Month: April 2014

Joshua Berg

Aquaculture – Is it Really the Answer?

According to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), aquaculture is the rearing, breeding and harvesting of plants and animals from marine environments of all types.[1]  This method of food production has become increasingly popular in recent years, as increased demand for seafood worldwide has triggered the heavy industrialization of the aquaculture industry. Ideally increased aquaculture would lessen the stress on natural fisheries that are threatened by overfishing and other factors.[2] However, this rapid evolution of the industry has created unforeseen consequences that need to be addressed, as the industry shows no sign of slowing growth.

Over the past 30 years the production of certain fish, shrimp, clams and oysters worldwide has more than doubled in its harvest weight almost exclusively due to aquaculture.   As catches in marine animals raised in aquaculture increased as expected, catches of wild caught species remained the same.[3]  This trend is concerning as one of the main reasons for investing in aquaculture facilities is to lessen stress on the ocean’s endangered fisheries. Let’s discuss the reasons as to why aquaculture has not achieved the main goal of lessening stress on the ocean’s fisheries and whether or not aquaculture is a viable and sustainable method of seafood production.

Total Aquaculture Production by Region from 1980-2011

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/aquaculture_docs/world_prod_consumtion_value_aq.pdf

Aquaculture facilities vary greatly as a multitude of factors contribute to what equipment and location is best suited for a specific site. There is also little government oversight of aquaculture facilities around the world due to the rapid expansion of the industry.  This lack of regulation has had its share of detrimental impacts on the environment consequently putting increased strain on the wild fisheries many aquaculture operations intend to protect.  The world’s leaders in aquaculture predominantly located in Asia, have yet to strictly enforce industry standards.[4]  As a result many vital habitats along coastal areas have been destroyed.  Specifically mangroves and coastal wetlands have been exploited by aquaculture have been transformed into to breeding ponds for various species.  However, these areas consequently lose their ability to provide essential environmental services such as flood control and nutrient filtration.  The loss of these services damages the wild fisheries located in the proximity of aquaculture operations and once again places additional stress on the wild fisheries.

One of the most concerning consequences of aquaculture that can occur if facilities are not managed properly is the escape of non-native fish and the contamination of wild fishery gene pools.[5]  Many breeds of fish and mollusks raised via aquaculture are genetically modified or different than their wild counterparts.  The mating of native and non-native species has occurred as aquaculture’s presence has increased. A clear example of this escape and contamination of wild fisheries can be found in the case of the Atlantic Salmon.  Atlantic Salmon is major farmed species of salmon worldwide and while they are supposed to be highly contained in aquaculture, it has been found that nearly forty percent of wild caught Atlantic Salmon were initially bred in an aquaculture.[6]  This decreases genetic variability in the Atlantic Salmon making it more difficult for the species to evolve when natural conditions change, therefore making the species more susceptible to disease and other natural disasters.  Despite these negative consequences of aquaculture there are positive benefits as well.

Aquaculture Facility in Asia

http://www.elsenburg.com/trd/animalprod/akwa/images/facilities4.jpg

The United States currently ranks 15^th worldwide in the amount of seafood produced through aquaculture, leaving significant room for growth in this industry.  If growth in this industry follows the increasing demand for seafood, it is estimated that by 2025 there could be between 180,000-600,000 American jobs created.[7] These jobs would be located primarily in coastal regions that are currently suffering from declining fish stocks.  In addition, the seafood industry currently has a deficit of $6 billion dollars second only to oil.[8]  Increased aquaculture would lessen America’s dependence on foreign economies stabilizing the domestic seafood market and potentially creating an additional export.

With both positive and negative consequences of aquaculture creating a difficult crossroads, it will be interesting to observe how the United States will implement aquaculture facilities around the country.  Regardless of aquaculture’s future success, or lack there of it is crucial to keep in mind that there must stringent regulations placed on operators in order to ensure the smallest amount of collateral damage to wild fisheries.  I believe that if aquaculture operations are managed responsibly and proactive measures are taken such as preventing fish escape and producing fish feed sustainably that aquaculture can successfully reduce stress on wild fisheries.

