Alternative Meat Options: Lab Grown Meat

Introduction to Lab Grown Meat

Protein is a substantial part of the human diet. Dating back to the hunter and gathers where they would hunt and collect their meat, now to our current day in age where we have progressed with technology to create and discover various protein options. Now we have plant based protein, natural non-meat proteins such as chickpeas, and now the introduction of lab grown meat. With most of society recognizing the effects of climate change and more aware of their health, a recent survey reveals that 61 percent of consumers consider plants to be a preferred protein source, over animal-based proteins. Determined from this statistic the market and demand for protein alternatives is booming. Including the newest protein alternative, lab grown meat, is very new to the market and still being worked on. Lab grown meat is meat sourced from animals raised on factory farms in that it is made up of real animal cells. Therefore lab-grown meat cells mature and grow in a laboratory with much smaller animal welfare and environmental impacts making lab grown meat a safer protein option. Lab grown meat also goes by the names of cultured meat (also called in vitro, artificial or lab-grown meat), cultivated meat, cell-based meat, etc. While the idea of growing meat in a lab sounds like the perfect solution to combating climate change, this fresh idea could be portrayed as controversial since it is not naturally created and requires fetal bovine serum referenced in figure 2.  This could create controversy amongst people that practice certain religions and cultures as well as morality. Additionally since it is relatively new there are many unknowns and requires a lot of time and money to develop the cell lines to produce and grow in the lab. The first ever meat grown in the lab cost around two years and $325,000 worth of research, development, and innovation. However, in quickly advancing society and the rise of veganism the options of alternative meat options are becoming very popularized and this specific option could help mitigate our changing environment and combat emissions. Climate change effects are being seen on a daily basis and more frequently than ever. The contribution of greenhouse gasses from livestock and agriculture are one of the top contributions to climate change. Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gasses worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Given this vital information many people have made the switch from eating beef and other animal proteins and trying non harmful protein alternatives instead. From natural protein in other items other than animals to plant based technology all the way to growing meat in a laboratory the variety of options are expanding everyday. 

What is Cultivated Meat and the Benefits

Cultured meat involves applying the practices of tissue engineering to the production of muscle for consumption as food. Cultivated Meat is still at its early stages of development as the research regarding cellular agriculture is still being researched. While there is still much to be researched there has been plentiful research, development, and testing done so far into this protein alternative. Based on just the name it is self explanatory that lab grown meat is grown in the lab. Meaning it does not directly harm or use animals or is significantly reduced at least. While this is one main benefit of switching to cultivated meat here are some more to consider: 

• Cultured meat utilizes technology to produce meat from animal cells without killing the animal
• More favorable saturated fat levels for flavor and taste without the negative effects 
• Reduced food borne illnesses that naturally occur in animals
• Reduced environmental impact (resources and emissions)
• Proposed solution to feeding the growing population (demand for meat) 
• Mitigation of antibiotic resistance and zoonotic disease risk associated with conventional animal agriculture
• Concerns regarding animal welfare may be reduced with a meat alternative

How Cultured Meat is Made

Clean or cultured meat is a relatively simple process and is produced using similar technology that biologists and scientists use for growing animal cells. Now they took the same idea and applied it to growing meat in the lab from animal cells. There are four main steps to growing cultured meat: 

Step 1: 

Muscle cells are taken from live animals as a small biopsy from which stem cells are isolated and then cultured in the lab. 

Step 2 and 3: 

The cultured cells must then be grown and differentiated into a form of tissue comprising of muscle, fat and other cells that is suitable for food processing and consumption. This takes place inside bioreactors where the cells are trapped and supported in a scaffold of fibres, just as in animal tissue, and submerged in a cocktail of nutrients called a growth media. This process takes a couple of weeks ranging from 2 to 8 weeks. 

Step 4:

Tissue must be processed and formed into products such as burger patties, sausages or shrimp mince.

These four steps are all it takes to create clean meat in the lab. While some people are reluctant because of the process of growing meat in a lab, similar processes have been used in medicine and food production for decades already such as making beer and vaccines. 

Emissions and the Environment: Cultivated Meat vs Animal Agriculture 

Most of the population is aware that there are many contributions to our changing climate and environment, however animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of use of excess resources and emissions. Encouraging others to reduce their meat consumption and switch to alternative proteins can help adhere to these environmental impacts. The LCA shows that cultivated meat is 3.5 times more efficient than conventional chicken (the most efficient form of conventional meat production) at converting feed into meat. Additionally cultivated meat production reduces land use by 63 to 95 percent compared to conventional meat and is also expected to be less polluting (29 to 93 percent reduction). More importantly, the restoration of terrestrial and marine habitats, and a decreased rate of biodiversity loss is also a highly likely outcome of producing lab grown meat instead of animal agriculture. 

The global livestock industry has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years due to the scale of its environmental, ethical, and human health impacts. 

The Myth of Cultured Meat: The Downsides

There are downsides and cons to any sort of new idea. While growing meat in a lab with no extra emissions and great benefits, there are some negatives to this new idea as well. Science is always changing and so are muscles. Muscle development has evolved over millions of years and as such it is an efficient process perfectly suited to occurring in the body as part of a vast array of other functions. Therefore the engineering of this cellular growth can be difficult as it is ever changing. There are some other downsides as well that include: 

• Affordable production of cultured meat with a low carbon footprint and minimal waste can theoretically be achieved, however, the scale required for making cultured meat a commodity will be the largest ever for tissue engineering
• Consumers do not like the idea of “fake” lab grown meat
• The major challenges facing lab-grown meat are fetal bovine serum and the time and money needed to develop cell lines 
• Farmers could lose their jobs and would be replaced 
• The taste of lab grown meat is the not same as regular meat and the taste and texture is still being developed and experimented 
• If lab-grown meat proves to be cheaper and easier to mass-produce than traditional meat, “researchers believe it could encourage overconsumption, which could, in turn, increase obesity and related issues” 
• It is expensive to produce this meat in a lab and the instruments used to do so 
• If created and sold in stores the cost would be high and it would probably not be accessible to food deserted areas or lower income areas as we have seen with beyond meats
• Ethical, moral, and religious reasons may hold people back from trying lab grown meat

These disadvantages are worth considering especially since there are so many to consider. Not only that but the majority of the downsides are important especially regarding the costs and the actual taste of the product itself and accessibility. All of these reasons and more are truly worth considering before creating a product and selling it to a market that might not even exist.

The Market for Lab Grown Meat 

Most importantly in order for lab grown meat to be successful there has to be a market. There is quite obviously a market for vegans and protein alternatives, but this brand new and quite adventurous alternative might turn heads away. The TEA found that cultivated meat can compete with some conventional meats on costs, with production costs in the study as low as $6.43 per kilogram, or $2.92 per pound, from this hypothetical production facility in 2030. However these prices are still relatively high considering that hamburgers in America cost around $2 on average. Based on some statistics the global cultured meat market size is estimated to grow a CAGR above 16% over the forecast timeframe and reach a market value of US$ 517 million by 2030. Which seems to prove that there is a possibility for true economic growth and investment. The charts and projections below explain the possible projected growth of the lab grown meat market. 

Let us consider who makes up this market of determining whether or not lab grown meat would be successful; the people. A Danish study reveals that 47 percent of consumers in Croatia, Greece and Spain are willing to try cell-based protein in spite of being unfamiliar with the cultured meat concept. The survey also revealed that vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be aware of new protein sources rather than the main market population. However there is some hesitation in studies done as well. There was a poll taken of 500 U.S. consumers that found skepticism and concern about new food technologies. About one-third of the respondents expressed that concern, while one-quarter said they’re worried about how healthful lab-grown products are compared to conventionally produced food. That being said, this large number of responses in skepticism is reasonable enough to consider in regards to the market. Even though more than half the population is receptive to lab-grown products, more than 40% in this poll said lab-produced or synthetic foods and beverages are “scary” and they have no plans to add them to their diets. Overall there seems to be a pattern in the polls; vegetarians/vegans are more likely to try new protein sources while most are hesitant. 

Conclusion To conclude, lab grown meat is a fresh, new idea appearing in our progressing society in hopes of combating climate change. Cultured meat is promising to help reduce emissions and negative environmental impacts as well as other environmental factors. However, there are downsides to every new idea such as having too small of a market, terminology of the lab grown meat, and the affordability. Overall we can see from multiple surveys and polls the opinions of consumers and their view on lab grown meat to help determine if clean meat is an alternative meat option to consider.

