Defining "Unacceptable Environmental Change":
A Closer Look at the Problem of Nitrogen use

So, really, where shall we begin? There seems to be too many problems we should address in the environment.  Rockstrom et al.'s highly-embraced (but perhaps oversimplified) concept of 'Planetary boundaries' tells us that when these boundaries are crossed planet earth will enter a completely unknown (and hence distressing) change of state. From this diagram ,we observe  our most pressing concerns- biodiversity loss, and nitrogen use and climate change. This post addresses our use of nitrogen which has very, very strong links to agriculture.

(The black line shows the "safe operating boundaries of our planet")

Synthetic fertilizers- the problem!

It is quite mindboggling  to know that currently, anthropogenic nitrogen fixation exceeds that of all natural processes combined.  Essentially agriculture has been the consuming the bulk of it. The sharp rises in crops yields over the past decades basically correspond well to the amount of nitrogen used.

For a long time (before modern agriculture) farmers had the practice of restoring vigour to the soil by using bones with the use of H2SO4 (sulphuric acid) to digest these bones. Investigations by Justus von Liebig showed that Nitrogen was the key part of amino acids and nucleic acids ( the building blocks of cells). And later he invented the Haber process which converts atmospheric nitrogen into a form usable by plants (N2 → NH3 → Nitrates). Lawes then patented and commercialized the processes, making high amounts of artificial nitrates easily and cheaply available.

The acceleration in nitrogen use was fuelled further by the green revolution. The green revolution was characterized by genetically modifying dominant food crops (e.g. rice, wheat) that increased the grain (edible) production of a plant and decreased straw (inedible) growth. However, the viability of these high yielding varieties was conditional. It depended on higher levels of water and fertilizer. This resulted (alongside the provision of government subsidies) in excessive levels of  nitrogen such that there was a 800% increase in fertilizer per hectare in places like Latin America.

This uninhibited use of fertilizers are not without their drawbacks:

Degradation of ecosystems

Firstly, pollution. Agricultural run-off results in excessive amounts of these fertilizers entering aquatic ecosystems such that eutrophication occurs. This destabilizes the system and wipes out ecosystem services they provide e.g. clean water, biodiversity etc. Unfortunately this is a world-wide phenomenon that is very prevelant.

Health Effects

Secondly, the effects on health pose as an occupational hazard to farmers and the general public. Nitrates that seep into ground water end up in drinking water supplies. When in the body, they are converted to nitrites by bacteria which alters haemoglobin resulting in sicknesses like the Blue Baby Syndrome. Also, acidic juices in stomach convert them into nitrosamines which increase the risk of cancer.

Climate Change

Like most other things, the widespread proliferation of synthetic fertilizers was due to the cheap availability of energy (fossil fuels) to enabled the Haber process. It was concluded by Pimentel in 1974 that to feed entire world with the modern agricultural US system, agriculture would account for 80% of our energy use. An excess of converted atmospheric nitrogen in our atmosphere also gives rise to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the form of N2O (from livestock and soil emissions) - a very potent greenhouse gas (300 times more than CO2). In fact, agriculture contributes to more than 1/2 of the anthropogenic emissions of N2O.

Synthetic fertilzers- a problem?

Energy Use

In a helpful review by Jeremy Woodes et. al. (2010), they emphasize the utter reliance of modern agriculture on fossil fuels today. However, fossil fuel inputs including that caused by fertilizer manufacture have yielded positive energy ratios (i.e. energy out put > energy input). Therefore, from this point of view, one can say that synthetic fertilizers are indeed an efficient use of resources. It has also been shown that while agricultural energy use is growing due to increasing food production, it is not like Pimentel predicted "80% of our energy use". Instead, it only accounts about 3% of total consumption today. Technological improvements have definitely contributed to this efficiency (although of course one must take into account the overall increase in energy use).

Reduction in Global use?

