The mobile slaughterhouse could play a critical role in the burgeoning local food movement. This photo of a “slaughtermobile” is from an article in the Washington Post. The article reports the USDA is paying more attention to small and mid-size farms, encouraging organic and sustainable agriculture, and investing in projects to bring locally grown meat and produce to consumers.

A mobile slaughterhouse, with a team composed of a butcher and a federal meat inspector, travels from farm to farm.

USDA’s efforts to help small farmers are focused within its “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program, which seeks to help make the link between local production and local consumption.

USDA has published a Mobile Slaughter Unit Compliance Guide to help those who want to establish a mobile slaughter unit under Federal inspection and operate in accordance with Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulations.

The Land Institute near Salina, Kansas has been crossing selected strains of wild intermediate wheatgrass grain with annual wheat varieties to breed a commercially practical perennial grain. Gene Logsdon at OrganicToBe.org reports that pancakes made with flour (trademarked Kernza ™) from the resulting grain is pretty tasty.

The flour makes a light dough and the pancakes taste just a tad sweeter than ordinary wheat flour.  * * * It is exceptionally high in some nutrients known to be important to human health and deficient in many modern diets: Omega 3 fatty acids, calcium, lutein, and betaine. It is particularly high in folate, important for preventing stroke, cancer, heart disease and infertility. Folate is also believed to be important for maintaining good mental health in old age.  My mind generally glazes over when reading about nutrient values of various foods so that folate might come in handy. To me the important thing is that for once something that is good for me tastes good too. Kernza ™ does not have enough gluten in it to use alone for leavened breads, but as more and more crosses are made with it and regular wheat, all things are possible.

Being able to grow grain without plowing up millions of acres of soil every year would cut down on erosion and help build soil tilth while enabling farmers to cut way back on fuel and greenhouse gas emissions – saving farmers both time and money in the bargain.

But the search won’t be over until researchers come up with a good perennial bread flour.

Shirin Wertime has a must-read article at Culture Change that poses the question: what will happen to our food system as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce and expensive? The following is my summary of some of the highlights.

Today’s agri-food systems are almost entirely dependent on fossil fuel energy for everything from food production to transportation to food preparation and storage. The structure of agriculture production, aided and abetted by government policies, has spurred the expansion of farm specialization and consolidation, monocultures, the delocalization of agricultural production, and the adoption of industrial farming practices. The increase in globalized food production, which has come at the expense of local production, is sustainable only as long as cheap energy supplies can subsidize the transportation of goods across long distances. It will take deep-rooted structural and institutional changes as well as lifestyle changes on the part of individuals, their governments, and societies to transition to a more sustainable, non-petroleum based food system which oil depletion and rising costs will inexorably force on us.

Farming itself has become the least profitable and least energy intensive segment of the entire economy of agriculture. Only one-fifth of the energy that goes into our mouths is actually used for growing food. The rest goes to transport, processing, packaging, marketing, and food preparation and storage. Farmers end up with only 10% of the total food dollar, while 25% pays for farm inputs and 65% goes for transportation, processing and marketing. A century ago, farmers ended up with closer to 40% of the food dollar and most farm inputs were produced by the farmers themselves by using draft animal power, storing seeds, and using animal manure for fertilizer.

As oil declines, industrial agriculture in its current form will become impossible. It will prove increasingly difficult to feed the world with diminishing fertile land and water resources. The current structure of power relations and resource control in the United States prevents the widespread move away from fossil fuel based agriculture and transition to localized, sustainable agriculture. Without a change in the status quo, small local and sustainable producers cannot compete against fossil fuel subsidized agribusiness. But the reality is that the present agricultural system cannot be maintained for much longer. Decreasing oil production and rising oil prices will effectively bankrupt the American agri-food system. Without petroleum and all of its benefits, there will be little choice but to revert to a system of local, organic production and consumption.

Peak oil will turn our entire world upside down. There will be a return to localized, small-scale photosynthesis-based, appropriate-tech agricultural production and an end to the domination of economic and power structures that place profit above all else.

