Concluding Note

It is a sad day, as I announce that this is my last blogpost regarding my Global Environmental Module :(

In this last post, I would like to summarise some of the topics I have discussed through this blog series and providing you with some reflection.

Starting off the blog in October was probably the hardest part of holding this blog. Indeed, We had to find a topic of investigation and ensure our posts fitted in line with our topic. Throughout my blog series, I tried to smoothly move from examining terrestrial environmental impact of livestock farming (during the months of october and november) to exploring its aquatic environmental impacts.

I discussed 18 peer-reviewed articles on the topics of deforestation, desertification, accuracy of statistics in relation to environmental impacts caused by livestock farming, and more recently, topics related to freshwater pollution, ocean dead zones and cultured meat.

Although "investigating into environmental impacts of livestock farming" is a vast research domain, I tried to focus on a few current and 'historically' important debates. In some cases, I extended the topic for discussion over a number of blogposts to get a deeper understanding of research surrounding this theme.

I also interacted with some fellow colleagues on deforestation and desertification debates, and found it particularly interesting to read and discuss other blog post.

Future expectations: This blog has changed my way of thinking about writing on academic research, it has helped to develop creative writing skills, and having really enjoyed, I would like to continue my blog post series, still researching on the topic of livestock farming and its environmental impact.

I hope that you will stay hooked up!

Best,

Kelly

In vitro meat and the environment

n regards to my last post on “in vitro meat”, this post will focus on academic research that has been conducted on the topic as well as the ongoing debate around it.

Although the first article on cultured meat was first published in 2005 under ‘Tissue Engineering’, the idea of growing meat has been around for a while. In 1932, Winston Churchill, published his book “Thoughts and Advendures” (1932) and stated: “Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under suitable medium.” Hi thoughts were avant-gardist but portrayed today’s reality!

How does it work?

Cultured meat is grown with the use of stem cells. The tissues and stem cells from leftover animals (non-living) are used to grow and produce muscles by injecting protein into the already existing muscle. In 2013, the first lab-burger was produced by Professor Mark Post from Maastricht University and consequently tasted in one of his London Conference.

In a 2011 peer-reviewed article, Tuomisto et al (2011) researched on the topic to gain a greater understanding of cultured meat and its environmental impacts. The findings suggested that the production of cultured meat had considerably lower impacts on the environment than conventional livestock farming. It was found that cultivated meat emitted 40% less Greenhouse gaz in comparison to the production of Atlantic salmon. Growing our own meat would take up 98% less land than what was needed traditionally for livestock farming and feed production. Furthermore cultivated meat would contribute to the reduction of methane emissions from cows, as its production no longer needs cows! 

Although these statistics sound promising, I believe there is still a high uncertainty of the long term reduction of environmental impact. Mattick etal (2013) argue that cultured meat might take out some traditional environmental costs but may introduce other new environmental issues. Indeed, the production of cultured meat will increase the use of industrial energy, through the burning of fossil fuel needed to produce the meat. This is not a peer-reviewed article so some assumptions remain questionable.

In all, I believe that alternative solutions to meat consumption are a big step forward. However, the question persists: Will people be attracted to this new product?

If you’re asking me the question, overall it sounds good but if I had it in front of me I would probably think twice before eating.

Meet the new meat?

I wish you all a very HAPPY NEW YEAR and hope you have all enjoyed your holiday.

Regarding my blog, I want to start this year with a fresh new topic that will explore new innovative alternatives to meat consumption. 

Having done a 30-day vegan challenge, I thought it would be good to discuss further options to help save our planet! After having been forced (by my parent) to eat rather meaty Christmas meals, my 2016 resolution was to heavily reduce my meat (and permanently!) by eating it once a week, maximum!

There is a topic I have been willing to discuss for a while on this blog, and it would be a shame not to do so:

CULTURED MEAT

For some of you that are not already aware, the first lag-grown meat was produced in 2013. I have attached two videos on the topic of cultured meat which I found particularly interest.

And this particularly funny video:

Would you dare to do it??

Ocean dead zones, the case of the Gulf of Mexico

In focus today…. The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone.

In continuation to my post on eutrophication and dead zones, I will investigate how livestock farming has caused major impacts on marine environments by taking a closer look at the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) dead zone. I thought focusing on a case study would be a better way to illustrate and understand an issue that is happening today in the United States.

The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone is a temporal dead zone characterized by seasonal periods of hypoxia due to rich nutrient discharges arriving from the Atchfalaya and Mississippi River that cross Louisiana State in the United States. Levels of hypoxia decrease in October and continue to do so throughout most of the winter until the warmer season where hypoxic regions expand over most of the summer (NOAA, 2015).