Rockstrom et al. (2009) propose the boundary to be "limiting agricultural and industrial nitrogen fixation to 35 x 109 kg/year". As an attempt to view this diagram with some caution, I went about researching on the exact problems of nitrogen.

Blomqvist et al.(2012) argues that there is little evidence supporting the notion that there will be negative effect on humans when we transgress these 'boundaries' and that there are "no global tipping points beyond which ecological processes will begin to function in fundamentally different ways" in regard to 6 of the 9 boundaries (biodiversity loss, nitrogen levels, freshwater use, aerosol loading and chemical pollution)

With regard to nitrogen, he argues that while there are excesses in synthetic nitrogen and the problems of pollution etc. will be relevant, there are also areas (e.g. in Africa) where the soil is depleted of its nutrients and some synthetic fertilizer would help restore the arability of the land. Hence, global limits make no practical sense when nitrogen use is vastly different in various localities. Another point of contention he puts forth is that there is no evidence that excessive inputs of nitrogen level will destabilize human development. Instead, he proposes a view of our environment that allows us to "identify and explicate trade-offs".

In response to these misgivings, Rockstrom et al qualified heir concept. As with many popularizations, concepts get generalized and oversimplified. Firstly, they contend that many of these boundaries act as "slow variables". These variables, though they have not shown be direct causes of drastic change, "act as buffers" which enhance the resilience of the system.

Secondly, they had never claimed that the evidence supported 'planetary tipping points' but instead the evidence has shown that local and regional scaled tipping points do occur worldwide (cumulative change) hence giving them the title of a 'major global concern'. Tipping points exist in systems like the lake ecosystem whereby there exists multiple stable states in ecosystems. In lakes, when excessive nutrient (like N, P) inputs along with other triggers encourage the ball to suddenly tip over a healthy state to another state (which Rockstrom argues as undesirable). To revert from that state would require even larger restorative strategies as compared to a linear system. In other words, we will then be "locked-in".

Conclusion:

The key word in this debate is "global".  Calls for  reductions in nitrogen everywhere i.e. globally are unsupported but misuses, i.e. both too little and too much, are likely to be extremely prevalent and still warrant a global call for concern. This call for concern, in my opinion, should not then be one that single-mindedly calls for a reduction in nitrogen use but rather an informed choice of nitrogen input based on the ecological settings. Nevertheless, it is true that, as seen by the enormous read flare on the diagram and with the knowledge of our rate of nitrogen fixation, we are in dangerous risk of causing unfavourable change.

While we may not exactly know exactly how ecologically detrimental the crossing of these boundaries are on a global scale, it can be argued that the destructiveness of small-scaled local and regional ecological disasters we now observe should at least put considerable caution in our step. Why action now and not later? The argument for that given the "multiple-states" behaviour which ecosystems exhibit, preventive action now will still be rather effective as compared to curative action later which might have little effect. Better stewardship in these areas now not only prevents us from entering that latter state but also enhances the systems resilience (i.e. makes the hump in between higher by increasing redundancy in the system). Rockstrom et al. argue that we do have the ability now for to adopt this paradigm shift in our mindset and "turn crisis into opportunity" if governments and people come onboard. Needless to say this is a big if. And this if depends on whether there are exist more modern, smarter and cheaper solutions of farming.

Additional References:

http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/06/17/do-planetary-boundaries-exist-and-does-crossing-them-result-in-catastrophe/

http://www.ted.com/talks/johan_rockstrom_let_the_environment_guide_our_development.html

Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Robert Paarlberg. 2010. Oxford University Press.

Food and Development: The political economy of hunger and the modern diet.

The political economy of agrarian change, an essay on the green revolution. Griffin. 1974. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19766710734.html;jsessionid=D7741B36A23D3E120F3DA6A010C70997

The History of Agriculture (II)

Agriculture Through the Millennia 

The previous post talked about the possible causes for the origin of agriculture. It must be noted that this was not an all or nothing switch from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture but instead the transition to and development of agriculture took a slow few thousands of years. Two dominant themes that are thought to be the drivers behind the increasing influence of agriculture are 1) the ability to control food supply and 2) increasing population pressure.