Now, I can buy all of this except the last part of the last sentence. I’ll believe in the end of avarice only when I see it.

A new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds industrial agriculture has helped keep greenhouse gas emissions at bay – kind of.

Study co-author Steven Davis of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology touts the study’s estimate that since 1961 higher yields per acre have avoided the release of nearly 600 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

“That’s about 20 years of fossil fuel burning at present rates. Our results dispel the notion that industrial agricultural with its petrochemicals are inherently worse for the climate than a more ‘old-fashioned’ way of doing things.

The researchers found that although the various inputs to modern farms require more energy and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food output than did the lower-input methods of the past, crop yields have increased by 135%, reducing the amount of cropland needed to produce the same amount of food. Without these advances, the conversion of vast natural areas to agriculture would have caused much more greenhouse gas emissions—the equivalent of nearly 600 billion tons of CO2 since 1961.

As Davis explains, land conversion is the big culprit:

Converting a forest or some scrubland to an agricultural area causes a lot of natural carbon in that ecosystem to be oxidized and lost to the atmosphere. What our study shows is that these indirect impacts from converting land to agriculture outweigh the direct emissions that come from the modern, intensive style of agriculture.

We may have gotten ourselves into a predicament. Abundant fossil fuels have enabled both population growth and increased food production. Now fossil fuel production has begun to sputter at the same time soil fertility is beginning to succumb to years of assault by chemicals and synthetic fertilizers. And the population bubble has inflated to enormous proportions, and is still growing.

Industrial agriculture enabled the population bubble to inflate. Now all these billions of people go about their mission of pursuing economic growth, emitting greenhouse gases in the process – especially in the rich countries. The argument that industrial agriculture helped keep greenhouse emissions at bay only makes sense if we ignore the totality of industrial system within which industrial agriculture is embedded.

The focus of public and policy debate about the climate change impact of food has mostly been on transport.  “Food miles” has become shorthand for thinking about the climate change impact of food. But food system related emissions  result not only from the transport of food. Emissions also result from the conversion of land for farming, the process of farming itself, the energy used in food processing and retail, and from food waste.

A new report from Britain titled Local food and climate change – the role of community food enterprises looks at all stages of the supply chain. Using a life cycle analysis, the report takes into account emissions impacts at all stages, from agricultural production (and its associated inputs) through to processing, packing, transport, retailing, home storage and preparation, and final disposal. Its conclusion: carefully designed local food networks can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every part of the food chain.

Farming itself is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture is a major source of methane, which is many times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 over a 100 year time horizon but 72 times as potent over 20 years); and nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that agriculture is responsible for 13.5% of emissions worldwide. If the connection between deforestation and agriculture is taken into account, farming’s contribution to causing climate change rises considerably. In Latin America, for example, about 70% of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the reminder. Deforestation is responsible for just under 18% of emissions around the world.

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture arise both from the process of farming itself and from the production of inputs such as fertilizers, fuel for machinery, energy for heating and materials, and animal feed. The process by which fertilizer is produced is both energy intensive (generating carbon dioxide) and results in the production of the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Emissions arise from land use change as soils are disturbed, vegetation destroyed and forests cut down. Farming practices are closely intertwined with the use of external inputs. Conserving soil carbon through methods such as conservation agriculture, organic farming, integrated nutrient management, cover cropping, agroforestry and the use of biochar not only reduces emissions from the soil but also conserves soil nutrients and reduces the need for fertilizers.

The emissions impacts of raising livestock, both direct (livestock raised on recently converted land) and indirect (the raising of crops such as soybeans and corn for animal feed) are significant: in Britain, meat and dairy consumption is responsible for 58% of food-related emissions; and globally, livestock are estimated to account for 70% of agricultural land use (30% of the Earth’s land surface) and more than half of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to agriculture.

In assessing emissions from the food transportation system, how close food is produced to its point of consumption proves to be far from the only factor. Route planning, loading, the timing of deliveries compared with traffic and vehicle efficiency are all factors in road freight emissions. And reducing emissions from transport is not just about reducing the distance that food travels between the supplier and the retailer – transport between the retailer and the customer is even more important. It is no use reducing emissions associated with transporting food from the farm to retail, only for the good work to be undone by longer or more frequent shopping trips by car.

