REALLY - WHERE'S THE (ORGANIC) BEEF JOHN?

Part two of my beef interview session with John Brennan. This one discusses the beef grade, and also features a different perspective to John's, that of Teagasc Organic Farming Advisor James McDonnell.

How should quality be defined in organic beef? There are two schools of thought.

(Pic: some of Joe Condon's galloway cattle)

One school suggests that organic cattle should be graded along the same lines as conventional, using the EU R O P system.

For non-farmer readers: This grid or grade system scores cattle carcass shape and muscle development from the top (E) to the bottom (P). Numbers 1 to 5 denote degree of fat on the carcass, with 1 having the least and 5 the most. Thus, in conventional farming, top price achieving animals are up at the U or (rarely) E levels, with a fat score of 1 or 2.

In organic farming in Ireland, a flat price is used instead of this grade system. However, it, or a modified version, is used in other EU countries for organic beef animals.

It could be argued that organic farming does not reward the highest achievers, producing, in conventional terms, the best animals. According to James McDonnell, organic advisor with Teagasc:

�The flat price doesn't do anything for the (organic) sector: in conventional, its all about quality. Good quality cattle and good carcass with better overall cuts are not being rewarded.�

�A Belgian Blue has more fillets, round roast and so on; but it could be argued that, in organic, poor animals are overpaid for, and visa versa. The factories would also prefer quality as they make more.�

He continues: �When factories were paying flat, there were beef blockages in the conventional sector�, pointing out that the flat price may also be mitigating against finishers in organic.

Indeed, top organic producers can sell into the conventional sector for the higher grade prices.

However, both the Good Herdsman and the Leitrim Co-op prefer to pay a flat rate.

For John Brennan of the Leitrim Co-op � we want to improve quality and confirmation, but this factory system isn't the answer�.

He points to a breed renowned for its eating quality: �Take the Aberdeen Angus � that is often graded as an O. It has a natural genetic merit in its confirmation, and for many consumers, the breed produces a superior meat. The grading system does not take organoleptic factors into account - so its about efficiency, not quality of meat. I won't accept anything but a flat rate.�

He continues �You need minimum of a 2 for fat cover � in Scotland R4 is ideal for organic. They have a lot of work done there on the Angus, where they are fed mostly on grass and silage, and finishing at 300 to 320 kg deadweight. Some oats and peas produced on the farm are also used as feed � really its a great system. Plus, they have managed to get PGI status for Scotch beef�.

Levels of grass feeding is another issue again: native breeds are more suited to a grass-based diet. Research suggests that increasing the grass content of the animal's diet increases the levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which is thought to help protect against cancer, diabetes and heart disease, without using external inputs (e.g. imported oils) to achieve this.

�If we had the conventional grading system in organic, it would penalise the native breeds�, breeds that, in a nutshell are more suited to the terrain and climate in Ireland, can finish off grass and have tasty marbling.

There is another element to this: �increasingly, supermarket buyers, especially abroad, don't want continental animals from Ireland�. In other words, they want breeds traditionally associated with Ireland and Britain.

�We need to look at low input animals, animals that are carbon footprint friendly. There should be a good conversion of feed into meat, from silage and grass, with just a a small amount of supplements�.

Increasingly, science, through the use of stable isotope tests, can test the meat itself to differentiate beef based on diet.

Research in Ireland by Professor Frank Monaghan and others has now clearly demarked grass fed from other meat, and organic from conventional.

So, in the final analysis, is it about the consumer or the factory?

Adapting the weapons of war: farming, food and 100th anniversary of synthetic nitrogen's invention

I did a bit of radio today (4 and drivetime on RTE 1), about the new UK FSA research into the research on organics. You may have heard it, and, if not, I'll be posting about it here and writing about it in the examiner presently.

In the meantime, I'd like to draw your attention to a referenced article I have on the current website of organic matters.

This notes the 100 anniversary of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and the Haber-Bosch process. I'm particularly pleased with it as a pice: its a tiny update on the printed version, and has those references put in: print sources tend to prefer articles wirthout references.

The one update is so chilling: thanks to pesticide use: there are not in fact 25 million dead birds each year, there are 70 million. Scary.

Puts relative levels of nutrition in conventional vs organic in the shade really...

Feel free to comment on the posting over there

Cheers Ollie

climate change and farming in Ireland: part 2

photo by: Mariah gale, licienced under creative commons

In November, Minister for the Environment John Gormley said that �all sectors will have to cut emissions�. According to Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Brendan Smith TD, �making significant cuts from agriculture will be very difficult�.