Intercropping; Reliability and Risks

Doug Duprey   October 5, 2022

            Food sustainability is an old and still ongoing issue that continues to affect our modern world. If you do not know what food sustainability is, it is the responsibility of the human race to make, change, or alter food products whether it be genetic mutations, farming practices, etc.; the goal is to produce food that does not alter our environment but is still healthy and safe to consume by the human population. Although this seems like something that is not as big of an issue as it seems, it really has more of an effect of our environment and quality of life than you would think.

Food Sustainability Effects on Humans and our Environment

            A couple ways you can see food sustainability effect our environment and race is mainly through soil, water, and pollution. Think about this, 100% of the fresh water used per year, 70% of that is used solely on farms and of that 70% used on farms, only 30% is reused or is not lost (Hightide, 2020). But food sustainability does not only apply to plant-farms it is a part of livestock and any type of food production. Also, of Earth’s land which is only 30% of the worlds surface, 71% is habitable, and half of our habitable land is used for agriculture (Our World in data, 2019). Meanwhile, our population is only increasing, so to find more sustainable ways to produce food would mean becoming much more efficient, more environmentally friendly towards our planet, and better land usage policies. One way less water and efficient land usage can be achieved or not achieved by, intercropping.

 (Journey 2050)

Intercropping for Beginners

Intercropping is when a farmer meticulously plants their crops with more than one crop, in a way that increase yield, efficiency, and use less resources to manage the crops. Intercropping is a type of method of farming. There are multiple main ways to intercrop by row, mixed, strip, and relay cropping. In this blogpost I am going to focus on all two types of the most used ways to intercrop.

Row intercropping and Strip intercropping is having two or more different crops being planted in rows, but their main difference is that row intercropping cannot utilize machinery. Relay intercropping is a timed method of planting so that the timing of harvest, flowering, and planting increase efficiency. Lastly, mixed intercropping is planting multiple different plants bunched together to maximize nutrient usage and so crops can benefit each other. With each of these main types of intercropping, they all mainly use less water, less chemicals, and better or more efficient land usage (Engels, 2016). Although, this sounds like a good alternative to modern farming, the labor and knowledge required to accurately and efficiently do this type of farming is large and can be easily messed up. But there is an exception, Strip intercropping is becoming more widely used due to its ability to use machinery which allows for greater yields. The more yield, the better, because this will give more opportunity for more food to be harvested and it must be high to compete with modern commercial farming. Same with Mixed farming by planting multiple crops in the same row, if only they could be harvested together.

<-(Agfuse, 2019)

Is Intercropping a Viable Solution for Food Sustainability?

            Intercropping in a nutshell is growing two or more crops at the same exact time in the same field. Which is thought to increase yield, rate of harvest, and decrease weeds and nutrient/water usage (Zaefarian,2016). But can it replace an enormous industry of commercial farming? I personally do not think intercropping would be a viable solution, but I could also see how it could. Strip intercropping and Mixed Intercropping could become a way to replace the modern farming industry if large machinery is used to keep up with demand, but there are many other factors that affect this.

Main Benefits of Intercropping

            We already talked about some of the benefits from intercropping briefly, but I want to go into greater detail about them and more. Suppressing weeds and controlling pests is a possible outcome from intercropping, especially Strip and Mixed intercropping. The functionality of intercropping in reducing weeds is viable. According to Liebman and Dyck, 1993, in 47 cases weed biomass was reduced and only in 4 and 3 cases respectively, weed biomass went up or didn’t change at all. Intercropping also deters pests from eating or contaminating the crops by intercropping Mixed or Strip with a ‘trap crop’ that actually attracts the pests to it, so they eat that crop instead of the cash crop or primary crop (the trap crop is a secondary crop) or a crop that repels pests altogether(Brion, 2014). Both of these benefits allow for less use of pesticides and herbicides which then in turn reduce pollution runoff and the footprint that farming leaves behind, but you must plant the crops accordingly.

            Another main benefit I mentioned earlier is the soil protection that intercropping provides. From alternating crops and having different crops planted at the same time, as long as the farmer is well versed on plant structure and plants them accordingly, than the method is able to hold soil together to prevent erosion, but also make sure the crops that are planted, are not using the same nutrients which could run the soil dry and cause a ‘Dust Bowl’ type of event. This also requires the farmer to plant crops that’s roots will not overcrowd each other and cause issues. (New Phytologist Foundation, 2014)

(New Phytologist Foundation, 2014)

            The last benefit I think is worth mentioning that I did before is water conservation and more efficient land usage. This stems from grouping the crops together which can improve land usage. For example, if you plant crops that are a part of the same family as nightshade or have shallow root structures, mixed or strip intercropping them will not work. A potato crop must have a crop planted with it that has a shallow root structure so that they are not competing for space, but now there are two crops in the same row increase land use efficiency (Master Class, 2021).

Serious Drawbacks of Intercropping

            There are major drawbacks to intercropping and even counter arguments to the benefits I listed before. Unless advanced machinery is available to harvest different crops at the same time or huge swathes of people change to rural careers than I do not think intercropping will be viable and here is why.

            First off, the labor required to harvest Mixed or Strip cropping requires advanced machinery and sometimes there is not a machine that can harvest a certain array or crops that are planted together. So, in turn, requires much more labor than a traditional farming method which drives up cost and makes it hard to achieve machinery intercropping (GrainSA, 2018). Although it is easier to machine farm, Strip intercropping can use machine harvesting methods if the crops are planted correctly.

Another serious drawback is the complexity of this method of farming. If done wrong, as in the crops are planted incorrectly or timed wrong, then that can have serious implications in the yield or farm altogether (Engels, 2016). If it is done carelessly, then crops may compete for space, nutrients, or be ravaged by pests or disease from the disarray of crops present on the farm. For example, using a crop with another that use the same nutrients can deprive the soil very quickly or planting crops that compete for space like a tomato and a potato. If this drawback does occur, and a farmer willy-nilly plants his crops, intercrop-like than the issues that persist will not only ruin that harvest but disease can spread over years, ruining the crops. The farmer must be smart and up to date on what crops to plant together and what not to plant together, or disaster will follow (CombineForum, 2010).                           

  (Engels, 2016)

My Conclusion

            In the end, intercropping still needs more work to become a major solution to food sustainability. But strip cropping is being used widely with specific crops that can be machine harvested. This seems to be the only way in which intercropping works well enough to turn commercial. But overall, I do not think it’s a viable solution for the long term because of the complexity and my lack in trust in people planting the crops accordingly and the massive amount of labor that would be required.

Combatting Food Waste in America

The United States consistently tops the charts as the country with the most food waste. With more than one quarter of the food we produce being lost or wasted each year, we are contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, wasting resources that go into producing food (harvesting, processing, shipping, refrigeration, planting, and fertilizing crops), practically throwing money in the trash, and throwing away food that could be used to feed people that need it. It is estimated that $218 billion is spent on food that is never eaten. In 2015, the USDA and EPA announced an official national food waste reduction goal to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. The United States Department of Agriculture states that food waste “occurs when an edible item goes unconsumed, such as food discarded by retailers due to undesirable color or blemishes and plate waste discarded by consumers.” Food waste included only food that is lost at the retailer and consumer levels and not waste that is produced during production and transportation. Retailers, policy makers, and consumers all have a part to play in tackling the issue of food waste in America.

Today, over 38 million Americans, almost 12 million of which are children, are food insecure. Food insecurity is defined by the U.S Department of agriculture as “a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life.” Of the food insecure population 47 percent reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food and 32 percent reported that they did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food. The great paradox of this is that there is enough food produced in the country to feed everyone. In 2010, 133 billion pounds worth of food was wasted at the retail and consumer level in the United States; this translates into 141 trillion calories of food that was available in the food supply but not consumed. If we could distribute all the food that gets thrown away in the United States, there would be an extra 1.2 pounds of food per person every day of the year. The number one priority in the battle against food waste ought to be diverting would-be-food-waste to feeding the food insecure.