(I will not delve too much into the details/ controversies in theories of the pre-modern period of agricultural evolution because I feel that I do not have the relevant experience in anthropological studies and that it is not really the focus of the blog but is here to provide a more wholesome picture and to point out some relevant and more certain points)

Through the ~10,000 years, archaeological evidence demonstrated that humans selected crops suitable or better adapted to growth in their areas such as rice in Asia, wheat, barley and lentils in the fertile crescent. During the Bronze Age, the Sumerians were said to be the pioneers of intensive agriculture i.e. large-scale mono-cropping systems. This was helped by 1) the fertility of the fertile crescent and 2) the invention of technological know-how that  allowed the harnessing of animal power such as plowing by oxen and practices of irrigation. This gave them more control over the variables that affected the crops they grew.  It was also during that time that the earliest sheep and goats were domesticated.  Later on at around ~3000BC, the common crops of potato, tomato, beans and pepper were cultivated in the New World (Americas). This proliferation of agriculture was said to have occurred through what R. Braidwood calls 'cultural diffusion' between 'nuclear zones'.  Consequently, it was this development of agriculture that formed an important part of the  foundations of transformation to civilizations i.e. cities.

Through the middle-ages and renaissance, agricultural expansion was facilitated by further improvements of irrigation technologies and build-up of farming techniques through greater scientific discovery e.g. invention of crop rotation and sharing of technological know-how such as the mouldboard plough (invented by the Chinese) which greatly improved efficiency. These  technological improvements when coupled to repeated selection of hardy and productive crop strains allowed higher and higher productivity. 

www.xtimeline.com/timeline/History-of-agriculture-1

The Global Proliferation of Modern Farming

Still, these developments in agriculture, though they occurred over a span of thousands of years, cannot compare to the massive change which occurred during the period of industrial agriculture which came about with the industrial revolution. And this is where we get to the grit of the matter, where agriculture crosses paths with global environmental change. First in the sense of  cumulative change (e.g. landuse changes in local areas summed up to affect large proportion of the world) and later systemic change (e.g. emissions of greenhouse gases from crop cultivation or livestock rearing).  In subsequent posts, I will attempt to address the significant events in modern agriculture and their environmental impact (both good and bad) through recent decades. These areas include (not exhaustively):

Issues/ Problems:

1. Agricultural Landuse

2. Use of Mechanical help & Long-distance Transport
• Came about due to the availability of fossil fuels for energy

3. Use of Fertilisers
• Came about with the knowledge of what nutrients plants need & processes to artificially synthesize them

4. Use of Pesticides
• Came about due to the manufacture of chemicals in WWII

5. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
• Came about with the knowledge of vitamins, growth hormones and antibiotics

6. The Green Revolution

Proposed solutions:

1. Organic farming

2. Sustainable Agriculture

 etc.

So, what can we draw from all of the history of agriculture?

Once again, we can see that the development of agriculture through the  years drew upon the expertise of technological and scientific knowledge (allowing the 'exploitation' of the natural environment). The question I would like to ask is: how beneficial has this development been? Has sound scientific knowledge really informed this development? These, of course, are highly contentious questions.

For one, it has indeed supported the prolific growth of the human population which otherwise would have been quite impossible (food production doubled four times between 1820 and 1975) while reducing the manpower and freeing up our time for countless other activities. Still, the environmental impacts of these decisions have never been more telling and lucid than they are today. Many nay-sayers, witnessing the onslaught of the degradation of both environment and human health brought about by many modern practices have hailed for a return to a back-to-the-past farming model. However, I would like to put forth that in this evolution of agriculture, while it might have veered off the course more than we would have liked, can't be all bad. Surely some techniques were grounded in sound ecological principles and should continue to be upheld into the future. I am looking forward to teasing out, as much as I can, what exactly these might be and searching out alternatives where we have failed so far.

