Last Thursday I had the pleasure to stand in front of
the elite of agricultural sciences and say “We are all going to
die!”
After a short pause I continued with “... what we
do with the time before we die does matter!”
This was my introduction to the invited talk at Tervise loom ja tervislik toit 2013 [Healthy animals and healthy food 2013] on
how livestock production might prepare for an electrical paralysed
period. August last year I published an opinion on the subject in the
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture that seemed to create quite a lot of publicity nationally and internationally. To my surprise I had suddenly become an "expert" on something I had meant to be a concerned comment for those wiser than me. Apparently few others had given this topic a thought - what happens to our food production in an all out power shortage.
I was very moved by the massive positive feedback following the talk I gave, from students to professors. It was a feeling of actually moving a thought or two, perhaps even moving a single opinion even.
I decided to put up the article and the presentation here on the blog for those who could not attend or people interested in the subject. And to those that listened - thank you!
Lots have been written about in vitro meat (meat cells artificially grown for the purpose of food consumption). Mostly the debate orbit the same topics as other new technologies entering our home: Is it safe? Would I use it? Do we need it? Will it be the answer to our problems (growing population, disease, global warming)? If it is good business, is there any way it is humanly possible to avoid it if you do not want it?
I would like to review this new technology from the standpoint of veterinary science and my personal opinion.
I think everyone can understand that we have gone through many steps in livestock production through the previous hundreds of years. And with the industrial revolution the intensity of the production has increased. And it keeps increasing, though problems increase with higher densities of animals, designed foods for maximal growth, animals outgrowing their environment and their carrying capacity, infertility, more diseases to them and us, and so on. But why would a herd owner take on all those pains if a less industrialized production would lessen the headaches and improve the health (and often quality of the product)?
Jared Diamonds gives a decent explanation to this in his book Collapse: optimize or perish. When in the business, and liking your job, you often have to invest to survive, at the same time increasing your dependence on having to continue. Since meat and milk prices have not followed the rest of the economic development, the farmer gets the same, while expenses increase - roughly said. The popular way of dealing with this is by optimizing in facilities and machinery to reduce the increasing production costs. It actually makes sense if you imagine yourself as the farmer desiring not to see his family investments and life work go down the drain.
But optimization has the dark side of not considering the animals as much more than a simple asset eventually. Output is all that matters when it comes down to regulations, quotas, and expenses. But problems with the animals (infertility, diseases, mortalities or culling due to unsatisfactory production, motoric disorders, behavioural disorders, stress and the list goes on) also lead to expenses either through treatment or losses through poorer performing animals. It is a ugly dilemma that does not seem to be turning around any time in sight.
Some farmers try to break free of this maelstrom. Ecological and organic farming is one example.
But imagine how farming would look like if you want to keep optimizing your meat production! What if you could optimize it so far you could get rid of the animals, the large buildings, manure problems, diseases, army of staff... what would it look like? In vitro meat would not be a bad guess!
But wouldn't we object? I don't think so. Some, off course. There will always be some who have a taste for quality and nutrition. But the average consumer in the supermarket has tasted lower and lower quality meat over the last decades, no. And the skill of knowing what is good meat is long lost in the generation shift.
Thus, the question remains. Do you want to eat substitute meat? Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good for the industry. Unless you believe more industrial food needs to "save" a growing population (rather than distribute it fairly - to me a contradiction in terms), then I would call in vitro meat, the next thing in livestock optimization - goodbye animals. That said - it may still have many important roles in the future. Tissue growth will be medically incredibly important. And even food grown in a petri dish may have its purpose if we decide to reach for the stars or mine the depths of the oceans.
I think the final remark to this should be a quote from a dark vision of the future, the movie Judge Dredd:
"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you."
The great thing about being a mad scientist is that when organizers invite you to give a talk - the audience have listen to you ramble. And I feel that I am obliged to! The last 3 days I attended the NJF symposium "Climate Change and Agricultural Production in the Baltic Sea Region" in Uppsula, Sweden. And let me first say: it was a good seminar!
But the outcome of 300 scientists from 15 countries, and the 70 presentations (incl. mine) had a very predictable outcome of how to go about the climate change from a agricultural / livestock perspective - "More!" More networking, more production, more research, more diagnostics, more risk assessment, more lobbying etc.
We had discussions, which I think were the highlights of this seminar. Both in my presentation and the following discussion I felt I actually succeeded in presenting some views that "shook things up" with my colleagues, who may be a little stuck in the framework we are expected to work in.
Some points I put up for discussion:
- there is a huge gap between scientists and those who is supposed to use and benefit from know-how (farmers) in many countries. Should we continue ignoring that?