 A faded castle amidst a dry and desolate landscape: my last image of Haiti still sears like a hot burn in my mind.

Traveling over roads that were nothing more than rutted ditches and dried creek beds, we were heading for the Haitian border. Our plans to fly out of Port-au-Prince that morning had been derailed by news that Aristide, Haiti’s former ruler, had decided to return from exile. Hoping to avoid election turmoil and possible violence in the Haitian capital, we decided to attempt a dusty, daring escape out through the Dominican Republic (DR) instead.

I had witnessed desperation in Haiti: arid soils, food scarcity, disease, malnutrition, and polluted drinking water. However, driving into the forested mountains of the DR, I finally realized what Haiti had truly lost. It had lost its green: the green of life, the green that meant water and food and hope.

In the late 1600s, France took over the western part of the island of Hispaniola from Spain, dividing the island into what is now Haiti and the DR.¹ Like a science experiment gone wrong, the border now demarks not only linguistic differences, but also an entirely different quality of life. In 1960, both countries experienced essentially the same rainfall patterns and enjoyed the same geography, availability of natural resources, and land productivity.² The countries had nearly the same per capita real GDP.² However, by 2005, the Dominican Republic’s per capita real GDP had increased threefold, while Haiti’s had plummeted.² Now, the average person in the DR can expect to live a full ten years longer than their neighbor in Haiti.^3,4 The percentage of the population below the minimum level of dietary energy consumption is 44.5% in Haiti, compared to 15.4% in the DR.^3,4 The probability of dying under the age of 5 per 1,000 births in Haiti in 76, while in DR, the number is less than half of that.^3,4 The DR has become a magnet for tourism, while Haiti has become a social, political, and economic tragedy. What happened?

In 1950, forest clearing for plantations and wood exports in Haiti had largely ended, but wood harvesting for charcoal continued.⁵ A mere thirty years later, forest cover had diminished from 25% of the total land area to a meager 10%. It decreased again to 4% of the land by 1994.⁵

Across the border, the Dominican Republic initially suffered from deforestation as well. Tree cover plummeted from 75% of the land in 1922 to 12% by the 1980s.⁵ However, massive reforestation programs and a conscious shift to alternative energy sources (besides charcoal) allowed the trees to rebound. The nation established thirteen national parks and restricted access to important forest reserves.⁶ Today, forest covers 28% of the country.⁵

So what was the connection between the dying children I held in my arms in Hinche, Haiti, and dusty landscape that they lived in? What was the relationship between the tropical forest and the avocados in the fruit markets of the DR? Why would I leave one country in tears, and the other with memories of bachata music and Corona beer? The answer is simple: trees bring life.

Forests prevent soil erosion. Sturdy trunks slow winds. Roots hold the soil in place and improve soil permeability. They allow water to percolate into underground aquifers, decreasing surface water runoff. Leaves lessen the impact of heavy rains and reduce flooding. Dead trees, leaves, and bark add organic matter to the topsoil, completing nutrient cycles and replenishing the land. Forests act as natural buffers as well, slowing floodwaters and shielding the coast from hurricane surges. In 2004, Hurricane Jeanne killed more than 3,000 people in Haiti, while the DR lost nineteen.⁵ While other factors undoubtedly contributed to these numbers, the ability of forested coasts and watershed areas to mitigate hurricane damage is undeniable.  

The UN estimates that “50% of the (Haitian) topsoil has been washed away into the ocean” and that damaged lands have become “irreclaimable for farming purposes”.⁵ Although nearly 60 percent of the Haitian people work in the agricultural sector, the country still must import nearly half of its food. Even so, nearly 30% of Haitian children endure chronic malnutrition.⁷

While Haiti has also suffered from serious political strife since 1960, environmental degradation remains one of its greatest challenges. We cannot continue to view environmental policies as counter to economic growth and human happiness, but as necessary to achieve them.  Climate change and an ever-increasing population mean that decisions have to be made now. And the time to think sustainably has come.