References:

1. John Abraham. 1991. Food and Development: The Political Economy of Hunger and the Modern Diet. WWF & Kogan Page Ltd.

2. History of Agriculture. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/History_of_agriculture#Sumerian_agriculture

3. History of Agriculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture

4. Robert J. Braidwood. 1979. "The Agricultural Revolution". Hunter, Farmers and Civilization: Old World Archaeology. http://pleasanton.k12.ca.us/avhsweb/murphyc/web/apworld/summer/farm.pdf

A Quick Overview of the History of Agriculture

 (Start watching from 1min mark for the relevant part on Agriculture)

Love how informative and entertaining this video is! I always find videos/documentaries really helpful learning aids, although generalisations are inevitable in such condensed nuggets, they are still very good overviews/ introductions to get one interested... 

So in addition to referring to the academic literature, you can expect me to post many video links on this blog ;)

I find his short rant end especially helpful as I read up about how agriculture changed through the years: 

"Many people made the choice for agriculture independently, but does that mean it is the right choice? Maybe so, and maybe not. But regardless, we can't unmake that choice. And that's one of the reasons I think it's so important to study history. History reminds us that revolutions are not so much events than they are processes. For tens of thousands of years, people have made decisions that have irrevocably shaped the world we live in today…  " 

Hmm, food-for-thought.

Looking forward to seeing what processes exactly led to agriculture as it is today (and indeed the once-unimaginable possibility of a  99C double cheeseburger)... 

See ya soon

The History of Agriculture (I)

Before I delve into the specific mechanisms of the interaction between agriculture and our climate, I thought I should understand more about the origins and evolution of agriculture through the years

So in a 2-part series, here's a flash through agriculture in the past 10,000 years…

Part I : Origins of Agriculture

Where did Agriculture emerge?

It emerged in various locations across the globe e.g. Near East,  China, sub-Saharan Africa, Mexico, Easter U.S..   The interesting point here is that they all emerged at roughly the same time. This is allows for the many theories as to why they emerged as we will see below...

When did Agriculture first emerge?

It is estimated that even although cognitively modern humans have existed 50,000 years ago, yet the most recent evidence of agricultural practices occurred only around ~10,000 years ago. Since the immediate physical and cognitive development of humans were not the cause of agriculture, what then triggered the transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

Why did Agriculture emerge?

Universal stress-related triggers:

Climate Change

#1:Transition out of the ice age (Richerson et al., 2001)

 Several scientists postulate that origins of agriculture should round about coincide with the start of the Late Glacial Period prior to the Holocene (the Holocene is the current interglacial we are in which began 11.5-11.6 (cal) ka BP). This period was characterised by warmer, wetter and more stable conditions which enabled the domestication of plants and animals i.e. agriculture.

Evidence #1?

There is a gap here as evidence. The first evidence of agriculture was not found during the first 2000 years of  warming after the Last Glacial Maxima. Instead it occurs only much later. Hence some experts subscribe to this other view…:

#2: Oasis Hypothesis  (Childe, 1930s)

Other Scientists postulate that it was instead because of the harsh conditions that occurred in the Younger Dryas (sudden cooling/ climate reversal during the warming) that humans were relegated to remain in more hospitable locations. The concentration of humans in these areas (i.e. labour for agriculture) and unfavourable hunting and gathering conditions were probably what sparked the transition to agriculture.

Evidence #2?

The first evidence of agriculture coincides with this period. This was a worldwide climatic event, supporting the observation of independent transitions worldwide at the same time.

Technological Innovation

Akin to "Light-bulb invention" (E.g. Olsson and Hibbs, 2005):

There was relatively sudden invention of technologies due to improving climatic conditions which led to satiation and hence energy and time aside from fighting for survival. These technologies allowed humans to explore the realm of domesticating of crops and animals.

Evidence?

This theory does not account for the similar time but independent locations of the first instances of agriculture. 