He warned against �significant downward pressure on animal numbers, something that would �in a global context make no sense�.

The Minister said that if Ireland was to reduce cattle numbers, the global climate change situation would actually be worsened because "Irish beef would simply be replaced on world markets by beef produced in a much less sustainable way".

This point of carbon leakage has been raised in many quarters. Essentially the suggestion is that if we stop producing, other less sustainable regions in the world will instead. This will increase rather than decrease overall GHG emissions.
Department of Environment representative, when queried, claimed that �there is no confusion between this Department and the Department of Agriculture on greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector.�

Simple and straightforward. And yet, there since the EU targets were agreed, there has been a rumbling on going discussion on footing the GHG bill. Enough to remind one of Queen Gertrude's most famous line: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks'.

What has been dubbed the 'cow tax memo' suggested, according to reports, that �imposing a levy on all livestock is the best way to avoid having to cut the size of the national herd�.

This memo proposes a levy set at �5 per tonne of CO2 emitted, to generate just over �100 million. This has been reported as an equivalence of a levy of �13 for each dairy cow, �7 for non diary cow, �1 for sheep.

Minister Brendan Smith and even the EU commission have all come out railing against the possibility of this cow tax.

According to former Green Party leader, Minister of State Trevor Sargent, who's brief also includes cattle breeding, �A myth has been peddled however claiming Minister for the Environment and Local Government John Gormley T.D. is in favour of a cattle cull to reduce methane emissions. This is completely untrue and is a gross disservice to the work Minister Gormley has been doing to help the long term viability of all sectors, including agriculture�.

He points to two crucial areas his colleague has achieved for Ireland and agriculture with regard to climate change: In the European climate change deal agreed before Christmas, �Minister Gormley ... achieved flexibility in the deal to ensure that Ireland did not face higher costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that we would not be forced to reduce our national herd�.

Gormley �also met with the European Presidency�s chief climate change negotiator, and was successful in having carbon leakage placed onto the agenda for future climate change negotiations�.

Just how much agriculture should pay is an altogether more interesting question in a contracting economy.

While demand for higher end food products may reduce abroad, it is likely that agriculture, which already provides 32% of net foreign earnings, will become more prominent in the future. Ireland have various practical advantages in producing food (e.g. climate, access to markets) which do not pertain in most other economic sectors.

According to Dr Mary Kelly of the EPA �The profile of greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland is unusual in the European context, with agriculture currently accounting for 27 per cent of all emissions and 40 per cent of emissions in the non-trading sector. This makes it very difficult to effect actual reductions on the scale required in the non-trading sector�.

The Koyoto targets, it seems, might be reachable due to recession. However the EU targets will prove far more difficult. Climate change experts have predicted that Ireland's' emissions will be down by between 5 and 9% in 2009, because of the recession.

Frank Convery, professor of environmental policy at University College Dublin, was reported recently as saying that Ireland's emissions may well be as close to the 63 million tonnes permitted under Koyoto. This would save the government E300 million in the purchase of carbon credits.

A recent EPA report, issued in March of this year, considers different scenarios, including that of economic shock until 2010 � decline by 7% each year until 2010, and then growth until 2020.

According to the EPA report, irrespective of economic performance, there is only one scenario for agricultural emission projections:

�Emissions are projected to decrease by 4% over the period 2007 � 2020 to 17.8 Mtonnes of CO2e.� This estimate was actually 18.95 Mtonnes in 2008, so agriculture is performing even better than just last year's predictions from the EPA itself. Agriculture in 1990 accounted for 35% of emissions.

Individual sectors performance within agriculture underscore this fact: According to Dr Gerry Boyle of Teagasc �Technological advances in dairy production, for example, have led to a drop of 12.4% in the amount of methane produced per kg of milk between 1990 and 2006�.

Most GHG emissions from Irish agriculture are methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from soils.

Specific measures under the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) �are expected to raise awareness amongst farmers of the need to address climate change and also to promote greater acceptance and uptake of technologies that contribute to greenhouse gas abatement, such as use of minimum tillage and the adoption of low emission trailing shoe technology for slurry spreading� a DAFF spokesperson said, when queried.