France has created policies to address food waste and insecurity. In their 2015 proposal, French policymakers released an in-depth proposal focused on diverting edible food from landfills to food-insecure individuals. The National Policy Against Food Waste barred supermarkets from throwing away edible food. Before this policy, French supermarkets often threw out imperfect foods which looked less desirable but have the same taste, nutritional content, and safety, as well as overstocked foods, and foods that were close to or past the “best by” date (an often inaccurate label that is misinterpreted as meaning the product shouldn’t be consumed past the date). In addition to the barring of throwing out perfectly good food, the policy established a requirement for grocery stores larger than 400 square meters to sign donation agreements with authorized charitable organizations. Failure to do so could result in fines. Under the National Policy Against Food Waste, the tax incentive granted to grocery stores that donate to non-profits – 60 percent of food value and related logistics costs – will only be granted if donations are useable and “healthful”. Since the policy was enacted, donations to foodbanks have risen by more than 20% and super markets rescue around 46,000 tons of food from landfills each year. Could the US implement similar policies to combat food waste?

The short answer is yes, however, doing so would require educating retailers about their opportunities to donate. In 2008, American food waste at the retail level totaled 43 billion pounds; Up to one in every seven truckloads of perishable food delivered to supermarkets was thrown away. Under the 1996 administration, Bill Clinton signed into law the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act to tackle food waste and food insecurity at the retail level. The GSA officially exempted from liability any organization that donates wholesome food and grocery items to non-profit organizations in good faith. The goal of this act was to eliminate concern of liability for supermarkets to encourage them to contribute to food banks and other nonprofits feeding hungry people. Unfortunately, many United States grocery stores still cite fear of liability as the main obstacle preventing them from donating edible food. This suggests that additional effort must be made to educate supermarket stakeholders about how the GSA law can exempt them from liability for donating.

When food can’t be donated because it is inedible or spoiled, the second priority is keeping it out of landfills. Landfills have significant negative impacts on the environment because they contribute greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. It’s estimated that the decomposition of uneaten food in landfills accounts for 23 percent of all methane emission in the United States. With a warming effect that is 25 times more powerful than CO2, methane contributes significantly to global warming. Diverting uneaten food from landfills would be the equivalent of removing one-fifth of all cars in America from roads. As food is often wasted at the retail level, keeping food out of landfills often falls on retailers themselves.

A large portion of food waste in retail operations comes confusion around food expiration labelling. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 80 percent of Americans discard edible food because they misinterpret expiration labels. The USDA does not set strict guidelines for labeling on food products. Because of this, there are several ways to label foods; “Sell by”, “Best by”, “Use by”, “Fresh by”, and “Enjoy by” are all labels that can be found on food products. The “Use by” label is the only consequential label as it indicates that a product may not be safe to consume after the printed time. Because consumers often don’t buy foods that are past the labeled date, supermarkets throw out an average of $2,300 worth of out of date food per store every day. Instead, retailers could capitalize on this product by selling it for discounted rates. In California, the grocery store Berkely Bowl sells out of date products for discounted rates on a separate aisle. It is estimated that the grocery chain sells more than $2,000 dollars’ worth of product each day from its bargain shelves, demonstrating that there is a financial incentive for retailers to reduce their food waste because of labelling confusion.

The food that retailers can’t sell or donate should be reused through other means. The large grocery chain Kroger is making steps to divert their excess food so that it doesn’t end up in landfills. In 2019, the grocery chain diverted 44.7 percent of its excess food from landfills. Kroger did this by sending excess food to be used as animal feed (44,146 tons), anaerobic digestion facilities (41,147 tons), and composting facilities (15,876 tons). Kroger’s advancements demonstrates a consistent trend of improvement as the company was diverting 27.1% of excess food in 2017. By recycling food into compost, animal feed operations, and anaerobic digestion, retailers can actively reduce their food waste

Consumers play a critical role in the problem of food waste in America. The average person in America generates 219 pounds of food waste each year, and food waste costs the average four person American household $1,500 each year. Any waste from consumption at home and away from home falls into the category of consumer food waste.  The most common sources of consumer food waste are food spoilage, unconsumed leftovers, over purchasing, and plate waste. By reflecting on consumption practices and seeking to make conscious changes, consumers can reduce their food waste  

The FDA has released several suggestions for how consumers can reduce their food waste. Preparing a list before shopping at grocery stores makes it easier to buy only what is needed. Doing so cuts down on excessive ingredients which might spoil before they are cooked. Propper food storage can prolong the life of perishable foods. Keeping the fridge below 40 degrees ensures that food stays fresh for longer and fruits, veggies, and meats can be frozen to prevent them from spoiling until you’re ready to eat them. Finally, learning how to portion correctly and make meals out of leftovers ensures that consumers produce even less food waste. Of course, even if these suggestions are followed to a t, there will still be some food that goes uneaten. Consumers can recycle food scraps, spoiled food, and excess food, by composting!

Many municipalities have designated compost collection services, making composting easy and convenient for households. Composting facilities often offer road side collection; Consumers just have to fill their bins and set them at the curb and a compost truck will collect them. Individuals should research the options available in their area to determine if compost collection services are a good choice for them. Individuals can also learn how to compost in their own yards. Composting at home can be very cheap, only requiring a couple of bins and a shovel. There are also commercial composting systems available for those who want to go that route. Many free guides about how to start an at home compost system can be found online. There are many benefits to composting at home. Composting generates nutritionally rich soil that is great for gardening projects and many people thoroughly enjoy the process of composting.

Voluntary changes on the residential and retail levels might not be enough to meet the 50% food waste reduction goal set by the USDA. Policy makers can introduce laws that expedite change at the consumer level. In the US, a couple of food waste policies have been tested with positive impacts on food waste. In 2012, the Legislative body of Vermont unanimously passed the Universal Recycling Law (Act 148). This law sought to reduce food waste by establishing waste disposal expectations for both businesses and residents. Under the Universal Recycling Law, throwing blue bin recyclables, leaf and yard debris, and food scraps was banned and businesses were encouraged to donate edible food to non-profits. This law also introduced a ‘pay per unit’ pricing plan that has residents and retailers pay more if they produce more trash. To help residents and businesses to adhere to the law, the government released a slew of educational material including infographics describing what can go into each bin, a call line to answer questions about disposal methods, info for residents about how to compost at home, and public ally broadcasted content teaching about correct waste disposal processed. The results of this program are promising. Between 2014 and 2015, trash disposal decreased by 5% and recycling and composting increased by 11,797 tons in the same period. Additionally, food donation grew by nearly 40% between 2015 and 2016, decreasing the Salvation army’s cost of providing a meal from $1.47 to $0.07. This policy demonstrates the impact laws can have on decreasing food waste.

Reducing food waste in America is an enormous task, that will require a unified effort by retailers, consumers, and lawmakers. Though it may seem daunting, reducing food waste is essential if we want to live sustainably on this planet. Reforming society to be more waste neutral is something that can start with individuals. Making small changes and applying consistent effort to reducing food waste will lead to a less wasteful culture for all of us

Big Ag Co-op: Redefining Agriculture Waste

A big agricultural farm consists of property used to produce products with an average acreage of around 2,000 acres. These areas are typically seen as being industrial areas. There is a range of produce and meats that are mass-produced on a singular farm. Often times these farms will specifically raise one type of cattle or grow one to two types of crop. 

Big agriculture farming represents a lot of poor environmental impacts across the country, today. Land and atmospheric degradation is a huge impact on the doings of growing and raising livestock and produce. Furthermore, “losses of biodiversity, excessive use of pesticides, causing concern about health impacts”, and more. However, with such an evergrowing population there are more mouths to feed. Challenges are present when more quantities of food are a must but also wanting to be sustainable. Rather than looking for other possible solutions for big agricultural corporations, let’s find possible outcomes for their overall production

“Large farmers — who are responsible for 80 percent of the food sales in the United States, though they make up fewer than 8 percent of all farms, according to 2012 data from the Department of Agriculture — are among the most progressive, technologically savvy growers on the planet. Their technology has helped make them far gentler on the environment than at any time in history. And a new wave of innovation makes them more sustainable still.” (Lusk, 1).

“Any effort to address social and environmental problems associated with food production in the United States will need to first accommodate itself to the reality that, in a modern and affluent economy, the food system could not be anything other than large-scale, intensive, technological, and industrialized.” (Nordhaus, Blaustein-Rejto, 1). 

Yes, we will continue to eat meat. There are people that will not change. There are people that will change. However, we need a change now! The ozone hole is changing. The planet is warming! There needs to be action now.

