talk about food waste it typically happens in the end of the production chain after the product has left the farm.

One exception is fruit and vegetables that are ready to be eaten when they leave the primary production. Strawberries in the field that never get picked are an example of this type of food waste.

There is also a ‘hidden food waste’. This is defined as waste of plants or animals, which were planned to be eaten by humans, if they had been handled and used optimally through the whole chain from primary production to retail.

Included in this food waste are animals that die due to illness and animals or parts of animals that are rejected at the slaughterhouse due to a health risk for humans.

Another example is crop loss in the field due to disease.

Food waste should not be confused with by-products, which are the secondary products from food production not suitable for human consumption. An example of this type of product is slaughterhouse waste such as bones and non-sterile blood.

Retail Sector and Households Most Wasteful

Identifying exactly where in the food chain food waste occurs makes it easier to plan remedial actions.

According to the report, food waste from primary production and the processing industry is only a very small percentage of the production, so this is not where the largest improvements can be achieved.

Wastefulness increases when the food reaches commercial kitchens.

There are large variations in the statistical data and the amount wasted also depends on whether the kitchens use fresh or semi-processed ingredients and whether the food consists of fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy products and eggs, or cereal products.

The report estimates that food waste in commercial kitchens is in the order of 9-30 per cent.

In the retail sector, particularly fruit and vegetables suffer the largest losses before reaching the consumer, but bread is also a much wasted food source.

In terms of quantities, food waste amounts to 345 kg for every million kroner worth of food sold in the retail sector.

Although the report does not really cover the part of the food chain beyond retail, it nevertheless specifies that a significant part of the wastefulness occurs at consumers. On average, each Dane throws an estimated 60-65 kg of perfectly good food in the bin each year, corresponding to 15-20 per cent of the food we buy.

Food Waste Unnecessary Burden on Environment

“One of the reasons why it is a good idea to be concerned about food waste is because of the environmental impact associated with food consumption,” say the authors of the report.

“The report therefore contains a listing of the carbon footprints of the individual food groups.”

Beef is responsible for 28 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions related to production of our diet and is thus the largest culprit.

The impact on climate of beef waste alone is 62 kg CO2 per person per year, which is just as much as the emissions from production of all vegetables eaten per person per year. And the impact of food wasted in households is twice as large as the combined impact of the food waste in the retail sector and the processing industry.

One of the methods that can be used to lessen the environmental impact from food consumption is obviously to reduce food waste.

The report outlines a number of initiatives undertaken in different countries and in different parts of the food chain. An important factor here is that the consumers need to be involved. And information campaigns could be one of the strategies used.

“Food waste in households is largely due to ignorance. Information campaigns are important to make consumers aware of the problem. Many people do not connect food waste with environmental issues. And many people do not believe they have a particular problem with food waste,” the scientists write.

TheCattleSite News Desk

The raft of research projects coincides with the release of a Climate Commission report which last week reinforced the necessity of facing up to climate change.

The Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Joe Ludwig said a total of 31 projects have been devised in all that will abate climate change and the extreme weather events that result and threaten farming.

“It is research projects like these that underpin the agriculture sector’s ability to take up the sopportunities presented by the Carbon Farming Initiative,” said Mr Ludwig. “Some of Australia’s best research organisations have been successful in this round, including research and development csorporations, universities and private industry.”

Minister Ludwig announced the recipients during a visit to the Queensland University of Technology which will receive $1,816,708 for three projects that will:

• develop cost-effective methodologies for quantifying emissions of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils
• evaluate composting as a practice to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure; and
• explore weather forecasts as a tool to better time fertiliser to minimise nitrous oxide emissions.

TheCattleSite News Desk

The evaluation is the result of a “Summary of Policies” containing a series of recommendations from academia, industry and governmental and nongovernmental organizations to support decisions related to biofuels and sustainability by companies, government and international institutions affiliated with the United Nations.

“The document should have a major impact and be utilized by governments in diverse countries that are interested in producing and utilizing biofuels to supply their vehicle fleets,” said Professor Glaucia Mendes Souza, of Universidade de São Paulo’s Chemistry Institute (IQ-USP) and a member of BIOEN’s coordination team, in an interview with Agência FAPESP.

According to Souza, who is the first woman to direct a Rapid Assessment Process in SCOPE’s history, this will be the second assessment on biofuels and sustainability. Other reports have been released on themes such as global environmental change, food security and biodiversity. The first evaluation, led by researchers at Cornell University, was published in June 2009, based on data gathered during 2007.

“In this new assessment, we intend to do a state-of-the-art update on biofuels because it has been six years since the first report was published, and many things have changed,” said Souza.

The first report was prepared in collaboration with Luiz Antonio Martinelli and Reynaldo Victoria – both of the USP Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture (Cena).

Martinelli was a member of the coordination team for the BIOTA-FAPESP program from 2002 to 2008 and has had several projects funded by FAPESP. Victoria is a member of FAPESP’s Research Program on Global Climate Change. “In a few years, as a result of the quality of science that we have been demonstrating, we have gone from spectators to leaders in the global debate on the sustainability of biofuels,” said Souza.

Assessment Process

To initiate the evaluation process, researchers from FAPESP’s three research programs and SCOPE held a joint workshop on February 26 at FAPESP’s headquarters to describe and identify problems and challenges and to share perspectives on the sustainability of biofuels.

In addition to participating researchers from BIOEN, BIOTA and Climate Change, the programs involved in the production of the report, the event was attended by specialists in different aspects of biofuel and bioenergy production from several countries.

Among these were José Goldemberg, professor at USP’s Electrotechnical  and Energy Institute; Lee Lynd, a professor at Dartmouth College; Chris Sommerville, from the University of California at Berkeley; and Helena Chum, from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the United States.

Also participating in the event were Jeremy Woods, of Imperial College in the U.K.; Jack Saddler, of the University of British Columbia; Andre Faaij, of Utrecht University; Patricia Osseweijer, of Delft University in the Netherlands; and Jon Samseth, of Hogskolen I Oslo Og Akershus in Norway.

Other participants included Brian Huntley, of Stellenbosch University in South Africa, and Stephen Karekezi, of the African Energy Policy Research Network in Kenya, countries that represent a new frontier for the expansion of biofuels worldwide.

“This group of specialists from different regions of the world, who represent research institutions with large bioenergy projects, will help guide the preparation of recommendations that will be part of the document and to disseminate them,” affirmed Souza.

“In order for recommendations to really have the desired effect, one must talk about them for years so that they are disseminated and implemented,” she added.

Final Volume

Researchers participating in the event as members of the initiative’s scientific committee discussed the launch of a series of meetings on policies for the sustainable expansion of biofuel production worldwide and the example that Brazil has provided in this area, among other issues.

The ideas developed during the meetings, along with information, materials and evaluations obtained by the scientific committee from researchers and organizations in different countries, will form the basis of the preparatory chapters that will be produced over the coming months to develop the recommendations.

In the first week of December 2013, the project’s scientific committee will meet at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris, France, to write chapters that will cover the most complex and far-reaching economic and social aspects of biofuel production.

“We will spend a week poring over the most complex issues involving biofuel production to develop proposals for the implementation of practices and objectives that are really useful for anyone who makes public policy decisions,” commented Souza.

The general chapters written by researchers will be revised, adapted and edited before being published in a final volume with a synopsis of recommendations, slated for release in 2014.