Other abatement strategies include: dietary modifications, additives or probiotics to reduce methane production, breed selection, increasing the length of the grazing season and breeding more efficient animals.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the nitrates directive had resulted in �better use of nutrients with consequently less nitrogen application and therefore fewer nitrous oxide emissions�. This includes matching nitrogen use to soil type, increasing clover use on farms, use of nitrate inhibitors�.

It was also suggested that �in terms of reduced fertiliser use and consequent emissions, organic farming will also have a role to play and is supported through the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food's Organic Farming Scheme.�

Forestry and energy crops are also relevant. To encourage energy crop cultivation, the National Energy Crop Premium (E80 per hectare) was introduced in 2007 to supplement the EU Premium of E45 per hectare.

A new Bioenergy Scheme was also launched offering establishment grants worth E1,450 per hectare to plant willow and miscanthus. Land planted with energy crops can also benefit under the Single Payment Scheme as well as REPS and the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme, subject to some restrictions on the areas planted.

The main issue from a farming perspective is, according to Gerry Boyle, �Gaining credits for afforestation and biomass production for bioenergy is problematic�. However, �there is no basis in logic for the agricultural sector not benefiting in accessing these offsets given that it is farmers that will need to alter their land use practices�.

However, there are other laggard areas. Gary Lanigan is a Teagasc research officer based in Johnstown Castle. His area of speciality is emissions, including GHG emissions, and soil carbon content.

According to Lanigan, while fertilizer usage is down down 20-25% from 1998, and while sheep and cattle numbers are down too, he estimates that �Only about 1% of farmers are using clover�.

Considering the numerous cost and environmental benefits, this is an astounding figure.

There are many considerations in the debate on GHG emissions. A complete and comprehensive life cycle analysis might skew all the figures again: While the application of fertilizer produces GHGs, so to does the making of fertilizers.

A nagging worry of course is the possibility that the scale of the problem and the scope of the solutions simply do not match up.

In the meantime, matching efficiencies and emissions, and seeing opportunities in the constraints may help agriculture move forward sustainably.

Climate change and farming part 1

In light of the new report issued today on climate change and its affect of agriculture, here's part one of a feature on climate change and farming.

The simple and objective facts of climate change are straightforward up to a point. The main question from an agriculture perspective is: how should the effort of readjustment be shared out amongst the sectors?

First, the facts: According to Dr. John Sweeney, (NUI Maynooth), The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) reports present �unequivocal evidence� that planet is currently experiencing �the loading of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere to concentrations not experienced for over 650,000 years...there is also now very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been at least five times greater than that due to solar output changes�.

This will affect water patterns, putting severe pressure on both agricultural productivity and populations, especially in wetlands, deltas and the driest parts of Africa. The rest of the world will have more extreme weather, while 20-30% of plant and animals species will also face a high risk of extinction.

In Ireland, this will make parts of Leinster, Ulster and even occasionally Munster more likely to suffer drought, with mid summer housing of animals a possibility. Crop growing patters will alter, with potatoes more difficult to grow apart from in the north west.

Reduced fertilizer application, extensification, summer water shortages and pest/disease pattern alteration are all likely to occur.

However, the overall effects will not be as serious in Ireland or to Irish agriculture as elsewhere. Most main sectors will get to continue, albeit in a modified form.

There are two main targets the government is working towards � Koyoto (up to 2012) and the EU targets (up to 2020).

The Kyoto Protocol limits Ireland�s total national emissions to an average of 62.8 million tonnes of CO2e, per year in the period 2008 � 2012. This is 13 per cent above the 1990 baseline estimate.

Importantly for agriculture, Co2e means carbon dioxide equivalent � other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), such as methane and nitrous oxide are measured as compared to carbon dioxide in terms of their global warming potential. Methane is considered 21 times more damaging than carbon dioxide, a figure which may even be upgraded to 25 times soon.

The EU targets of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions relative to 2005 figures are more recent and more challenging.

farming's future sustainability

Here's an interview I did with Richard Douthwaite (right) of FEASTA. It appeared in last week's Farming Examiner as the front page and centre page spread.

Oliver Moore: Can you outline the overall situation with regard to the sustainability of farming, as you see it Richard?

Richard Douthwaite: Modern industrialised farming, particularly tillage, has been described as a way of converting fossil energy into food energy. There�s a lot of energy used in the application of fertilizer, in tractors, in sprays, then in packing and getting the food to the customer. The whole process is not sustainable. In traditional forms of farming, it took 4 units of energy to produce each unit of energy in food. Most of that energy was directly from the sun, and all from renewable sources. Now there are 40 units of energy going into the production of food in the Europe, and perhaps up to 90 in the US. Most of that is from fossil fuels. That can�t continue.