Emissions reductions from more efficient transport can be undone by higher emissions from storage, packaging and processing of food products. The best way to reduce emissions from food processing is to reduce the extent to which food is processed at all. But this takes thought – if processing reduces the need for later cooking or refrigeration, or uses food that would otherwise go to waste, it is unlikely that eliminating processing in favor of fresh produce would reduce overall greenhouse gases. Refrigeration is a big culprit, contributing to climate change both because of the energy used to operate the equipment and because of the impact of refrigerant gases, which are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. And the interactions among refrigeration, packaging, food transport, food product innovations and various socio-economic developments have helped create cultural norms and practices that are highly energy-dependent. For example, take out-of-season consumption of fruits and vegetables. It may be less greenhouse gas-intensive to ship fruit and vegetables from Mexico or South America during the winter than to produce them locally in heated greenhouses. Similarly, emissions associated with storing apples for many months or keeping foods frozen can more than make up for the transport emissions saved by not bringing them from around the world. People have gotten used to having most foods to be available throughout the year. Slashing emissions from our food systems requires that we once again learn to live with seasonal variations.

If greenhouse gas emissions from the food system are to be reduced significantly, we will need to change the balance of the food we eat. A lower impact diet is seasonal, largely based on food that comes from plants, and can include some meat and dairy products grown to high environmental standards. Eating less – in particular, less factory-farmed meat and poultry – would be an effective way to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions.  And, as a bonus, we would be healthier for it.

In the United States, for the fourth year in a row, more than a third of honeybee colonies have failed to survive the winter.

As an article in the U.K. Guardian explains, if honeybees are in terminal collapse the world could be on the brink of biological disaster:

The decline of the country’s estimated 2.4 million beehives began in 2006, when a phenomenon dubbed colony collapse disorder (CCD) led to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of colonies. Since then more than three million colonies in the US and billions of honeybees worldwide have died and scientists are no nearer to knowing what is causing the catastrophic fall in numbers.

* * *

The collapse in the global honeybee population is a major threat to crops. It is estimated that a third of everything we eat depends upon honeybee pollination, which means that bees contribute some £26bn to the global economy.

Scientists believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies.

Losses in some commercial honeybee operations are running at 50% or greater. Continued losses of this magnitude are not economically sustainable for commercial beekeepers.

The Guardian article includes a litany of the catastrophic consequences of honeybee colony collapse:

Flowering plants require insects for pollination. The most effective is the honeybee, which pollinates 90 commercial crops worldwide. As well as most fruits and vegetables – including apples, oranges, strawberries, onions and carrots – they pollinate nuts, sunflowers and oil-seed rape. Coffee, soya beans, clovers – like alfalfa, which is used for cattle feed – and even cotton are all dependent on honeybee pollination to increase yields.

In the UK alone, honeybee pollination is valued at £200m. Mankind has been managing and transporting bees for centuries to pollinate food and produce honey, nature’s natural sweetener and antiseptic. Their extinction would mean not only a colourless, meatless diet of cereals and rice, and cottonless clothes, but a landscape without orchards, allotments and meadows of wildflowers – and the collapse of the food chain that sustains wild birds and animals.

What if we could achieve all of the following:

• A more humane livestock system
• Healthier and tastier meat and dairy products
• Less E. coli food poisoning
• Elimination of feedlots
• Better manure management
• Increased groundwater recharge
• More fertile soil and more nutritious forages
• More diverse and healthier ecosystems
• Enormous savings in energy
• Reduced use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
• Reduced flooding and soil erosion

And, to top it off:

• A dramatic reduction in global warming gases.

Richard Manning in an article in Mother Earth News titled The Amazing Benefits of Grass-fed Meat argues that we can have all this. And not just for niche markets – we can scale it up. We can convert half of the 150 million acres used to grow corn and soy ?to permanent pasture and not lose one ounce of meat production.