Most big agricultural farming is done where a single farm will choose one specific product to produce. This can range from meat all the way to corn. These farms produce tremendous amounts of waste on a daily basis, leaving them unsure of what to do with it. For example, a cattle farmer produces huge amounts of feces, while a corn farm produces large amounts of waste within the stock. What are they supposed to do with it?

Farmers that grow produce continuously use large amounts of nutrients in order to produce the most spectacular product. The non-organic/organic nutrients often end up near waterways impacting the native wildlife around. Algae blooms are huge factors in the overconsumption of nutrients. When this occurs tremendous amounts of oxygen are consumed by the algae, taking it away from the organisms that need it. 

Heavy amounts of nutrients will be needed along with large quantities of pesticides to be sprayed. In order for the farmers to keep their crops alive they will implement Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), and more. When using these nutrients, it often times causes degradation to the surrounding environment.

The Big Agriculture Farming Co-Op…

The term Co-Op. This is generally where small farmers across the country participate in the organized sale of joining all of their products together in order to get better marketing. In joining together with help from each other there is a better likelihood of more business.

In a co-op big agricultural operation, there needs to be an agreement between all farmers. The waste they produce together can create biofuels, but can also be used within their pastures! When these farmers work together there can be great use for each other. If you really think about it, it is the circle of life. 

“Renewable energy is generated from slurry, bagasse, and other agriculture waste, which is then used to generate heat and electrical energy. Biogas and biofuels are then used in various industries to produce energy such as electricity & heat and reduction in dependence on oil, petroleum, and natural gas. Biogas and biofuel are the sources of renewable energy that are then used to reduce pollution.” (Fortune, 1).

Different plants offer different abilities to create more energy. When it becomes time for a farm to add nutrients to its soil, the other agriculture businesses around are able to aid. Even More so, the excess or unneeded parts of the plant that the produce comes from can be used for animal feed. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. can consume the majority of the unused plant. This will drastically reduce the unused waste between each farm. In terms of crops being grown, I am not saying to completely eliminate the use of all artificial fertilizers. However, when using natural fertilizers like these, it can reduce the amount of unnatural being used. 

Biofuels. The process of creating agricultural waste is not a simple process but it is able to be done. Taking large amounts of waste from these farmers has the ability to produce tons of natural fuel. 

“Globally, agriculture produces on average 23.7 million tons of food every day while also producing 21% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Lignocellulosic biomass is composed of four different categories that include agricultural wastes, hardwood, softwood, and grass. These biomasses normally do not receive treatment and are disposed of, which can contaminate the environment and cause environmental load. Wastes from fields and wastes from processing are the two kinds of agricultural waste. Field wastes are present after harvesting crops and include stems, leaves, and stalks, and waste after processing crops includes seeds, peels, husks, etc. The lignocellulosic biomass consisting of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin from agricultural waste can be converted into biofuels.” (Shah, 1).

“Composting is an aerobic process, which requires oxygen, optimal moisture content, and porosity to stabilize the organic wastes, and the common control variables are temperature, oxygen, and moisture. The microbial activity through complex metabolic processes is responsible for the decomposition and fractional humification (biological oxidative transformation) of the organic matter, which ultimately transforms it into a nutritious soil amendment, which is compost, a valuable stable, mature, and contamination-free product for crop cultivation and soil fertility” (Sayara, Basheer-Salimia, Hawamde, Sánchez, 2). 

Policies need to occur in order to create this co-op. There needs to be more force on each farmer on recycling waste that is organic. Give back incentives per every ton recycled to a new farm. Create the ability to have tax right offs every year. Grade each farm on how sustainable they are on a yearly basis, giving them the eligibility to become a member of a new movement. New jobs will be formed. Transportation of the waste from farm to farm will be needed. New types of inspections will be created, needing people to inspect every farm. Your waste is another man’s treasure! This is just another step in the right direction for more sustainable food systems. 

If putting this policy through, there are negative impacts too. There are many concerns about what will happen in the future to our economy and society.

“Agricultural biofuels can supplement our energy resources in the United States. Biofuels are often referred to by “generations”, with first generation being food crops that are grown on arable land, and the second generation being food byproducts or crops grown on non-arable land. First-generation biofuels can create energy that burns cleaner than fossil fuels and sequester the same amount of carbon they release. At the same time, there are concerns about the environmental impacts of first-generation biofuels, especially when land is cleared to grow them. There is also some concern that creating fuel from food sources will increase food prices, which in turn will increase food insecurity, both domestically and internationally.

As the world evolves, more and more people are wanting organic produce to eat. It’s healthier for your body, and healthier for our planet. Yet, how can we make this food system more sustainable?” (USDA, 1).

The creation of implementing biofuels into our economies, there are a lot of beneficial advantages. However, along with the advantages, there are always disadvantages. 

The Ups and Downs of Greenhouse Farming

Before we go into the ups and downs of greenhouse farming, it is first important to understand what greenhouse farming is. Greenhouse farming is the same as regular farming but in a building with walls and a roof made up of transparent material. The purpose of this building is to protect the crops from harsh weather conditions. Not only does this protect crops from harsh weather conditions but it also extends the growing season by a lot. In fact, with a greenhouse you can really grow crops all year round. This means you can make money from the food you grow year-round.

One of the benefits to greenhouse farming is that there will be less threats to your crops. For instance, when you grow crops outdoors, you must worry about a wide range of issues such as beetles eating away at the crops. But when you are indoors in a greenhouse, these problems have become much less of a problem. A tomato greenhouse in Italy shows us how greenhouse farming protects crops and how technology can be used to ensure the crops are at their maximum potential. First of all, the technology being used in the tomato greenhouse would not even be possible without the greenhouse. This is because wet weather conditions pose a threat to technology. Wireless sensors can be used to ensure crops are having their needs met. If the crop needs fertilizer, the sensor will detect that and the people in charge of the greenhouse can get the crops what they need. It is still a challenge to set up these complex technologies in the greenhouse but at least it is possible and not impossible like it would be if we were to try and set up these technologies outside.

                 Technology used to detect air temperature, humidity, and soil temperature

                  (http://www.nemosrl.it/uploaded_files/web_contents/wfcs2006.pdf)

This is an example of a technology used to sense air temperature, humidity and soil temperature. Having technologies like these in the greenhouse are very useful because in a greenhouse the temperature and humidity level are usually consistent (unlike outside), and it can pose a threat to the crops if there happens to be a different temperature or humidity level than expected. This piece of technology will detect any changes in temperature or humidity which will allow the farmers to make changes if issues arise. All in all, this will ensure the harvested food will be healthy and delicious, something that cannot be guaranteed outside.  

Another benefit to greenhouse farming is that it saves water. Greenhouse farmers use up to 61% less water than outdoor farmers. Given the current state of our climate, along with the fact that it is rapidly changing, this is very important! Greenhouse farming saves water because there is less evapotranspiration in the greenhouse. Evapotranspiration is the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and other surfaces and by transpiration from plants. When you are farming in a greenhouse, you are trapping all the water in the greenhouse and are not allowing it out into the atmosphere. This is beneficial not only for the environment but for farmers as well because they are saving money since they do not have to spend as much money on water. This will decrease the global demand for water which is beneficial to society.

                                    Greenhouse farm in the United States

( https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/blog/greenhouse-growing-saves-water-in-a-number-of-different-ways/)

            Another benefit to greenhouse farming is that you can grow crops year-round.  However, you do need a certain kind of light no matter the season to make this possible. It turns out that incandescent lamps don’t provide good growing conditions for the crops. After studying the theory in Norway, it was concluded that high pressure mercury vapor lamps and fluorescent lamps provided the crops with much better growing conditions. They experimented by using a fluorescent lamp to grow tomatoes and lettuce in the wintertime, and after this experiment it was confirmed that the fluorescent lamp provided crops with the best growing conditions in the greenhouse at the time. But when the 70s came around, they invented the high-pressure sodium lamp, and it turns out that was more effective than any of the other lamps. This is because the high-pressure sodium lamp focused on quality of the light instead of quantity. Instead of providing the crops with intense light all day, it would provide light in integrals which is perfect for the crops because too much light is not always a good thing. The high-pressure sodium lamp makes it easy to consider other factors such as temperature and humidity by giving crops the perfect amount of light based on the level of these other factors. All in all, it is important to have the right lamp because that will allow greenhouse farming to reach its maximum potential, and it will make it easy to grow crops year-round.