OM: Within this broad picture, what is the key problem?

RD: The problem is that we�re not recycling the nutrients. Quite a lot of the nitrogenous fertilizer breaks down in the soil and becomes nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), and one of the main sources of GHGs in farming. A lot of energy is used in the production of those nitrogenous fertilizers and most of it is wasted because the nitrogen is not taken up by the plants. There's more waste when the crops leave the farm because the nutrients they contain aren�t recycled: There�s nitrogen in the proteins that go off, and there�s phospates going off too. They are consumed by whoever eats the food and go into the sewage system, and don�t get back onto the land. As a consequence of this, we need to apply more artificial fertilizers. There is a growing problem with phosphorous. There�s a finite supply: rock phosphate is getting scarcer and scarcer, and that then means that more and more energy is needed to make it available to us and to transport it from places like Morocco.

So we need to think of how fertilizer can be better retained in the soil, so that if you are putting nitrogen on, it stays there. We need to minimise the use of artificial nitrogen, and to start replacing it with organic sources, such as legumes which fix nitrogen. Then, we need to make sure that any that escapes is recycled.

OM: What are the future implications for farming?

RD: Agriculture is likely to become more labour intensive again. The trend towards the larger farms will be reversed as the cost of food and fuel rises in real terms and takes a higher proportion of non-farmers' incomes. Farmers won't just be growing food. They will be producing fuel, chemicals, fibres and building materials as well. A whole new category of multi-purpose crops will emerge.

OM: How do you envision these multi purpose crops being utilized most efficiently?

RD: It may emerge in a way similar to the co-op creamery structure of a century ago, where the co-op would take the milk and the farmer would take back the whey. I envisage a co-op bio-refinery in each community to which farmers would deliver crops like miscanthus, which would be refined to give protein powder, biogas, diesel fuel, plastics like nylon, pesticides and soil improvers. The farmers would take the improvers back to their farms to recycle the nutrients that were in the crop they delivered to the refinery. Because transport will become more expensive, the plants' bulk will be reduced in rural areas and there will be centralised refineries regionally that take the valuable bits and process them further. At the bioenergy show in Tullamore this year, miscanthus was being sold in compressed blocks for people's fires, just like the wood blocks made from compressed sawdust. But 20% of dried grass is plant protein � that�s too valuable to burn. Quite simply, we should be taking out the valuable bits before burning any biomass.

OM: So the biorefineries would produce biofuels like biodiesel?

RD: Yes, but I should emphasise that these would be second-generation biofuels, produced by breaking down the cellulose found in all plants. Feasta is very much against the production of most first-generation biofuels, such as ethanol from maize and wheat and biodiesel from oilseed rape. These make no sense from an energy or a climate point of view. Their production is entirely driven by tax-breaks and the net result has been to increase hunger around the world. The only first generation biofuel that is acceptable is ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil.

OM: If farmers go in this direction in the near future, what�s in it for them?

RD: If farmers can increase the carbon content of their soils, or the semi-permanent biomass that�s growing on them, they need to be rewarded in some way for doing this because they would be helping prevent climate change. Part of their reward would be that they made their soil much better. It is however, very difficult to measure the carbon content of soils to pay farmers a set amount per tonne for the carbon that they have taken in. Feasta is therefore setting up a working party to develop a new concept of best practice - to develop a better understanding of the types of farming that involve sequestering more and more carbon in the soil or in the plants growing on the soil. It needs to become financially beneficial to follow best practice. There could be payments through REPS, or the price of the crops could be subsidised in some sort of way. We�re going to need people in the working party with expertise in this area, and we�re getting very good co-operation from the universities and from Teagasc on this.

OM: Are there any new developments that might help with soil performance and quality?

RD: Feasta has become particularly interested in the inclusion of charcoal in the soil. It has recently been discovered that the pre Columbian Indians put charcoal into the soil because it held the nutrients there. Also, there was an increase in microbial and fungal activity which made the soil more fertile. These soils still exist in the Amazon basin where they are called terra preta, which means dark earth. What happens, it seems, is that the fungi feed on sugars sent down by the plants, and they in turn send up nutrients to the plants. So the plant sequesters carbon too. Terra Preta promises to do three things: 1 sequester more carbon in the soil; 2 hold nutrients there more efficiently; 3 give bigger crops.