 Figure 1: 2015 map area of Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone - NOAA 2015

Recently, in August 2015, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA, 2015) reported the dead zone to be ‘above average size’ due to high precipitation in June 2015 and increasing nutrient presence in Louisiana Rivers.  Trends have shown that the GoM hypoxic zones have slowly been increasing over the past 180 years covering most northern waters of the Gulf (Osterman et al, 2005). Through four sediment cores extracted from Louisiana shelf, Osterman et al (2005), recorded increasingly lower oxygen levels over a time span of 180 years.  Indeed, hypoxic periods were measured according to the abundance of three benthic foraminifers species, here called PEB (Pseudomonion atlanticum, Epistominella vitrea and Buliminella morgana), that live in nutrient rich habitats with low oxygen levels such as dead zones. According to the plots, PEB percentages start increasing in the 1950s and peak at the beginning of the 21^st century. 

Figure 2: Plots of PEB percentage and trends over the course of 180 years - (Osterman et al, 2005)

Turner et al (2003) attributes these changes in PEB numbers partially to natural factors but essentially to human induced factors such as land clearing for agriculture.

Indeed, The National Science and Council Committee on Environmentand Natural Resources 2000 assessment on hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico reported that landscape alteration for agriculture, manifested through deforestation were causing greater numbers of nutrients from entering aquatic environments. Harmful nutrients are no longer filtered by soil due to the lack of plant coverage and soil destruction caused by deforestation (NSCCENR, 2000). The report places agricultural fertilisers and particularly nitrogen (fertilisers composed mainly of nitrogen)  as the main factor contributing to the eutrophication of GoM waters. Both the Mississippi and Atchfalaya Rivers, collect runoff from Midwestern farmer’s fertilizing practices, that end up in the GoM and heavily impacts unique species in the region (NSCCENR, 2000). Some species are more affected than others. For instance, in extreme hypoxia cases, longer living species died with low levels of oxygen and shorter living species tend to survive and adapt to conditions (NSCCENR, 2000). The Gulf of Mexico has experienced biodiversity imbalances with increased numbers of more resilient species such as jellyfish (OECD, 2010). Furthermore, Eby et al (2004) explain that some surviving species try to find refuge in more highy oxygenated areas by traveling out of the hypoxia zones but often leads to overcrowding and density dependent grow reductions.  

Part 2: From land to sea, though not forgetting freshwater, river and streams

Key terms here: fertilisers, eutrophication or hypertrophication, hypoxia, deadzones.

Although fertilisers have revolutionized agriculture since the 19^th century, its use for animal agriculture and growing feed has major implication on our environment, today.  Fertilisers, both chemical or natural, are rich in nutrient, and particularly high in nitrogen and phosporus, that help increase crop yields. However, plants only intake less than 20% of nitrogen and phosphorus (Dybas 2005), the rest is washed away by rain and ends up directly in freshwater and groundwater ecosystems, riparian environments and oceans (See table). Nutrient encourage the growth of aquatic plants such as phytoplankton, just as they do on land. The lake is thus exposed to a process of eutrophication (excessive numbers of nutrient in an aquatic environment) and causes oxygen depletion a.k.a. hypoxia in which aquatic organisms are unable to survive due to the low oxygen concentrations. The remaining bodies of water are called dead zone.

Cattle manure is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which represent the major causes of eutrophication. One peer-reviewed study argued that Industrialised Animal Production were major sources of nutrients and therefore were contributing to the eutrophication of some environments in the United States (Mallin et al, 2003). Focusing on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which represent big companies for intensive meat production, Mallin et al (2013) argue that the high concentration of CAFOs puts pressure on regional environment due to major imbalance in waste production and the capacity to effectively manage this waste. This ‘mismanaged’ waste is left to spread on fields and enters our environment through a process groundwater infiltration and overland flow (Edwards et al, 1992). In consequence, some of North Carolina’s major lakes have experienced large microbial contaminations and the presence of algal bloom that have caused major fish kills. These surface runoff not only affect large lakes and rivers but also heavily impact smaller temporal water bodies such as vernal pools, that are particularly important for containing endemic plant species but are often used for cattle grazing due it promoting the growth of native plant species (Brudvig et al, 2007). A recent 2011 study (Croel et al, 2011) showed that, though cattle grazing nearby vernal pools might increase some plant diversity on land, cattle manure was influencing vernal pool water quality. The presence of nutrient rich materials in pools, have caused increasing growth of algal blooms which have been detrimental for the already endangered plant communities that live amongst vernal environments (Croel et al, 2011).

 This post explained and presented how the livestock industries are indirectly affecting freshwater environments such as wetlands, lakes , rivers and streams