Tastier, more humane meat – and less global warming. Industrial farming relies on huge amounts of chemical fertilizers that produce emissions contributing to global warming. Nitrogen fertilizer reacts with oxygen to form nitrous oxide (N₂O), which has become the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.  N₂O has a global warming potential 296 times larger than an equal mass of carbon dioxide and also contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion.  In corn and soy production, tilling adds oxygen which promotes oxidation. Tillage also releases carbon dioxide, along with methane and nitrous oxide. While a growing corn field sucks up a lot of carbon dioxide, the carbon is soon released as the disced down stalks and leaves decay. All tillage systems have been found to be net contributors to global warming, with the worst offenders being the annual crops corn, soybeans and wheat farmed with conventional methods. Conversely, fields of perennial crops pull both methane and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it in the soil. Manning points to evidence that perennial grasslands can, under certain conditions, be even better at sequestering carbon than forests.

Manning calculates that if we converted half the U.S. corn and soy acres to pasture, we might cut carbon emissions by roughly 144 trillion pounds. That’s not even counting the reduced use of fossil fuels that would also result.

An additional benefit from the reduction of industrial corn and soybean farming not mentioned by Manning would be a reduction of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the use of chemical fertilizers upstream in the Mississippi basin.

So what’s stopping us? Redesigning our food system would require shifting, slashing, or eliminating massive federal subsidies for corn and soybean production – subsidies that end up in the pockets of the agribusiness conglomerates or the wealthy. The “health care” debate, which resulted in further entrenching the parasitic insurance industry, shows how likely that is to happen. Brian Riedl, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls farm subsidies “America’s largest corporate welfare program.”

Congress justifies agribusiness subsidies as keeping America’s food supply cheap and abundant. No matter that the food’s killing us while bankrupting the health care system and destroying global ecosystems.

The planet is beset with a number of unprecedented crises that, as Dennis Meadows points out, are symptomatic of an underlying problem: exponential physical growth in a finite world.

At Countercurrents.org, Helena Norberg-Hodge makes a compelling case that “going local” – shifting economic activity back into the hands of local businesses instead of concentrating it in fewer and fewer mega-corporations – may be the single most effective thing we can do to begin to tackle the problem.

Norberg-Hodge points to food as a clear example of the multi-layered benefits of localization.  Local food systems can help reinvigorate entire rural economies and have social and environmental benefits:

• While globalized agriculture demands monocultural production of cash crops, a food system oriented towards local and regional markets gives farmers incentives to diversify.
• Diversity creates many niches on the farm for wild plant and animal species.
• Diversified farms can get by without heavy machinery or heavy doses of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
• Most of the money spent on food goes to the farmer, not corporate middlemen.
• Small diversified farms employ more people per acre than large monocultures. Wages paid to farm workers benefit local economies and communities far more than money paid for heavy equipment and the fuel to run it: the latter is almost immediately siphoned off to equipment manufacturers and oil companies, while wages paid to workers are spent locally.
• Local food systems provide better food security.
• Small-scale, diversified farms have a higher total output per unit of land than large-scale monocultures.

Agribusiness interests dominate at the state, national, and international levels. For example, the Agribusiness Council is upfront about its aspirations for dominance of the global food system:

The Agribusiness Council (ABC) is a private, nonprofit/tax-exempt, membership organization dedicated to strengthening U.S. agro-industrial competitiveness through programs which highlight international trade and development potentials as well as broad issues which encompass several individual agribusiness sectors and require a “food systems” approach. Examples of such issues are commercialization of new technology/crops, environmental impacts, human resource development, trade and investment policy, natural resource management, and rural development.

touts its incestuous relationship with  the U.S. government:

Initiated under Federal government auspices by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967, The Agribusiness Council was formed by a group of business, academic, foundation and government leaders in order to facilitate American agribusiness participation in agricultural trade and development programs with developing countries – and represent private-sector agriculture interests to Federal government decision-makers.

and makes no bones about its objectives:

As an organization with international linkages, The Agribusiness Council seeks to strengthen the U.S. agricultural sector’s international outreach through stimulating private enterprise trade and investment solutions in Third World agro-industrial development.