Last month, FiveThirtyEight.com, a blog once a part of the New York Times, began publishing its first articles. Founded by statistician and author Nate Silver, the blog aspires for a new form of objective and data-driven journalism.

However, the blog’s first ever article on climate change has environmentalists worried. The piece, “Disasters Cost More Than Ever – But Not Because of Climate Change,” focuses on recent increases in the financial costs of natural disasters. Roger Pielke Jr., the author and a professor of environmental studies at University of Colorado Boulder, concludes through statistical analysis that the upward trend in natural disaster costs are driven by increases in wealth. [1]

This is not too surprising a conclusion. For example, as we develop more and more expensive beachfront properties, we should expect hurricanes and floods to have a higher price tag. [2]

Hurricane Sandy cost an estimated $65 billion.

So what’s so controversial?

As the title of his piece suggests, Pielke goes on to assert that in particular climate change has had absolutely no impact on these recent increases in disaster costs, all of which instead can be attributed to the increases in wealth.

“In the last two decades, natural disaster costs worldwide went from about $100 billion per year to almost twice that amount…Indicative of more frequent disasters punishing communities worldwide? Perhaps the effects of climate change? …[A]ll those questions have the same answer: no.”

First of all, anyone with a scientific or statistical background should cringe over the definitiveness of that phrasing. Political pundits eagerly make such bold claims, but not scientists. Scientists back up every claim with an appropriate measure of uncertainty. The difference may seem nitpicky, but for a for a website portrayed as being rigorous and data-driven, it is unacceptable.

Pielke then goes on to say, “When you next hear someone tell you that worthy and useful efforts to mitigate climate change will lead to fewer natural disasters, remember these numbers…” Through his simple data analysis he claims to have proven that climate change has no effect on the frequency of disasters, something an entire body of ongoing research has not.

Predictably, environmentalists and the broader public were quick to jump on the piece, with 80% of the page’s comments being negative. Even climate scientists joined the fray, describing the piece as “deeply misleading” and “surprisingly sloppy.” [3]

In response to the negative press, Nate Silver defended Pielke’s academic credibility but admitted, “[T]hese claims shouldn’t have been included in the story as offhand remarks. These things reflect a poor job of editing on our part.” He then commissioned a rebuttal article from Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at M.I.T. [4]

In his response, Emmanuel criticized several of Pielke’s methods and assertions, including the use of GDP to make claims about climate change as well as Pielke’s analysis of a relatively low amount of data.

Nate Silver defending his blog’s controversial first piece on climate change.

Many have criticized the media for portraying a controversy over the fundamental science of climate change when they should instead shift gears and focus on the specific impacts and solutions. The debate at FiveThirtyEight.org highlights some of the issues that can arise when the media does make that change.

As a journalist, how do you report on this (important) topic when the debate lies in minute details and scientific methods above the heads of everyday readers? Moreover, should scientists only publish their results in peer-reviewed academic outlets, or can they bypass this process and report their findings directly to the broader media (as Pielke appears to have done)? [5]

Footnotes:

[1] As approximated by GDP

[2] Of course, this (inaccurately) assumes we do not at the same time develop better mitigation technologies.

[3] Pielke wrote an additional response to these scientists defending his claims.

[4] Although I believe publishing Pielke’s article was a mistake, Silver’s response has made me respect the blog even more. Silver posted a response to the criticisms on the blog and even commissioned a rebuttal piece from a well-known climate scientist. This demonstrated incredible journalistic ethics and sets it apart from any other news media I follow.

[5] If you were paying attention, you’ll know the answer is not a simple yes or no!

The current models of agribusiness and meat production are detrimental to the environment. There is very little profit margin in selling food, so to maximize profit big businesses aim to maximize production. Technological advances and a profit-maximizing mentality have led the industry to adopt harmful practices. Let me give you a brief overview of what I consider to be some of the most pressing issues.