Sure, there are huge benefits to greenhouse farming but there are also drawbacks. The first drawback to greenhouse farming is the fact that it cost a lot of money to set up and operate a greenhouse. On top of that, it is also very time consuming to run a greenhouse. The good news is that you will likely make profit eventually but getting to that point is expensive. Let’s use a 20 by 40-foot greenhouse as an example. For starters, it will cost around $7500 for the greenhouse itself. Then, it will cost around $8525 for all the supplies needed to run the greenhouse. Next, it will cost around $1800 for the irrigation and draining supplies. On top of that, the plumbing needs will likely cost around $8750. To ship all the materials to your land, it will cost around $1000. All in all, we are looking at a cost of over $27000 for the materials. That is not even to operate the greenhouse. To operate a greenhouse, you must take many factors into account. You must consider the cost for water, lighting, plants, irrigation tools, repairs and pest management. That would be at least $2000 a month. Overall, starting up and operating a greenhouse is very expensive but if you can get past the price and are successful in starting up the greenhouse, it will come with many environmental and social benefits.

                                                20 by 40-foot greenhouse

                                    (https://www.ebay.com/p/1155663002)

            Another drawback to greenhouse farming is that the crops will experience pollination issues. This is problematic considering that from an economic perspective, around 45% of the crop production value is linked to pollination. In other words, the pollinated crops are worth more money. This is related to the fact that the greenhouse makes it harder for bees to pollinate. Besides the fact that the greenhouse farm is blocking bees from getting in, they would have a harder time pollinating anyway because of the radiation. The radiation that is produced from running a greenhouse is enough to keep bees from wanting to pollinate flowers. On top of that, UV light also drives bumble bees away. The UV light is way different from actual sunlight and the bumble bees don’t understand this, so it keeps them away. Not that they would have an easy time getting in the greenhouse anyway. It also depends on the temperature of the greenhouse. At about 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the bumble bees start ventilating blood and are unable to pollinate flowers. So, it also depends on the temperature they keep the greenhouse. All in all, there is a lack of pollination in the greenhouse which has some negative economic effects.

                                Bees that were brought into a greenhouse to pollinate crops

(https://growerssupply.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/ultimate-guide-to-growing-tomatoes-part-2-tomato-plant-care/ultimate-tomatoes-4/)

            After looking at greenhouse farming from multiple angles, it is apparent that greenhouse farming does more good than harm. This is for many reasons. The first reason greenhouse farming does more good than harm is because it reduces threats to crops which is huge because it is a risk that is almost unavoidable with outdoor farming, and it can put a lot of hard work to waste. The second reason why greenhouse farming does more good than harm is because it makes it easier to use technologies that can have huge benefits to the crops. It is harder outside because you must deal with the weather and other elements such as animals. A huge reason why greenhouse harming does more good than harm is because it saves water. Considering how many countries in the world struggle with little things such as clean water, it is important we do as much as we can to conserve water. If we continue to integrate greenhouse farming into our lives, we will decrease the global demand for water which would be a huge relief for the entire planet. We could also give some of the extra water we saved to other countries that need it. On top of that, we can grow year-round with greenhouse farming. This is beneficial in all respects because not only can greenhouse farmers make money by providing healthy, sustainable food year-round, but we will also never have to worry about not being able to grow food. I encourage those who can afford to set up and run a greenhouse to go ahead and do it, because you will be changing the world for the better! In life, everything comes with costs and benefits and in this situation, I believe the benefits far outweigh the costs.

The Future of Cultivated Meat

By Indi Wachtler 

Today, there are numerous amounts of meat alternatives available, and there are growing support for meatless diets. In supermarkets, consumers can find veggie burgers, meatless  chicken nuggets, fake bacon and sausage, and so much more. These products have been a great aid to those eating meatless diets and in reducing  meat consumption. There is a new product soon to be entering the market that furthers the reduction of meats carbon footprint. This is cultivated meat.

1. What is cultivated meat?  

Cultivated meat is a form of real animal meat and is made using the same cells in animal tissues. This is a new technology that can aid in the decreased demand for conventional meat production. Cultivated meat consists of using stem cells from animal tissue to create lab-grown meat. Further, cultivated meat does not require mass amounts of live stock to be created. Rather it only requires a small amount of tissue from the animal, thus only a few animals are needed for cell harvesting. Also the animals can have their cells collected without being caused harm. The aim of producers is to have cultivated meat taste the same as—or similar to—conventional meat, as well as resemble the texture. Producers from various companies are working on meat cultivation for various types of animals like cows, sheep, elk, salmon, shrimp, tuna, and more. Currently there are around 75 companies working on meat cultivation, such as Aleph, JUST, Novel farms, etc. 

2. How is cultivated meat created?

Meat cultivation begins with the extraction of cells from a healthy animal. These stem cells are then grown in bioreactors in an oxygen-rich cell culture medium. These bioreactors are basically big cylindrical vessels typically made from stainless steel that provide a safe environment for the cells to grow. They ensure the environment is sterile, closed, and at the correct temperature. These oxygen-rich cell culture mediums are the components that feed the cell. They essentially are mimicking the processes within an animal that contribute to its growth. These components include amino acids, fats, vitamins, carbohydrates, and minerals. These growth factors can be obtained from plants or through fermentation rather than animals as well. The next step within this process is scaffolding. Scaffolding is the means to which the cultivated meat gets its texture, muscle and fat composition. This process occurs within the bioreactor as well. To note, a bioreactor can also be interchanged with the term cultivator. The production of cultivated meat can take around 2-8 weeks. This time depends on the type of meat being cultivated. For instance, minced meat is quicker to cultivate compared to more structured meats due to it cell structures, growing conditions, etc. After the meat is ready to be harvested, it can then be processed (formed into shapes, e.g. hamburger patties), sold, and distributed.  

3. Advantages of Cultured meat  

There are many advantages to lab grown meat in regards to the environment and public health. 

• There is potential for cultivated meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 96%.
• Cultivated meat can also cut our water consumption between 82 and 96% (depending on what animal/animal part).
• Animal cruelty can be reduced due to cultivated meat not requiring animals to be mass produced. Also collecting cells does not harm the animal. 
• Less land is needed and farm space is saved. 
• There is reduced risk of outbreak of disease because masses of animals in confined spaces are not necessary. 
• There is no risk of antibiotic resistance due to absence of contaminates and antibiotic use. 
• Meat cultivation takes less time to produce than conventional meat. 
• It can have the same nutritional value, proteins, and fats. 

4. Disadvantages /Controversy  

There are also certain disadvantages to cultivated meat related to acceptance, ethics, and social challenges we must be aware of. 

• There are questions to the ethics of using stem cells.
• There is skepticism and hesitancy over the idea of having meat grown in a lab.
• Some farmers and ranchers could lose their jobs if meat demand is decreased.
• There are questions of accessibility of lab grown meat and who will be able to eat it and who will be able to grow it. 
• Cultured meat also raises many social questions and challenges. There are questions as to how the technology should be regulated. Also it raises the social questions of how changing the food system will effect on communities dependent on animal farming.
• Currently it is not FDA nor USDA approved, but it is on the books to be approved by these organizations.
• Prices could remain high and exclusive until supply and demand are increased. 

It is worth mention that one of the first companies to produce a burger made it for $330,000, but now, the same company says there is potential to make it now for $9.80 per burger. These prices are still unclear and depend on economies of scale. 

• There is another question of public acceptance. Consumers seem wary of accepting the meat.  

• Terminology may play a great role on influencing public perception 

5. Comparison with conventional meat  

If we compare conventional meat with cultivated, we can see that there is a greater environmental impact with conventional meat. Livestock production accounts for 14.5% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Also, around 70 – 77% of the global agricultural land is used by the livestock sector and furthermore 33% of the global cropland is devoted to the production of feed crops for livestock production. Additionally, total conventional meat production only produces 18% of global calories and 37% of global protein. Furthermore, as the world population continues to grow and wealth increases, meat demand will only continue to rise.

Global meat demand is projected to rise by 70% by 2050. There is also the risk of the diseases conventional meat carries, like Salmonella and Listeria. Thus, it can also promote antibiotic resistance. Cultivated meat, on the other hand, offers a solution to preventing environmental degradation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and preventing disease.

