Category : Health

One Acre Feeds a Person

With the holiday season behind us many are feeling the effects of eating a bit too much and are working on a New Year’s resolution to shed some pounds.  This reminds me of a question I have been asked numerous times, i.e., “How much land does it take to feed somebody for a year?”  To rid you of any suspense, I usually give the answer as about one acre when referring to the U.S. today.

For those who want to understand why, what follows is an explanation.

Start with the Diet

A precise answer is impossible because so many variable factors are at play, including the productivity of the agricultural land.  But actually, the first step in answering this is to know the diet being considered (including any big holiday turkeys consumed).

The current U.S. diet is shown nicely in the graph below from  Visual Economics.

To summarize, the average American consumes about 2000 lbs of food per year, which works out to about 5.5 lbs and 2700 calories per day–or nearly your entire body weight in food per month.  Divide those daily 2700 calories by 5.5 lbs and you get 490 calories per pound of food, on average.

There are differences in the quality of various parts of the diet that are important to appreciate, including caloric density.  Fruits and vegetables are abundant in the diet by weight and give us the flavors, fiber, vitamins and minerals we crave, but only typically provide 50-150 calories per pound.  By contrast, a single slice of my favorite bread (pictured below) has 110 calories and only weighs a tenth of a pound.  Oils and fats are about three to four times more dense, calorie-wise, than bread.  Meat tends to have slightly fewer calories per pound than high starch foods.  For example, boneless lamb chops without the edge fat are around 976 calories per pound, according to the USDA’s Food-A-Pedia, which I could peruse for hours.  Low-fat milk, which is mostly water, still has about 200 calories per pound (about a pint).

Converting to Area

If we take the average U.S. diet as our starting point, we can convert each component of this diet into the area needed to produce it by using average U.S. harvest yields.  For example, the USDA reported recently that the average corn harvest was 147 bushels per acre, or about 8250 lbs.  It takes a true professional to sort out how much of this corn gets into the human food supply, since corn is normally eaten in highly processed and modified forms.  The vast majority of corn is roughly split between ethanol factories and animal feed, with perhaps 10% or less used for food directly (e.g., polenta) and via food processing (e.g., gummy bears).

This sort of complexity is why I must rely on others to make the diet to area conversion.  The most recent studies I am aware of were done for the state of New York by a team of Cornell scientists led by Christian Peters.  Here’s a link to one of the published papers, but a more accessible review is also available and highly recommend for those who hunger for more information.

Below I have posted a key summary graphic from the paper.  Along the Y-axis is land area in hectares needed to feed one person for a year, which is dependent upon the model diets shown along the X-axis.  Each model diet is labeled by two dietary factors:  meat and fat.

Adding Meat Feeds More People

The finding that gained headlines from this study some years ago had to do with the fact that adding some meat and dairy to the diet, while increasing land area, actually fed more people.  This is because much land is not suited to annual crops but can be sown in pasture (most of the “perennial crops” shown in the bar graph are pasture).  Cutting the average meat consumption roughly in half, which would de-emphasize hogs and poultry in the diet as these rely on grains, actually feeds more people than a vegetarian diet.

And the Answer Is…

Since the area of production needed is most sensitive to meat and fat consumption, we can see which of the model diets in the Cornell study is closest to the typical American diet to estimate the per capita area given current habits.  To gauge the average, look at the middle of the chart above the 190 grams of meat per day and you’ll see that this converts to about 0.45 hectares, which is just a bit over one acre.

It is fair to ask if New York is representative of the U.S. in terms of agricultural potential.  I actually think it is pretty “average” having a mix of both good and poor soils, mountains and plains and a climate that is neither the most benign nor most extreme.  Certainly California and Iowa are not average so we shouldn’t be extrapolating from those best cases.

It would be nice, and possibly critical, to have this sort of research done more extensively.  To that end, the Cornell group has a grant to develop a Local Foodshed Mapping Tool.  It is being created for New York but the methods should be applicable anywhere.

Connecting Issues

Those who are savvy about how food is produced will have many follow-up questions to this direction of thought.  For example, crop yields are no longer a simple function of Nature’s endowment of soil, the blessings of good weather, and irrepressible seed germination. Nearly all farmers rely on a steady stream of outside inputs in forms such as ammonia-nitrate and super phosphate.  These derive from concentrated below ground sources of energy and raw materials deposited over geologic time.  As I’ve explored before on this blog, food supply is over-correlated for my comfort zone with oil supply.  Over the past few years I’ve also written about techniques for de-linking food production from massive external inputs.  But that is a long discussion that has no easy answer either.

