Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNew study addresses trade-offs between food security and climate change mitigation
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/ERL-food-and-climate-change.en.html[font face=Serif]16 July 2013
[font size=5]New study addresses trade-offs between food security and climate change mitigation[/font]
[font size=4]Improving agricultural productivity could help cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, shows new IIASA research. But sustainable farming methods are key.[/font]
[font size=3]Improving crop yields using sustainable methods could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 12% per calorie produced according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. At the same time, these changes could provide more food to people in need.
Agriculture and land use change contributed about 1/3 of total human greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade, through crop cultivation, animal production, and deforestation. By producing more food on less land, it may be possible to reduce these emissions, but this so-called intensification often involves increasing fertilizer use, which can lead to large emissions of nitrogen-containing gases that also contribute to global warming.
The most efficient way to ensure sustainable intensification on the crop side is to rely on practices and technologies that are not more fertilizer-demanding, such as new varieties, improved rotations, integrated crop-livestock practices, and precision farming, says IIASA researcher Hugo Valin, who led the study.
The studys findings particularly apply to developing countries. In many cases farming in these countries is not as efficient as it could be, and so investing in better farming practices could lead to big benefits both in terms of food security and greenhouse gas emissions.
[/font][/font]
[font size=5]New study addresses trade-offs between food security and climate change mitigation[/font]
[font size=4]Improving agricultural productivity could help cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, shows new IIASA research. But sustainable farming methods are key.[/font]
[font size=3]Improving crop yields using sustainable methods could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 12% per calorie produced according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. At the same time, these changes could provide more food to people in need.
Agriculture and land use change contributed about 1/3 of total human greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade, through crop cultivation, animal production, and deforestation. By producing more food on less land, it may be possible to reduce these emissions, but this so-called intensification often involves increasing fertilizer use, which can lead to large emissions of nitrogen-containing gases that also contribute to global warming.
The most efficient way to ensure sustainable intensification on the crop side is to rely on practices and technologies that are not more fertilizer-demanding, such as new varieties, improved rotations, integrated crop-livestock practices, and precision farming, says IIASA researcher Hugo Valin, who led the study.
The studys findings particularly apply to developing countries. In many cases farming in these countries is not as efficient as it could be, and so investing in better farming practices could lead to big benefits both in terms of food security and greenhouse gas emissions.
[/font][/font]
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 485 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New study addresses trade-offs between food security and climate change mitigation (Original Post)
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 2013
OP
Jessy169
(602 posts)1. For every calorie consumed by average American, 10 calories of energy required to produce it
That's what I've read recently from several sources, perhaps all getting that factoid from the same source -- not sure. Regardless, think of all the oil and energy required to grow food in Geographical Location A, transport it to Geographical Location B, store it and then truck it out to the final retail outlets -- not to mention the contribution to CO2 output. Cheap oil has enabled this monumental inefficiency. And a good question is, how much longer can we keep up this wasteful practice? Local bio-friendly sustainable farming, distribution and consumption -- emphasis on local -- seems to be a pretty good idea.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)2. Be wary of factoids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
I believe this particular factoid has been popularized by Michael Pollan. Now, clearly, it cannot take the exact same amount of energy to produce every single calorie of food. So, the 10 to 1 ratio is a rule of thumb at best, but its a decent rule of thumb for industrialized agriculture.
Heres a citation for a 1974 paper on the subject:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4306247
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Factoid[/font]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[font size=3]A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but without supporting evidence. The word can also be used to describe a particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context. The word is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".
Factoid was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper", and created the word by combining the word fact and the ending -oid to mean "similar but not the same". The Washington Times described Mailer's new word as referring to "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact".
Factoids may give rise to, or arise from, common misconceptions and urban legends.
[/font][/font]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[font size=3]A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but without supporting evidence. The word can also be used to describe a particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context. The word is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".
Factoid was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper", and created the word by combining the word fact and the ending -oid to mean "similar but not the same". The Washington Times described Mailer's new word as referring to "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact".
Factoids may give rise to, or arise from, common misconceptions and urban legends.
[/font][/font]
I believe this particular factoid has been popularized by Michael Pollan. Now, clearly, it cannot take the exact same amount of energy to produce every single calorie of food. So, the 10 to 1 ratio is a rule of thumb at best, but its a decent rule of thumb for industrialized agriculture.
Heres a citation for a 1974 paper on the subject:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4306247
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Energy use in the U.S. food system[/font]
[font size=4]Description/Abstract[/font]
[font size=3]An investigation into the growth of energy use in the food system is presented. An attempt is made to compare the present food supply system, in energy measures, with those of other societies and with the U. S. past. The energy provided by the sun is omitted in the survey, but the other factors considered are fuel (direct use), electricity, fertilizer, agricultural steel, farm machinery, tractors, irrigation, food processing industry and machinery, paper packaging, glass containers, steel cans and aluminum, transport (fuel), trucks and trailers, commercial refrigeration and cooking, refrigeration machinery (home and Commercial), home refrigeration and cooking. Private delivery by the individual is not included. Energy subsidies for various food crops are shown in various countries and compared with the U. S. food system. In primitive cultures, 5 to 50 food calories were obtained for each calorie of energy invested. Industrialized food systems require 5 to 10 calories to obtain 1 food calorie. An analysis of the energy flow in the food system illustrates features of the food system unrealized in a usual economic analysis. (32 references) (MCW)[/font][/font]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.184.4134.307[font size=4]Description/Abstract[/font]
[font size=3]An investigation into the growth of energy use in the food system is presented. An attempt is made to compare the present food supply system, in energy measures, with those of other societies and with the U. S. past. The energy provided by the sun is omitted in the survey, but the other factors considered are fuel (direct use), electricity, fertilizer, agricultural steel, farm machinery, tractors, irrigation, food processing industry and machinery, paper packaging, glass containers, steel cans and aluminum, transport (fuel), trucks and trailers, commercial refrigeration and cooking, refrigeration machinery (home and Commercial), home refrigeration and cooking. Private delivery by the individual is not included. Energy subsidies for various food crops are shown in various countries and compared with the U. S. food system. In primitive cultures, 5 to 50 food calories were obtained for each calorie of energy invested. Industrialized food systems require 5 to 10 calories to obtain 1 food calorie. An analysis of the energy flow in the food system illustrates features of the food system unrealized in a usual economic analysis. (32 references) (MCW)[/font][/font]