For example, cultivated meat performs better in terms of least environmental impact compared to beef when observing water usage, land usage, and GHG emissions. Also, as seen from the data above cultivated meat out performs all types of conventional meat in terms of land use. It performs similar—or a little above/below depending on the category—regarding water and land use for chicken and pork. Even though cultured meat does perform worse than meat alternatives like tofu, it still out performs many conventional meat products. Overall, cultivated meat has the potential to seriously reduce conventional meats impact on the planet.

6. Conclusion 

Overall, I think cultivated meat should be considered and utilized as a resource to aid in sustainable food systems. Cultivated meat can help reduce water, land, animal suffering, and green house gas emissions. This product will be vital as resources diminish and as populations increase in the future. The planet cannot sustain more meat production, and cultivated meat offers a viable solution to this pressing issue. It does seem strange growing a natural resource such as animal products in a lab, but in order to prevent further destruction of the planet we may need to turn to this source. Also, humans have manipulated many items, crops, technology, chemicals, and other resources, so manipulation of earth’s resources is not a new idea. I understand the ethical questions of this technology, but if handled under the right regulations and with good intent, meat cultivation could be a solution to the climate crisis. This will mean it will be important to not let certain companies monopolize this technology or abuse it. The technology itself can be used for good it just needs to be administered in an ethical way. Also we must ensure all populations are given fair access to these foods and it is kept at a fair price.

 I’m really interested to see how meat cultivation technology will progress. As this technology is still very new and has only been approved in 

Singapore it is in its beginner stage. Here in the U.S meat cultivated products are still awaiting FDA approval and are still in their prototype stages. It could be within the next few years as we see these products begin to enter the market. It will be interesting to see how they are marketed in order to generate consumer acceptance. 

Overall cultivated meat could help prevent and reduce environmental degradation. It will remain important for social questions to be addressed by companies and keep it an ethical practice. There is a lot of potential for this conventional meat alternative and it will be exciting to see it unfold. 

VII. Other resources 

I found other insightful Youtube documentaries on this that I linked below if anyone is interested in watching the process. 

The Future of Food Systems

In terms of land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and projected populations, our current agricultural practices are not viable in the long term. There have been many propositions for sustainable food systems to neutralize humans’ harmful effect on the environment, but few have demonstrated the capacity for global implementation. It is imperative that humans solve these issues sooner rather than later. Shifting to renewable energy and electric vehicles has been the focus of mainstream environmentalists in recent years, but these changes have no effect on our completely unsustainable land practices. 

Half of the habitable land on Earth is used for agriculture. Three-quarters of that portion is used for animal agriculture, although it only contributes to 18% of the calories. The average doubling time of the human population is 61 years. If current trends continue, the population will reach 13 billion by 2067. In parallel with the rise of affluence, demand for meat continues to increase . Factoring in the growing population, there seems to be a looming environmental catastrophe. If we do not reduce our reliance on traditional farming, we are headed to a world of resource scarcity and without nature. Many optimistic and intelligent people are working on a solution that addresses land use, greenhouse gas emissions, resource intensity, and large scale-implementation for the foreseeable future.

Population Projection Source

Urban environments take up 1% of the land on earth, but our food systems use 50%. This difference shows the potential for future land use; we can either use technology to minimize our footprint or we can choose to lose most of Earth’s land for livestock. 

A newly emerged technology, which has received funding from large corporations such as Tyson Foods, is lab-grown meat. It aims to completely eliminate our reliance on livestock for meat. As of 2022, this product is not available in North America, but it is available in a few cities in Europe.

A 3d-printed steak made in Israel.

Producers use stem cells from a cow or chicken and grow it in a culturing medium.The meat is then grown in bioreactors or on flexible scaffolds to imitate the natural conditions of that animal. No limits in terms of scale have been shown. Theoretically, a stem cell could make an infinite amount of duplicates, but in practice, mutations over time may need new samples to be obtained. This could mean that animals will always be a part of the food system. Optimistically, we could store the DNA sequence digitally and in the future use gene-editing technologies to bypass the animal altogether. Another technology introduced includes using 3-D printing to replicate animal muscle tissue, otherwise known as meat. This seems like science fiction but is becoming a reality in the competitive sustainable food industry.

Animal agriculture is a leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane and nitrous oxide; 65% of nitrous oxide and 37% of methane originated from animal ag. Eliminating methane, ammonia, and other waste ingredients that are present in traditional meat production presents an exciting opportunity for this new industry.

The key to using lab-grown meat as an alternative to traditional animal sources successfully relies on tackling the cost obstacle. While this new option is pricier today, there is an opportunity to improve the dollar amount once production becomes a large-scale operation. Reducing cost while maintaining quality compared to conventional meat is a reliable way to sway consumers who are indifferent to environmental and animal welfare concerns. And companies have been reducing their costs in a major way.  For example, Mosa Meat was able to lower the cost of their cell cultures by 88% in 10 months.

The bigger question remains, will many people refuse to eat meat grown in a lab? Factors such as being able to eliminate antibiotics and foodborne illnesses from meat may be an enticement. If the final product is healthier, equal output, and less expensive, the natural laws of capitalism suggest that conventional meat will become an inferior product.

    A common critique of lab-grown meat is the economic impact it will have on conventional farming. Like any other industrial improvement, changes in employment may be necessary for the future. The creation of new jobs in the production of this more sustainable food system may even decrease the hazards of working in a slaughterhouse. Additionally, the animal agriculture industry isn’t kind to the small farmer, instead, it is supporting Big Ag corporations that are not favorable to small family farms. 

Skepticism of lab-grown meat technology is necessary and will keep the transparency of the industry at the forefront. It is good business to show that their labs are less energy-intensive than conventional animal farming without relying on misleading advertising. The biggest obstacles to this new technology are perception and cost. With advertising dollars and government subsidies in the pockets of big corporations with interests in traditional animal agriculture, it will continue to be an area of interest to all parties.

    The future seems promising for this new industry. There is little doubt that demand for this product will grow as land becomes more limited and the price of lab-grown meat continues to drop due to technological advancements. This may be the beginning of a new agricultural revolution.

Is Relay Intercropping a Sustainable Solution?

Sustainable food systems solutions are an incredibly important element to solving the many issues revolving around the world’s unsustainable food methods. While these solutions can be complex and difficult to understand it is important to define what sustainability is and what sustainable food systems are. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  defines sustainability as an ideology that is “based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. To pursue sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations”. In order to implement sustainability throughout all ways of life we must find productivity and balance to promote growth for future and present generations. Now knowing what sustainability is we must acknowledge how this applies to food systems and processes. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines a sustainable food system as a system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social, and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised”. A sustainable food system is complex and uncommon throughout most societies globally. As climate change issues arise and global warming directly impacts agriculture, we must begin to find solutions to our food systems. Redirecting agriculture practices to become more sustainable will promote lasting infrastructure for future generations.  

Intercropping is one of the many sustainable food system solutions currently being applied throughout the agriculture community today. In general terms intercropping is defined by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education as “an all-encompassing term for the practice of growing two or more crops in close proximity in the same row or bed, or in rows or strips that are close enough for biological interaction”. The purpose of intercropping is to maximize crop productivity and a greater yield by using two or more crops at each other’s advantage. An example of this is planting one crop with deep tall roots and one crop with short roots. This helps the crops physically interact with one another while benefits the soil nutrients and creates greater plant health through diversity. While intercropping is unconventional and uncommon today, those who are implementing its practice into their work have seen great changes.There are four basic types of intercropping that are used throughout agricultural practices: row intercropping, strip intercropping, mixed intercropping, and relay intercropping. In this post, I will be discussing what relay intercropping is and the advantages and disadvantages seen within this practice. Relay intercropping is one of the many ways intercropping is seen throughout farms and the agriculture community. This practice uses cover crops to help absorb sunlight, nutrients and fertilizers which it then transfers that energy to the second crop. The second crop benefits from this energy transfer and produces a greater yield and future yield because of maximization of the crop. Mohsin Tanveer et Al. The National Library of Medicine defines relay intercropping as “a method of multiple cropping where one crop is seeded into standing second crop well before harvesting of second crop”. Sustainable farming and food systems have an ultimate goal of farming crops more efficiently. Relay intercropping is known for its efficiency, soil nutrient replenishment, weed and pest control, energy efficiencies and ultimately producing higher crop productivity in a sustainable way.