I’ll just add that addressing the outside inputs conundrum makes one consider the role that well-managed grazing systems have in an agriculture that can sequester carbon, clean water, and build soil fertility more endemically.  And for those who claim we don’t have the land area to do this, take a look at the acres of corn sown each year (about 100 million acres) and how much of that is used for direct human consumption (about 10 million acres) in the U.S.  Looking at the numbers clearly shows we have a problem of too much artificially created demand.  Why not put pasture on 90 million acres of cropland and let the ruminants eat their evolved diet?

Most people are not looking forward to a 10 minute lecture when they ask me a supposedly simple question.  So while there are many variables and lots of imprecision when answering  “How much land is needed to feed a person,” for today’s American diet, with today’s agricultural system, I’ll stick with about one acre.

Ethics and Swine

The restaurant company Chipotle gets it.  The current front page text on their web site goes:

It is not just a burrito.  It’s a foil-wrapped, hand-crafted, local farm supporting, food culture changing cylinder of deliciousness.  Learn more about food with integrity.

It is fantastic to see major buyers take “food with integrity” seriously.  Getting significant change at scale in how farmland and farm animals are managed requires a market demand.  We know it exists in abundance for certified organic food, but farming doesn’t require the organic label to be ethical, nor may the organic label be sufficient in all cases.  I commend anybody who takes the time to consider how the choices they make impact others, including non-humans and the environment all living beings share.

Chipotle has a series of videos that educate their customers on important agriculture topics and the ones I’ll share are about hog production and confinement production systems in general.

The first video features Paul Willis, an Iowa pastured hog farmer and co-founder of Niman Ranch pork.

Overall, the message is very positive, but I was also struck by something Paul says, which is pretty hard hitting:

If you took dogs and put 5000 of them in a building, in cages, people would go absolutely crazy.  I mean there would be an uprising, but’s it okay with pigs.  It’s sort of out of sight out of mind kind of thing, but for me that is not good enough.

According the video, 95% of U.S. hog production is under the conditions Paul describes.  It is great to see somebody motivated by a sense of ethics and is able to do something tangible about it.  I also find it interesting that Paul discusses how producing hogs on pasture was common when he was a kid but is now rare.

This brings me to the second Chipotle produced video I’d like to share (h/t Big Picture Agriculture).  The title is “Back to the Start,” which is the refrain in a Coldplay song sung here by Willie Nelson.  The obvious implication is that we, as a society, need to bring back to the fore many of the livestock practices that were common up until the middle of the last century.

In the context of ethical swine, I want to thank Chris Hansen for producing on Farmland LP land.  He now has two outdoor seasons behind him and is getting better at what he does through successive planning, trial, and observation.

Whenever I give farm tours the pigs are typically a crowd favorite.  They are playful, often active, have distinct personalities, and make amusing sounds. It is great that we can give them a joyful life.  My wish is for 95%, not 5%, of hogs to be treated as well as Chris treats his.

Food Subsidy Pyramid

Great challenge over at Flowingdata looking at how to visualize food subsidies vs. the USDA food pyramid.

Here’s our submission that highlights how subsidies compare to the stated food priorities and goals of the nation.

Note that the vegetables dot is not drawn to scale — I couldn’t find the orginal _pixel_, so I put in a green circle just so it would show up on the graphic.

Food Subsidies Pyramid

The original image is at The Consumerist.

Less is More with Antibiotics

Twenty-five years ago, Norwegians were also losing their lives to this bacteria. But Norway’s public health system fought back with an aggressive program that made it the most infection-free country in the world. A key part of that program was cutting back severely on the use of antibiotics.

Now a spate of new studies from around the world prove that Norway’s model can be replicated with extraordinary success, and public health experts are saying these deaths – 19,000 in the U.S. each year alone, more than from AIDS – are unnecessary.

http://www.physorg.com/news181461239.html

Why do I bring attention to news from the medial industry in a blog about agriculture?  Because the same solution to an unnecessary problem, use less antibiotics and you won’t need many antibiotics, applies in farming as well.