Population Boom:

Population Pressure Hypothesis (E.g. Cohen, 1997):

The population was growing so large that it was putting pressure on the resources available in the wild. This was a worldwide phenomena.

Evidence?

There was no sign of decreasing standards of living for prior to the advent of agriculture (i.e. no pressure)  and the population on Earth then was relatively small. While this is a possibility, the transition could have very well occurred otherwise.

Universal stress-free models:

Social Models: (E.g. Cauvin 2000 & Haydn, 2003)

This theory occurs based on the assumption that the origins of agriculture occurred in a time of abundance. The move towards agriculture was hence a manifestation of the innate tendency to attain self-actualisation or self-aggrandisement.

Evidence? (Regional)

In the Near East, there was no evidence of complete domestication during the Younger Dryas. Instead, there were Natufian communities remained as hunters and gatherers. Hence the need for alternative explanations like this.

Some thoughts on the above:

Although it is unclear which was the fundamental factor that sparked the initial transition, it is agreeable that without the favourable climatic conditions, it would not have been possible for agriculture to be sustained thereafter. The unfavourable conditions of the last glacial period/ ice age (100 to 11.5 Ka) prevented any form of agricultural activity (e.g. temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were low) and  would have probably rendered agriculture unfeasible even given other triggers or factors. Instead, following the Younger Dryas, warming continued allowing the favourable conditions facilitating the expansion of agriculture. Propagating this more productive form of food production also meant a more stable food source which would allow greater population expansion. The productivity of agriculture was also enhanced by another positive-feedback: the domestication of animals also meant the concomitant selection of animals with more productive traits. From this point forth, humans didn't look back and agriculture became the dominant and, as several Scientists have put it, "compulsory" food source.

Still, the conclusion by Zeder & Smith (2009) makes sense to me (especially in light of recent evidence showing nuanced differences between the locations) that it is probably inadequate to assume a single causation for the advent of agriculture (although some factors might be more consequential and far-reaching than other s e.g. climate).  Rather, it is probably a result of macro- and micro-scale factors: common broad factors which nudged the move but different strategies employed which were tailored to immediate conditions.

For me, this brief investigation into the origins of agriculture sets the stage in giving us insight into the multi-factorial nature of agricultural systems and it is inadequate to analyse the past or predict the future of  these systems based on a certain factor. This reveals that if any favourable change is to be made, it will need to muster the will and knowledge of experts and peoples from all areas of society. In addition, strategies that are hailed as the solution to 'the world's problems' must be treated with caution due to the extremely variable environmental, social and political conditions worldwide that are sometimes overlooked.

In so far as this blog aims to view agriculture from the environmental perspective, it would also like to view the solutions in its wider context and complexities (And that, I will leave to a later date to for further discovery :))

Coming up…!

History of Agriculture (II): Evolution of Agriculture through the years. How did agriculture get to where it is now?

References:

1. Dow et al.  August 2005.  The Transition to Agriculture: Climate reversals, population density, and technical change. http://www.sfu.ca/~gdow/download/agriculture805.pdf

2. Zeder & Smith. October 2009. A Conversation on Agriculture Origins. Current Anthropology. http://anthropology.si.edu/archaeobio/images/zeder_smith_crowdedroom2009.pdf
(If interested, a fellow blogger, Rob shares his thoughts on this article here: http://robs-agriculture.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/agricultural-origins-roots-of-change.html)

Welcome to this blog!

I am happy to say that I start this blog with much excitement and anticipation. Still, it is a kind of nervous excitement because it is the first time I am actually attempting to consolidate my own thoughts and opinions about a particular topic that is very close to my heart and like anyone, I would love to get it right.

But with those feelings of uncertainty aside, this would probably be one of the more interesting things (to me) that I have done so far in my life :)

The Topic & its Relation to this Course:

The course for which this blog has been setup for is GEOG3057 Global Environmental Change. This blog is about agriculture and the environment. It aims to investigate the relationship between agriculture and our global environment by understanding the different ways in which agriculture has contributed to environmental change in various aspects on the global scale and how the global environment (changing as it is) has and is predicted to affect agriculture. Ultimately, as the title of this blog suggests, I would like to find out a little more about what we should do to address the challenges agriculture faces in the years ahead.