Field with mixed intercropping of oat and rye 2b

As described above, relay intercropping is most known for its efficiency and productivity throughout the fields but what does this entail? Through implementing this practice, individuals are increasing their land use efficiency and noticing an increase in land productivity and net return. Data has shown that relay intercropping is incredibly more effective and replenishable compared to monoculture. By efficiently using one’s land use, relay intercropping diversifies and enhances ecosystem services throughout the varying crops. Because of this, it has shown large improvements with soil quality. By relaying crops, the combined crop interaction and minimum to no tillage enhances nutrients within the soil which ultimately leaves less of an impact on the environment. Along with this, it is noted that relay intercropping can have an efficient use of natural resources. For example, geographical locations that are prone to drought can use relay intercropping by implementing drought-resistant crops to “reduce exposure of land area to high temperatures” and to provide soil coverage. Because of context like this, farmers tend to use relay intercropping to maximize resource efficiency and “biomass production”. Lastly, data has been collected to show how relay intercropping protects plants and crops through pest control.  The figure below explains in detail the many advantages intercropping has with pest interactions or an increase of predation. 

As difficult as it may seem many people debate the effectiveness of relay intercropping and propose many challenges to it. While a lot of data has shown positive yields to relay intercropping, this is very specific to crops being grown and the specific combination of crops. For example, studies have shown great yield between wheat and maize but other combinations of crops have shown strong yield reductions because of elements like, early-stage competition. A farm’s yield production is incredibly important therefore if relay intercropping is reducing one’s crop yield it is unlikely for them to continue using that practice. This is a prime example of the altercations that arise when implementing a new practice into the field. Along with this, relay intercropping requires a fair amount of attention and articulate labor. Many people oppose it because of the required detail and difficulty of the mechanization. This often leads to a very timely and instance practice that is in need of great management. Lastly, the articulate methods of relay intercropping are fairly costly. Educating individuals on the operations and practice of relay intercropping is expensive while the labor required to manage the crops is an additional expense. The combination of required time, energy, detail, and costs makes relay intercropping undesirable to many individuals. 

Intercropping is seen as a great sustainable improvement throughout the agriculture community. In order to promote change within agricultural infrastructure the farming industry must shift to more sustainable practices and methods. Relay intercropping is an innovative and regenerative method that allows farmers to enhance productivity and efficiency. While relay intercropping might not be the grand solution to solving unsustainable farming, it is a step in the right direction. If solutions like relay intercropping are implemented and mandated throughout the farming community we will work towards discovering and creating a more sustainable food future.  

The Movement to Tiny Ranches

1. Introduction

Nowadays, people are trying new and different kinds of diets and different kinds of proteins. People are starting to push away from the commonly known whey-based and changing to plant-based proteins. There is a search for a more sustainable and efficient way to gain these nutrients. Crickets and other bugs are the answers the food supply chain is looking for. It does not stop at protein powder. It could be used to benefit in many sorts of ways, similar to the way plant products are used. Currently, the traditional meat production being facilitated is not sustainable in the long run and is a cause for concern for the health of humans and animals.

On the other hand, bugs have a surprisingly very high supply of protein and other nutrients in such a small healthy portion size. Even though most people in the United States and elsewhere would find eating bugs unbearable, disgusting, and unimaginable, there are still a significant amount of communities of people and cultures that have had it already implemented into their diets or are engaging with the lifestyle of it. This movement from consuming typical proteins to crickets and bug proteins would be utilized to replace conventional meat production to protect the ecosystem and halt factory and industrial farming. So why not try to add them to the average human diet?

2. Why and why it is important to make the adjustment?

So why bugs, and why is it important? Whereas chicken is only half digestible with some nutritional value, bugs, especially crickets, are eighty percent digestible, becoming the best option between the two. Bugs are nutrition-packed, filled with amino acids, vitamins, proteins, and minerals such as iron, copper, magnesium, zinc, and vitamin B-12. From just a hundred grams of crickets, sixty grams of protein, all nine essential amino acids, omegas-3s and 6s, and mealworms are a great source of fiber. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, livestock account for nearly one-fifth of humanity’s greenhouse gas load. Bugs do not spend much energy to keep warm, so scientists assume pound-for-pound greenhouse gas is less produced. Bug waste, or frass, is also a great source of fertilizer and soil amender. With all of its proteins, conventional meat production does raise various health and environmental concerns. “Insects are 60% dry weight protein” and farming bugs can be a solution to the crisis of climate change, loss of biodiversity, and quality of health. But according to Agnes Kalibata, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ special envoy for the 2021 Food Systems Summit, “we have to be able to put them in a form that is acceptable to different cultures and different societies.” Proving that eating insect-based proteins is a beneficial alternative socially and ecologically since they could produce a lot of nutrients with little to nothing of emissions than the traditional choice. 

3. How to make bug proteins work

Research on successful bug farms should be examined and replicated to make bug proteins work. Such as the successful farming practices in Canada and Madagascar. Additionally, now bug proteins are even being used by the international aid agency, Catholic Relief Services, for their country-wide famine relief projects, school lunch programs, and even for patients in treatment centers who suffer from lack of nutrition, such as tuberculosis. In the United States, Mighty Cricket, out of St. Louis, Missouri, among other new businesses, is starting to offer ground crickets in plain and flavored protein powders and other products. Novel foods, such as cultured meat, eggs, milk, plants, algae, bacteria, and fungi, are becoming a congested part of the food system, becoming harder and more complicated to harvest. Whereas future foods include insects, micro greens, and spirulina algae are becoming increasingly popular due to their small size and nutritionally super packed. Including how bugs were always part of a human diet, dating back to the beginning of times.

4. What are the implications of substituting typical proteins with bug proteins?

When looking into bug proteins, the implications of substituting them from the typical proteins are few yet significant. Concerns regarding the production of bugs for protein exist, for example, where they come from, whether they are clean, whether illness will arise, and so on. However, these are also present when considering the production of plants and meat. People are becoming concerned about where their fruits and vegetables come from and whether they were harvested. Another implication is looking for what to do with all the current livestock farms, like land restoration and soil quality revitalization. The land becomes very stressed, and loses its quality as grazing and toxic waste diminish it, making the land almost unusable. As bugs are implemented into the human diets, the land will soon become less stressed and start to restore itself.

5. What are the outcomes?

Switching, or simply integrating, bug proteins from the traditional kinds will bring about positive outcomes. First, this would help produce better food security, which translates into healthy forests and ecosystems. Second, without healthy people and communities, the environment will begin to degrade. Also, bugs are so tiny, so they do not need as much space as a cow or pig. At the moment, livestock production uses thirty percent of the surface of the planet; seventy percent of the land is for agricultural uses. Including many different forms of solutions and transitions that could be transitioned, implemented, and integrated into society efficiently and sustainably. With more than half of the twelve billion animal meat, every year wasted being usable. According to Rachel Mazac, from the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry at the university, “By minimizing environmental impact in global warming potential, i.e., carbon emissions, water use, and land use, we found that diets with novel and future foods as well as vegan diets with protein-rich plant-based alternatives could have over 80% less environmental impact than the average current European omnivore diet.” The global human population is constantly growing, and consumption of meat has increased with it, creating concerns about overproduction. Including the amount of water needed to produce just a pound of meat, creating the same fear of overuse of water.  To be specific, the difference between a pound of beef and a pound of crickets require of water is 2400 times due to the crickets only needing 0.45 gallons of water. Making the case of consuming bugs more realistic when noticing that they have almost all the nutritional value we need to live. 

6. Perspectives/rebuttals

On average, most people in the United States will find it challenging to make this a custom, and most will describe it as gross and not an excellent idea. Plenty of people would only see and possibly attempt to eat the bugs found in bizarre places in the form of candy or chips. Forming the perspective that consuming bugs and such is a crazy, taboo thing to do from a man being documented eating cockroaches on a daily to become a custom in places. Consuming bugs is a normality in Asia, Africa, and Latin America regions. With weekly diets consisting of up to 300 grams of caterpillar in the Congo or forming kungu, also known as mosquito burgers, in the area of Lake Malawi. The people of Madagascar have been consuming bugs as part of their lifestyle, but as deforestation and climate change become more of a threat, it is becoming a primary food source. The country has become willing to find even more species of bugs to be able to consume and integrate them into their everyday diet, as a snack or as an ingredient. They are identifying all the edible ones and new ways to consume them in order to protect the forests they have been severely cutting down for land for farming and livestock. As for the people of Canada, they are also pro for the movement, having a fully operating cricket farm for humans and animals. Since not all protein is for human consumption, a significant amount is produced for animals and their benefit. This would limit the number of starches fed to poultry and pigs and reduce the amount of land used to grow these starches, like corn and wheat.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, to replace traditional meat production to protect the environment and diminish industrial and factory farming, bug proteins must become substitutes for conventional proteins. This movement will take a lot to get accustomed to in the United States, among other places, since much can not deal with the thought of it, yet due to this being one of the best solutions available to have a long-lasting food system, where both the planet and humans could coexist better. At least better than where the health of the planet currently lies, including human health. As the crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss becomes irreversible, the cultivation of bugs for protein is more efficient with the land, water, and feed. Freeing up land for more biodiversity and growth on the earth and a better way to effectively and sustainability sustain the planet and the human population. Humans have to adapt to the changing environments and begin the transition to the consumption of bugs since it is a true solution to the cause.