Consider this article from mid 2009 for comparison.

Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year – more than prostate and  combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs – 28 million pounds – went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it’s 50 percent.

http://www.physorg.com/news181238071.html

I am not sure why one article indicates that 19,000 deaths occur from antibiotic resistant bacteria in the U.S. each year while another says “more than 65,000″ but the statistic that really caught my attention was that over 2/3 of antibiotics go to livestock.  And as I commented upon previously, organically managed poultry given no antibiotics have the lowest levels of contamination.

The bottom line is that livestock producers need to learn from the Norwegian public health and hospital specialists–when it comes to antibiotics, less does more.    This isn’t anything new to those of us involved in organic farming, but as the public becomes more aware of this topic and desires healthier food, we will be here to provide it.

How Safe is that Chicken?

http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/health-safety/chicken-safety/overview/chicken-safety-ov.htm

You would think that after years of alarms about food safety—outbreaks of illness followed by renewed efforts at cleanup—a staple like chicken would be a lot safer to eat. But in our latest analysis of fresh, whole broilers bought at stores nationwide, two-thirds harbored salmonella and/or campylobacter, the leading bacterial causes of foodborne disease.

Consumer Reports has been testing chickens in markets for over a decade and the industry still hasn’t gotten much cleaner.  While I appreciate their work on behalf of public health, I wish that Consumer Reports would get to the heart of the matter regarding solutions–something I will provide a glimpse of.

They do note that organic poultry, especially those air chilled, have the lowest contamination levels.

  • Among the cleanest overall were air-chilled broilers. About 40 percent harbored one or both pathogens. Eight Bell & Evans organic broilers, which are air chilled, were free of both, but our sample was too small to determine that all Bell & Evans broilers would be.
  • Store-brand organic chickens had no salmonella at all, showing that it’s possible for chicken to arrive in stores without that bacterium riding along. But as our tests showed, banishing one bug doesn’t mean banishing both: 57 percent of those birds harbored campylobacter.

The article provides an overview of the non-organic industrial chicken production system, which includes antibiotics from birth and chlorine baths during meat processing.  Consumer Reports also tested and found high levels of antibiotic resistance.

Among all brands and types of broilers tested, 68 percent of the salmonella and 60 percent of the campylobacter organisms we analyzed showed resistance to one or more antibiotics.

This discomforting information suggests a systemic problem in the entire production model.  The irony that organic chickens, which were never given antibiotics nor dipped in chlorine, were the least contaminated is not elaborated upon.  Furthermore, Consumer Reports overlooks a method of poultry production that probably poses the least risk of all–pastured poultry.

Pastured Poultry

The most famous advocate of pastured poultry is Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms.  He is one of the featured characters in Food Inc. In one scene he discusses how the USDA tried to shut down his chicken processing facility, which is a shed with no walls, because of sanitation concerns.   Regulators backed off when their tests found his meat cleaner than any other they’d sampled.

A few miles from my home in Corvallis, a young protege of Salatin’s named Tyler Jones runs Afton Field Farm.  Tyler told me the story of how he got his chicken into a local restaurant.  The owner bought several of his birds and gave them to his chef.  The chef didn’t know the source, but soon asked if he they could switch over to buying Tyler’s chickens exclusively.  Why?  Because the texture was so much better and the meat didn’t hurt the hands of the cooks.

I didn’t know why other chickens would be painful to work with until Tyler explained that chickens were normally processed by soaking in a chlorine bath.  Yuck!  Apparently those chemical are still there when they get to the kitchen.

AftonImage caption: Meat birds are raised in mobile pens where in addition to feed and water, they are given access to fresh air, sunshine, and pasture.  Image from Afton Field Farm, Corvallis, OR.

If you have seen Food Inc. you can readily appreciate how bacterial contamination occurs.  Thousands of birds are confined to huge, indoor facilities where they hobble around in feces.  Pathogens get into their feathers and digestive systems and can be passed from mother hens to chicks through eggs.

The pasture poultry system is an astonishing contrast.  Birds are kept outside and moved to new ground each day.  Sunlight acts as a natural disinfectant and droppings act as field fertilizer rather than dangerous pollution.  Too bad Consumer Reports overlooked this much safer and healthier method.  But good thing Farmland LP is around to expand its practice.