- how can a farmer take up new management or technology when his only chance of obtaining an economical buffer to do so is by constantly optimizing production (more, more, more)? Farmers have got the same dump price for many years for their products (or produce at a losses).
- would the impact of existing solutions not be bigger by finding passionate individuals or groups willing to go forward with them (ownership) in contrast to hoping governments will consider scientific knowledge?
- perhaps increasing complexity of our production systems is not the way forward with the only focus on more production. I pointed at grass roots have had good success looking backwards and simplifying production by attempting new/re-adapting old technologies that can give the same (or better) outputs, but with less impact on climate, animal health, and farmer economy.
- I suggested feeding down-up (farmer grass roots) networks rather than only top-down (policy driven), epathizing passionate people have proven incredibly effective in integrating methods through beliefs. If we could work with such people (to assure we do not jump in a harmful direction) we might accomplish a lot very quickly.
It is not that we lack technology to solve problems - it is just so hard to change course with such a large machinery as global economy. Some scientists pointed out they did not think it is our (scientists) role to make sure science is used - that is up to policy makers. I disagree - especially considering how science is often abused.
After getting time to explain these points in details I experienced most my colleagues could agree on points, at least on the ideology level. Interestingly, full support and additional insight, was added by collegues with long experience in 3rd world countries - who point at these things as crucial for the most fundamental kind of success in applying science to improve conditions locally and nationally. Similar signals came from scientists with practical experience and contact with farmers. We had representatives from the Swedish Agricultural Ministry present, and they surprisingly showed interest in some of these points during discussion. However, those who were at higher decision making levels, such as EU level, or national risk management, were not so interested in these points - and more focused on survailance, and how to secure current production status. I frankly asked "Why are we (in disease control) doing our job?". The question was not understood, but when I added "Are we supposed to be a shield while we wait for something better to happen?" Then everybody agreed. I did not persue this, but I think this professional passiveness is not in the common interest of the creatures in the ecosystem.
One orginizations initiatives, LRF (the Swedish farmers association), presented by the charismatic Elisabeth Gauffin, who gave an impressive talk. This orginazation and sharing of experience would without a doubt benefit Baltic States if they took up such an initiative with similar passions. Sharing videos on the website of methods to increase energy efficiency on the farms and other experiences I think is especially brilliant. Imagine if scientists could tap into such an information channel!
I was also happy to see Biochar (Terra Preta) on the agenda. Apparently, the last 2 years research in Sweden and many other places has focused on this promising (ancient) carbon sink and soil cultivator with very promising results. But... it is "going backwards" in some peoples eyes (was used by indians in the Amazonas). A short list of the (long term: hundreds to thousands of years) benefits are increases in: nutrient retention, moisture, soil microlife and metabolism, shelter for microorganisms, pH buffering and stability etc. Besides the plant benefits, on the climate side, experiments show the presence of Biochar can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (N2O and methane) with up to 90%, according to the researchers present. A good point was made in the presentation: halting CO2 emissions is useless (will not halt effects) if we not actively also remove carbon in an intelligent way. Wood, and biomass in general, can be made to Biochar (which is much like charcoal), reducing carbon by putting it into the earth (with no measurable side effects). One kg burried equals to 3.67 kg CO2 removed. A very profitable buisness for a farmer if CO2-taxes become fair. At the same time producting Biochar taking care of garbage (organic) and producing energy (the burning is about 70% of burning all the organic material instead of making Biochar).
Abstract on the presentation should be available here in the future (NJF Report Vol. 6 (1) p. 103)
Obviously, I have to try spreading 1 g charcoal per square meter of my land to see what happens.
A very interesting exercise for me. I learned a lot. And perhaps others learned something from my ideas. I conclude from my "provokations" to the scientific community that people exist out there who are willing to think differently, but the framework most scientists have worked in for so long is binding most from straying from a one-way-road.
For the critics. Yes, scientific reasoning should be the drive for convincing a scientific community. This exercise hopefully show that taking a direction as a community deserves more than one point of view. Especially if the point of view is the status quo in a debate discussing an unsustainable culture. There are scientificly strong alternatives that is hard to see in the debate, and areas that should be examined more closely (such as social factors) that bring forward a scinece based change.
: optimize or perish. When in the business, and liking your job, you often have to invest to survive, at the same time increasing your dependence on having to continue. Since meat and milk prices have not followed the rest of the economic development, the farmer gets the same, while expenses increase - roughly said. The popular way of dealing with this is by optimizing in facilities and machinery to reduce the increasing production costs. It actually makes sense if you imagine yourself as the farmer desiring not to see his family investments and life work go down the drain.
is one example.
: 