The potential of different systems for urban agriculture sustainable food development

By the year 2050, there will be about 10 billion humans living on the planet and we currently predict that there will be a shortfall in production with the amount of land needed to produce enough food by about 593 million-hectares (). Although it is also true that more people will be also moving to urban areas from rural areas, the land freed up from this migration will still not be enough to meet the land gap. A possible solution which could not only help this land gap but also capitalize on this increasing trend of urbanization while also creating more agricultural land is to utilize techniques such as hydroponics and aquaponics to find a use for this unused land while growing more food. This blog will discuss which of these urban agricultural techniques show the greatest potential for mass adoption based on efficiency, current pricing, and other related factors as well as the likelihood that these systems will actually significantly impact food production.

Hydroponic Systems:

History and Current Status: Hydroponic systems are one of the most commonly used iterations of indoor agriculture and the most familiar to the public in comparison to the others. Hydroponic farming was first discovered in the early 1900’s, shortly after the discovery of the essential nutrients necessary for plant growth. During World War 2 Hydroponics proved their reliability and usefulness through their use on particularly arid islands in the Pacific, where the growth of food utilizing traditional farming techniques was impossible. By the 1950’s hydroponic operations were operating in almost every continent across the globe. Today, the hydroponic industry is fairly large, with industry revenues of 746 million dollars within the US alone, and is expected to grow around 1.7% per year until 2027. While hydroponics systems have the ability to grow an incredibly wide variety of fruits and vegetables, most foods that are grown include tomatoes, lettuces, and fresh herbs making up over 60% of the crops grown. 

IBISWorld products grown

Pros, Cons and How it works: Hydroponics, at its very core is “the technique of growing plants using a water-based nutrient solution rather than soil” The system consists of the plants which are planted in a neutral substrate, which tends to be a mineral like loose gravel like material, and suspended above water, with the roots submerged. The water comes from a reservoir which contains nutrients and is cycled through the system so that there is less chance of evaporation and stagnation of water. These plants are then carefully climate controlled and utilize artificial light to mimic the sun.  

Example of plants growing in a Hydroponic system 

The main advantages of this include the ability to grow food entirely within enclosed systems, allowing for complete control over the environmental conditions (temperature, nutrients, exposure to light) and consistently higher yields of agricultural products per square meter. By growing plants in an enclosed system such as hydroponics, farmers are able to avoid problems which plague traditional farming that can lower yields and increase environmental harm while utilizing less land. One of the greatest issues for most farmers is weather inconsistency. If it rains too little, or too much, if the temperature is too hot or too cold, yields are affected considerably. With global warming steadily increasing the temperature over the next several decades, farmers will face smaller yields due to environmental stresses.  Enclosed systems are able to maintain perfect temperature conditions year round which can be customized to the specifications of the plant, providing little to no risk of crop failure. Enclosed hydroponic systems can also provide up to 90% reduction of water consumption and considerably more efficient use of fertilizers. This is due to the fact that rather than the water simply evaporating into the atmosphere or simply not making it to the roots of the plant or fertilizer needing to be spread in excess in order to ensure nutrient uptake, hydroponic systems constantly recycle the water nutrient mix the plants roots are suspended in until it is absorbed fully. While it is possible for this nutrient water to leak from these systems, due to the fact they are contained in systems which are indoors, there is little risk for it to contaminate nearby water sources and easier to clean up overall. By maintaining ideal conditions, hydroponic systems have been shown to increase the yields of crops, in this case lettuces, by over 10 times per every square meter. Another major benefit of hydroponic systems is the ability to utilize empty space within cities, such as old warehouses, to grow both on the ground level as well as vertically. Companies such as Aerofarms utilize hydroponic systems which are stacked upon each other in order to maximize the amount of growing space and amount of food produced.

While there are many benefits to hydroponic growing when it comes to efficiency of nutrients, water use, and space utilization, there are currently some significant downsides to hydroponic systems. One of the major downsides are the initial start up and maintenance costs associated with larger operations. By the end of all of the monetary costs associated, including labor, supplies, and maintenance, profit margins are around 4% on average which can discourage a lot of potential investors. Other than monetary disincentives, one of the major environmental downsides is the amount of electricity necessary to grow.  While it takes considerably less amounts of water and nutrients to grow, the electricity necessary to maintain temperature, pump water, and maintain illumination leads to greater amounts of energy needed per kilogram of produce which could lead to greater emissions of greenhouse gasses in comparison to traditionally grown. However with the development of higher efficiency of green energy alternatives, these concerns are becoming smaller.

Aquaponic System:

History and Current Status: Modern aquaponic systems originated shortly after the development of hydroponic systems within the 1980s.  While it is a newer system in comparison to that of hydroponics, aquaponic systems have been rapidly increasing in popularity. As of 2017, there are about 71 aquaponic operations within the U.S alone and this number is expected to increase in the future. It is predicted to become a multimillion dollar industry within North America by around 2029. Aquaponics has been gaining popularity around the world as well, as many consider it a possibly more sustainable option, as it provides not only agricultural produce at lower costs but also access to local seafood which has been historically known to provide large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of fish from wild catch and farmed.

Pros, Cons and How it works: Aquaponics operates almost identically to the above mentioned hydroponics systems. The main difference being that the water and nutrient reservoir is home to the stock fish or stock sea life. The system relies on fewer nutrient inputs for the produce as it is expected that the fish produce waste that is a rich source of ammonia, a very good fertilizer. The waste rich water, which would kill the fish if unfiltered, is cycled through the hydroponic system where the plants filter out and absorb, returning clean water to the fish. While less nutrients are added for the produce, the fish inside need to be fed regularly and additional inputs of medicine or chemicals to keep the fish healthy are needed. 

    The main benefits of this system include all the same benefits associated with hydroponic systems including increased yields, considerably more efficient water usage, and reduction of risk associated with weather. Unlike hydroponics however, there are also the added benefits of reduced nutrient input for the produce and the additional food and profit generating fish once they grow large enough to harvest. This locally grown fish or other aquatic life can help offset demand for less sustainably sourced wild catch and are often less expensive. 

    Some of the main drawbacks of this system include the feed necessary to sustain the fish, the environmental impact of this feed can vary depending on the fish used. If the feed is based more on aquatic plants and insects, the environmental cost of the feed is likely lower than one based on fish. Another issue is the amount of money necessary to start up one of these facilities, while the cost of starting a hydroponic center is already significant, the extra costs of purchasing the sea life and feed necessary to do it are often a major reason why many avoid such systems. To start up an aquaponics  A final issue is a carryover from hydroponic systems is the electricity usage. The electricity usage is higher in comparison to hydroponic growing due to the extra heating and oxygenation necessary for the fish within the system. 

Emphasis on Hydroponics or Aquaponics:

Based on the current evidence and metrics, while I believe that aquaponics has massive potential when it comes to raw food output, reduction of overall greenhouse gas output and potential profit generation, I believe that there are still many unknowns when it comes to the full benefits and practicality of implementing one of these systems into a larger scale. That is why I believe that a greater emphasis should be placed on hydroponic systems when it comes to food production within cities. The amount of food produced by hydroponic systems is astounding in comparison to the traditional alternatives. Although it is true that the current selection of  hydroponic fruits and vegetable varieties are smaller in comparison to traditional farming, the pure potential of such systems to grow a great amount of food in such enclosed spaces while maintaining greater efficiency is something that everyone should consider.

Modeled annual yield in kilograms per square meter of lettuce grown in southwestern Arizona using hydroponic vs. conventional methods