To guide myself and the reader along, here are some questions I hope to answer through the weeks ahead (through reading and reviewing of academic literature):

These are probably subject to change as I read up more and more about this topic!

Past:

How has agriculture evolved?

What impact has this evolution had on the global environment?

To what extent has modern agriculture been detrimental to the environment?

Present & Future:

What influence does the global environment have, and is predicted to have, on agriculture in light of recent climate change?

What is the way forward in the field of agriculture in light of climate change and other global issues (E.g. Poverty, Health, Conservation, Animal welfare etc.)?

 

Personal Rationale for this Topic

(Forgive the story-telling here… just like to share a little about my interests toward this topic. Perhaps it might strike a chord with some you ;))

A reason why I chose this topic is because it is the convergence of two of my biggest interests: health and the environment (hence my training as an Environmental Biologist I guess). What makes these interests so personal to me is that any conclusions I come to about them could and should affect my everyday living in terms of my food choices etc. Afterall food and the environment are the two most basic things which facilitate our survival. 

Through the past two years in university, my own reading and exploration alongside taught modules in university have brought me through a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions in relation to this topic: excitement (when I think I was fortunate to read about/ find some wisdom/truth that should be shared to help others), confusion/despair (when I seem to find  contradicting pieces of evidence and can't figure out how to make sense of them- this has been probably the most dominant emotion so far).  Here's an example: recently, a curve-ball has been thrown at the dominant school of nutrition. It says that the 'paleodiet' (i.e. more good quality animal meat & fat and less bad quality carbohydrates) is actually what makes a healthy lifestyle(when coupled to exercise of course). However from the environmental standpoint of view, this does not seem to be feasible/ responsible given the amount of environmental resources (e.g. fertilisers → plants → animal feed → humans) and the amount of pollution that results (e.g. greenhouse gases, nitrate pollution in the land etc.). Hence does this mean then that if every one (all 7 billion (!) people on Earth) were to subscribe to the healthy paleo diet, our Earth would basically would crumble? Put it plainly: if one tries to be healthy, does that mean he necessarily is harming the environment and vice versa?

Perhaps we are looking for a missing link between human health and environmental health (which once again converges on the topic of agriculture) or perhaps somewhere along the way there has been inaccuracies in the theories. This is something that I would really love to delve further to clarify these questions that I have. In any case, I would say that because this topic is something I'm convicted/enthusiastic about through various influences (academic, cultural and ethical), it is inevitable that  I have already formed a pre-understanding/hypothesis/stand on the matter. It is as follows:

"Since Man is dependent on and part of nature (environment), whatever is best for nature would be best for Man(health). Hence the development or nature is not contrary to the development of human society i.e. the two are not mutually exclusive. (If it helps, this is a 'co-evolutionist' ethical perspective on the human-environment relationship.)"

However, I hope this blog would be a platform for me to test this hypothesis, and not so much to prove it.  I hope not to let my pre-understanding  shape the evidence but allow the evidence to correct my pre-understanding where necessary i.e. take the evidence as objectively as possible. The reason why I am making this preunderstanding/ prejudice of mine explicit is that I hope you, the reader can keep it in check and guide me in this area.

On a side note... here's another reason why I am excited to start this blog:

Through my university education, I have enjoyed being exposed to scientific knowledge and ways of thinking. In the process, I have felt my own thought-processes developing more than ever before. However, I am still unable to communicate them well to others (especially in speech). Hence this is a skill which I would really love to hone in the coming 3rd year- and what a better way to practice than to blog regularly about a subject I love! So I hope you would join me on this journey and please do comment on my posts.. any critiques would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again for visiting this blog and reading my lengthy first post! (I hope to become more succinct as the days go by haha...)