OM: Where does Feasta stand on the cows vs cars debate?

RD: We don't think there should be a debate at all. Some civil servants seem to think that because cows' digestive systems give off methane, a GHG, Ireland should reduce its greenhouse emissions by cutting the number of either cars or cows. This is, we think, a total misconception. We've tried to get the IFA to make the case that cows are very different because the methane they release is not adding fossil carbon to the air but it just doesn�t seem to be bothered. It seems to hope that its political muscle will shield its members from any herd-reduction measures the government might introduce. The ICMSA has a very much better attitude.

OM: But isn�t methane a serious GHG?

RD: Methane is a very serious GHG. It�s probably 60 times worse than CO2. Official figures suggest that it is 23 times more, but that�s over a 100 year period. However, all its heating effect is concentrated in the first few years before it is broken down. But - and this is crucial - the carbon in the methane released by cows comes from natural sources. It is not adding continuously to the carbon in the air, because the plants that the cows grazed on picked up the carbon from the air. So the cows are part of the natural carbon cycle. They are not leading to a net increase in the warming effect. If you increase the size of the national herd, you get a once off increase in methane; you don�t get a continuous increase in CO2 levels, as you do if you are burning fossil fuels in a car. So there is no comparison at all between cars and cows.

OM: I presume you are talking about grass-fed animals, where the grass gets its nitrogen from legumes? And surely processing, distribution and so on need to be taken into account before you can presume diary and beef will be acceptable in sustainability terms?

RD: If meat and milk is to be produced anywhere in the world, Ireland should be one of the places producing them because the fossil fuel emissions from producing them here are lower than they would be almost anywhere else. You've also got to consider the carbon emissions if forest is cleared for beef production in places like Brazil. And, because Ireland is close to a lot of people who need meat and milk products, it should not take a lot of energy to get the food to them, although more of it will go by sea in future rather than by truck.

OM: So, in certain relatively easy to attain circumstances, we can keep our beef and dairy industries.

RD: Yes, I think so. But many more cattle will be kept indoors so that the slurry can be turned into biogas. This will be used for heating, for electricity and compressed to run vehicles. Farmers have been very slow to realise that the energy content of a bullock's dung is worth more than its meat.

OM: What's the biggest challenge facing Irish farmers?

RD: They, in common with farmers around the world, have got to find ways of turning their sector from being a source of greenhouse emissions into a sink which removes them. At present, about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and changes in land use, such as forest clearance. Those emissions not only have to stop but, because the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already above the safe limit, CO2 needs to be removed from the air quickly, before it has set off a disastrous uncontrollable global warming process. We might have thirty years to do this. There's no high-tech solution. Only the world's farmers can respond in time.

New review of the available research confirms organic plant-based foods usually more nutritious.

It is a perennial and slightly tiresome debate, but it just won�t go away. The debate about whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional food is just one of those constant points of argument between the organic and conventional food sectors.

There are a range of issues. It can be difficult to accurately compare the two farming systems. It is difficult to account for broader but important comparative factors such as the relative ripeness or age of the products studied � is the organic tomato as old or as young as the conventional tomato studied? Has it travelled a longer or shorter distance? What about varieties?

There are still more: Does the research compare food fresh from the field, in controlled growing conditions, or available in the supermarket?

And are we all being overly reductive in focusing on one nutrient at a time, and indeed nutrition in such detail? Does the debate on nutrition background other important debates � do we fail to take into account the bigger picture, of biodiversity levels or carbon footprints, when we focus so selfishly as humans on nutrition?

All of this said, it does genuinely seem that more and more research is coming out to suggest organic food is more nutritious, most notably the QLIF research findings from Newcastle University. People point to this as being the beginning of some evidence that organic is more nutritious. That said, many still repeat the mantra that there is no scientific data to suggest that organic is more nutritious.

Which is funny. Because most of the research on the issue says the exact opposite. Conveniently, an overview of all peer-reviewed research comparing organic and conventional foods has just been issued. Charles Benbrook led a team of researchers over a two year period into the topic.

The report, New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods, was issued in March.

97 peer-reviewed publications from 1980 to the present were examined. Of these, the authors found enough similarities to compare 236 �matched pairs�.

Matched pairs take into account co-measurability issues. As an example, tomatoes grown organically on one farm and grown conventionally on another close by, with climate, aspect, soil types, plant genetics, irrigation, nitrogen levels and harvest practices all relatively similar.