Agribusiness interests may be too entrenched and government too corrupt to change. But we can change. We have the power to opt out of the global food system and to begin to grow local food systems, from the ground up.

New research shows that modern farming – the kind practiced on nearly all farmland in the United States and touted around the world as the “green revolution” – destroys soil carbon. Synthetic nitrogen contributes to climate change and undermines long-term soil productivity because synthetic nitrogen breaks down organic matter faster than plant residue creates it.

In papers published in 2007 and 2009 University of Illinois researchers Richard Mulvaney, Saeed Khan, and Tim Ellsworth argue that the net effect of synthetic nitrogen use is to reduce soil’s organic matter content. They hypothesize that nitrogen fertilizer stimulates soil microbes, which then feast on organic matter. Over time, the impact of this enhanced microbial appetite outweighs the benefits of the additional crop residue left behind as a result of increased fertilization.

Tom Philpot summarizes their findings in a post at Grist:

And their analysis gets more alarming. Synthetic nitrogen use, they argue, creates a kind of treadmill effect. As organic matter dissipates, soil’s ability to store organic nitrogen declines. A large amount of nitrogen then leeches away, fouling ground water in the form of nitrates, and entering the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas with some 300 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide. In turn, with its ability to store organic nitrogen compromised, only one thing can help heavily fertilized farmland keep cranking out monster yields: more additions of synthetic N.

The loss of organic matter has other ill effects, the researchers say. Injured soil becomes prone to compaction, which makes it vulnerable to runoff and erosion and limits the growth of stabilizing plant roots. Worse yet, soil has a harder time holding water, making it ever more reliant on irrigation. As water becomes scarcer, this consequence of widespread synthetic N use will become more and more challenging.

In short, “the soil is bleeding,” Mulvaney told me in an interview.

The idea that synthetic fertilizers destroy soil health is not new. Philpot quotes from the book The Soil and Health by British agronomist Sir Albert Howard, a touchstone of organic farming first published in 1947:

The use of artificial manure, particularly [synthetic nitrogen] … does untold harm. The presence of additional combined nitrogen in an easily assimilable form stimulates the growth of fungi and other organisms which, in the search for organic matter needed for energy and for building up microbial tissue, use up first the reserve of soil hummus and then the more resistant organic matter which cements soil particles.

A recent report by UNEP and the UN Conference on Trade and Development is consistent with the researchers’ results, finding that in Africa yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used, with yields jumping 128% in east Africa. The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming and produced environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought.

Compared to any other human activity, land use and agriculture are the greatest emitters of greenhouse gasses.

You heard that right. More than the emissions from all the world’s passenger cars, trucks, trains and planes, or the emissions from all electricity generation or manufacturing. Of the three most important man-made greenhouse gasses — carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation, methane emissions from animals and rice fields, and nitrous oxide emissions from heavily fertilized fields  — account for 30% of the total.

Jonathan Foley points out at Yale Environment 360 that since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystems than agriculture. Continued population growth is pushing global agricultural systems to their very limits. He asks:

Already, we have cleared or converted more than 35 percent of the earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, whether for croplands, pastures or rangelands. . . What will happen to our remaining ecosystems, including tropical rainforests, if we need to double or triple world agricultural production, while simultaneously coping with climate change?

We’re already exploiting Earth’s water resources in an unsustainable manner, drawing on fossil aquifers and draining rivers before they reach the sea. The use of industrial fertilizers and other chemicals has more than doubled the flows of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the environment and fundamentally upset the chemistry of the entire planet. How can Earth cope with future demands from increasing population and agricultural consumption?

Unfortunately, Foley’s answer is pretty feeble. First, acknowledge we have a problem. Then, “find ways to simultaneously increase production of our agricultural systems while greatly reducing their environmental impacts” – what he calls a “greener agricultural revolution.”

What Foley can’t admit is, we don’t have a “problem” that can be solved with yet another technofix. We’re in a predicament, from which there’s no solution, no easy way out. The best we can hope for is to face our predicament squarely, with as much courage and grace as we can muster.