First, in order to maximize their crop yields with minimal effort big agribusinesses utilize synthetic chemical fertilizers. These fertilizers provide the plants with the nutrients they need, but they have two major faults. They convert the soil into an environment that is impossible for certain microorganisms, integral to the health of many plants, to live. The result is a vicious cycle that requires the use of more chemical fertilizer in the growing of future plants. [1]

This may not be so bad if runoff water did not collect the fertilizers as it passes over agricultural land. Through the system of streams and water pathways the runoff eventually end up in large rivers. These rivers dump water full of fertilizer into the ocean. Just as the fertilizer provides nutrients to land plants, it also feeds algae. Huge algal blooms occur in these spots that have high concentrations of fertilizer. When the algae dies and decays it creates hypoxic (low oxygen) zones that are uninhabitable for most living organisms. This can and does destroy entire marine ecosystems as exemplified by the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone is approximated to cover 5,840 square miles. [2]

Another tool that agribusinesses use to maximize production is monocropping. It can more profitable for farms to produce a lot of one crop rather than lesser amounts of varied crops. This streamlines harvesting and the application of pesticides and fertilizers so that they can be carried out by machinery rather than by hand. Monocropping lowers labor costs, but planting huge fields of genetically similar (or in some instances identical) has its repercussions. This is harmful to biodiversity because it creates a space in which fewer species and varieties of both planted and naturally occurring plants can grow.[3] Rotating plants can replenish the soil of certain nutrients and lessen the need of the synthetic fertilizers that I previously discussed.

(http://aradicle.blogspot.com/2011/05/bitter-flavor-and-bitter-herbs-trust.html)

Monocropping and the lack of biodiversity that it entails make entire farms more vulnerable to pests. Due to the genetic similarity, if one plant is vulnerable to a specific pathogen or insect then so will all the others. This means that if a pest, fungus, or pathogen infects one plant it can easily rip through and kill an entire field of crops. [4]

Different plants’ roots grow to different depths in the soil. Root systems that include varied depths make it more difficult for pests to travel from one plant to the next, so it mitigates the damage a pest can do. Varied depths also limit competition between plants for nutrients in the soil. If they are taking up nutrients from different depths then more is available to each one promoting growth.  These are all reasons that polyculture (planting varied crops) produce higher yields and healthier ecosystems.[5]

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/il/plantsanimals/?cid=nrcs141p2_030726)

The last, and debatably scariest, issue that I want to discuss is actually a problem in meat production, not crop farming. That issue is the prodigious use of antibiotics in raising livestock. An astounding 80% of the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are administered to livestock. This is because the animals are unhealthy. Oftentimes in large meat operations they are kept in overcrowded and filthy conditions. It is also common to feed farm animals feed rather that they are not physiologically equipped to digest. These feeds increase fast weight gain rather than provide animals with nutrients they need to be healthy. Due to the feed and poor living conditions the animals need to be pumped full of antibiotics. As bacteria interacts with antibiotics strains that are only resistant strains remain, and this results in the evolution of more antibiotic resistant bacteria. These bacteria, and antibiotics are often present in the meat that humans consume. The bacteria can be a major health concern for people. Once infected humans have no way to battle antibiotic resistant bacteria.  Also, over consumption of antibiotics by people increases the risk of other similar resistant strains developing in and infecting humans directly. [6]

(http://www.sustainabletable.org/859/industrial-livestock-production)

Farm animals in the U.S. produce approximately two trillion tons of waste annually. This waste contains huge amounts of undigested antibiotics and dangerous resistant bacteria. These contents are picked up by runoff water and enter the water cycle. Contaminated water is detrimental to natural processes and organisms, and is eventually consumed by humans. [7]

Though there are many harmful effects of these conventional practices, a trend of smaller sustainable farming is growing. So there is hope! This is easy to see from the statistic, “U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1 billion in 1990 to $26.7 billion in 2010.”[8] I will not go into detail, but some examples of increasingly popular and beneficial practices are biodynamic farming, permaculture design, aquaponic systems, polyculture crop rotation, and humanely pasture raising antibiotic-free animals.