For 61% of these 236 matched pairs, organic food was shown to have higher nutritional levels. For 8 out of 11 of the nutrients studied organic food had on average 25% higher nutritional levels.

Where conventional food scored best was for nutrients relatively commonly available � potassium, protein and phosphorous. Even where conventional scored better, the amount it scored better by was relatively low: 2/3 of these involved a superiority of below 10%.

Interestingly, where organic scored best was for polyphenols and antioxidants. There was a 10% or more superiority in the antioxidant capacity of a whooping 80% of the organic samples over the conventional.

The authors pointed out that polyphenols and antioxidant capacity is an area of growing scientific investigation, both because of improvements in the analytical tools and because of the evidence that we need these to be healthy.

According to the authors, daily intake of antioxidants and polyphenols is half what it is supposed to be, which makes this nutritional superiority of organic all the more salient.

The number of comparative studies is increasing all the time: more than 40 new studies have been published since 2001.

What�s also interesting to note is that, back then, organic was scoring better in the studies of the research anyway. Indeed two reviews of the literature were published in 2001, and both suggested that organic had higher nutritional levels.

While one was published by the Soil Association, the other was published in a peer-reviewed journal, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Virgina Worthington reviewed 41 studies, and found higher levels in organic produce of all of the 21 nutrients analysed. This included statistically significant higher levels of some, including iron (21% more), magnesium (29% more) and vitamin C (27% more).

And yet, some time soon, you will hear the mantra; �there is no evidence that organic food is nutritionally superior to conventional�.�

To download the Benbrook report, go to previous posting.

Science, farming and fossil fuels: An organic crop researcher talks about the science of farming

Dr. Charles Merfield, or �Merf� as the approachable New Zealander prefers to be called, is making waves across the Irish agricultural landscape at the moment. Merf works for Teagasc (Irish state's agri-advisory and research organisation) as an organic crop researcher, and is based in Johnstown Castle, Wexford, Ireland. Merf's own site, which carries info on his research, letters published in the farming press etc is here

Oliver Moore: First thing first Merf, tell me a little bit about yourself and your background - hw did a New Zealander end up as a researcher in Ireland?

Merf: My partner is a soil microbiologist and nitrogen specialist and was working for Teagasc in 2006 - I heard about the job when I came to visit her. It�s also the only job in organic cropping research I found in the EU - something I find rather odd considering the general enthusiasm for organics at the moment, so I am very glad I got the position.

Oliver Moore: Do you have any practical experience in farming?

My background is in commercial horticulture - I studied at Writtle College in the UK. I then had jobs managing organic horticultural farms in the UK and New Zealand. This has given me a really solid grounding in real farming and business - which I feel is an invaluable asset now I am mostly on the research side of the fence. I only have to think back to standing in a cold wet field harvesting vegetables to remind myself of farmer�s priorities. I find agricultural scientists that have come from purely academic backgrounds without farm experience are missing something, and ag science is poorer as a result.

Oliver Moore: Your perspective on where agriculture is going has been attracting a lot of attention recently, in both the farming press and at various agricultural events. Firstly, can you give me a brief historical perspective.

Merf: Since the beginning of agriculture until the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, agriculture has been firmly embedded in the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem in which it operated. Human history in that time is riddled with endless examples of human societies that exceeded the ecological carrying capacity of the land, thereby destroying it and themselves. This is a key theme in Tim Flannery�s �The Future Eaters�. Indeed it is difficult to think of any large civilisation that has not destroyed its resource base and therefore itself. One exception held up in organic circles are the ancient Chinese who farmed the same lands for millennia without loss of fertility or productivity, due to the constant recycling of all nutrients from animal, including human, manures back to the land.

For me there are two key changes that fundamentally altered this situation - science and fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not just fuel but are the �feed stock� for most of the materials on which our modern lives depend. Anything you see around you that you cannot clearly see is made from biological material, for example a solid wood table, is almost certainly made �from� fossil fuel, mainly oil. Unfortunately practically everything in the modern world is made �with� oil or other fossil energy, even if it is of biological origin and not made �from� oil. In other words, the energy from fossil fuel was used in its manufacture. Fossil fuel therefore provides nearly all of the energy and �feed stock� for the modem world, materials that were previously provided almost exclusively by agriculture. I therefore think the term �fossil land� is a far more accurate and useful term than fossil fuel.

Oliver Moore: So what�s the problem with fossil fuel or fossil land dependence then?

Merf: Peak oil is the problem. Fossil fuels having been in common use for about 300 years, nearly eight generations. Fossil fuels are so �normal� that most people cannot, or maybe until the last couple of years, could not conceive that they would not last for ever. However, its very basic maths that if you have a finite resource and progressively use it up then at some stage you will of used half of it up, that is, peak supply, at some time use all of it up, and at some point in-between its scarcity will drive its cost so high it will in effect preclude its use for most purposes. Once it is gone, it is gone forever - at least in geological time scales.

From my perspective science and fossil land make an unholy alliance. Without fossil fuels, science and technology would have been forced to work within the ecological carrying capacity of the land, and when they tried to exceed it they would be been utterly rebuffed. The carrying capacity of land is no different to the productivity of a cow, say. You can�t keep milking a cow without feeding it and expect to get milk forever, but that is often the belief about ecosystems: you can�t milk an ecosystem forever without feeding it, i.e., replacing that which you remove from it, and expect it to last forever. Had there not been fossil fuel and society had hit the ecological wall, after a few crashes �science� should have figured out what was going on and figured out how to stay within the ecological carrying capacity.

However, modernity has effectively ignored the carrying capacity of its ecosystems by consuming fossil land, in the form of oil and coal. These replaced the nutrients and energy that had previously been produced by agriculture. I hope the term �consuming fossil land� or just �consuming land� gives some insight into how insane this is. No farmer in his right mind would allow the destruction of part of his or her fields with each harvest, but this is what we are in effect doing when we consume fossil fuels, that is, fossil land. Both land and fossil fuels are finite resources and if we destroy them it takes a very long time, millennia for soil, tens of millions of year for fossil fuels, to replace them.

We have therefore used fossil land to both boost our current agricultural land area, increasing its productivity while also directly using fossil land to feed, clothe and house ourselves. Indeed, there has been so much fossil land available we have used it to have one �huge consumerist party� that far exceeds what our agricultural land would of supported on its own.

Oliver Moore: Give me a specific example, Merf

Merf: A key example using fossil land to directly boost the effective agricultural land area is nitrogen fertilisers. These are made from and with the natural gas methane, mostly as the feed sock / raw material but about 10% or so as the energy source to drive the Haber�Bosch process. By applying N fertilisers we can increase crop yield, which in the case of pasture, means we can increase stocking density. However, this is an illusion. If a farm had to produce all of the methane and energy required to produce the nitrogen fertiliser it uses then its stocking rate would be far lower, due to the land area needed. I have yet to see an analysis of this but I bet that it would be possible to get a far higher stocking rate using legumes to produce the nitrogen than the Haber�Bosch process using farm produced methane and energy.

Oliver Moore: What does this kind of analysis mean for society�s ability to feed itself?

Merf: We need ten times the amount of agricultural land we have in Europe to supply our current energy needs. On top of this about 15% of oil is used as �feed stock� to make plastic and all the other materials we have substituted for biological materials such as wool, cotton, wood and so on. So at a rough estimate we may need 15 times our existing agricultural land area to meet our current energy and synthetic material consumption, oh and one existing land area to produce our food, plus half as much again if it�s to be done within ecological constraints. Even if the figures I use are out by a power of ten we are still in serious trouble.

Oliver Moore: In the short term, what will this mean for agriculture in Ireland?

There will come a point when rotations will have to come back into mainstream farming, as clover will prove to be a cheaper source of nitrogen that the current oil-based sources.

Poultry, as a non-ruminant, needs quite a considerable quantity of grain to perform. Free-range poultry can be fed on some grass, but not completely on grass. The same goes for pigs. Now, they can be fed on various fodder crops, but you won�t get the growth rates.

In organics, the two organic meat products that cost far higher for the consumer are pigs and poultry, because organic producers can�t substitute pasture in for grain. Organic beef has the lowest price premium, especially in places like Ireland where the production differences are small.

The pig and poultry producers just don�t have the same sorts of pasture options. Their animals are indoors all the time and fed highly concentrated, high energy rations. But the whole system is based on cheep feed.

The dairy guys can look at places like New Zealand, which has similarities to Ireland, and see how to maximise the use of grass. The obvious easy one is to start to introduce clover. Clover increases quality, digestibility, protein, you get free nitrogen fixation - it�s a puzzle as to why more non-organic farmers aren�t doing it!