Is the honey industry killing the bees?

Photo from pexels.com

We are all aware of the importance of maintaining a healthy pollinator population. We would lose over a third of our crops without them. Bees and other pollinators do this by transferring pollen between flowers allowing new seeds to be produced and dispersed, increasing crop and wild plant populations. Between 1996 and 2016, the European honey bee population declined by 25% as a result of colony collapse disorder (CCD) which has been attributed to a range of causes, including the removal of wild meadows, pesticides and parasites. Many of us believe that by buying honey we are supporting the growth of this declining population but is this really the case?

The average honey bee colony contains 50,000 bees, with the majority being worker bees whose role is to collect nectar for the hive. One hive can produce 14 KG of honey. That seems like an awful lot for one hive so is it really an issue for us to have some honey? To make 0.45 KG of honey the hive will have to get to two million flowers and travel around 55,000 miles to do this only for us to steal the majority of their food collected which, in my opinion, doesn't seem very fair to the the poor hard working bees. With CCD increasing in concern, we should be giving the bees the best chance for survival and that means ensuring that they have enough food to survive and reproduce.

To increase honey production, some beekeepers, mainly in the US, have resorted to artificial insemination to increase the number of drones in the hive, thus increasing the pollen collected. Although very few beekeepers are doing this is does mean killing at least one drone in order to collect the semen. The head and first segment of the body are crushed in order for the muscles to contract, making it easy to collect the semen. The queen bee is then held down via hooks in order to be inseminated which can lead to injury and possibly death of the queen. There have also been some cases where the queens wings have been clipped to prevent any chance of her flying away. With bee population becoming so scarce, should we be killing bees in order to artificially increase honey production for human consumption?

Despite these issues there are many other reasons for a declining bee population that don't involve honey. There is an argument that bee farms increase populations by increasing the amount of hives, planting flowers and reducing pesticides to increase bee populations. Bees in honey hives will also pollinate the surrounding area, helping to increase plant biodiversity which is the base of every food web, in turn supporting larger mammals in the area. It has also never been proven that there is a link between honey production and declining bee populations and there are many things we can do to limit the impact honey production has on bees. One thing could be to ban artificial insemination and limit the amount that can be taken form a single hive. So this begs the question, should governments be doing more to reduce our impact rather than stop eating honey altogether?

Personally, I think that ethically it isn't right for us to take the honey from the bees especially seeing as the entire hive is built around it. There are so many other alternatives, such as maple syrup, agave and date syrup, all derived from plants essentially cutting out the middle man. With bees being so important and becoming so scarce, shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to protect them?


Resources -
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-complex-worldwide-bee-declines.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zg4dwmn
https://friendsoftheearth.uk/bees/honey-ethical-guide
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/honey-factory-farmed-bees/

Rewilding: The most basic but effective conservation technique?

It's exciting to see a book about wildlife conservation in the UK being a top seller and highly advertised in bookstores. If you haven't heard of the book 'Wilding' yet by Isabella Tree I would highly recommend you pick it up. The book talks about the conservation technique of rewilding (obviously) in the Knepp estate in West Sussex and how this technique can be replicated in other habitats. The book defines this technique as essentially doing nothing. It is removing all intensive management and allowing natural succession of a habitat to occur with minimal human impact or intervention. The idea is that it will increase the population of the native species and possibly attract new species. This can also include the reintroduction of native species that are no longer found in that habitat (similar to my blogpost on beaver reintroduction). However, this is sparking some debate, particularly with locals when this technique is done on open land (or commons) such as Dartmoor which begs the question is a technique that we should be implementing more?

One key idea in this concept is to promote naturalistic grazing patterns to maintain sustainable vegetation levels and provide different exposure levels for a range of species. For example, in her book Tree links the population of Dartmoor ponies to an increase in the rare butterfly species the Marsh Fritillary; an insect that declined in population 66% between 1990 and 2000. She also rights about a study claiming the grazing of ponies has helped to increase the weight in grazing cows as the remove the tough upper layer of grass that bovines cannot digest. Whilst I don't recommend anyone eats meat, there is the argument that farmers can still raise livestock on the moor and can advertise the meat as organic and free range. This is what is done on the Knepp estate and has lead to an increase in profits for the landowners.

Another idea is to remove any intensive management techniques already in place such as drainage channels used in agriculture. The blocking of the channels (also known as grip blocking) will help to restore the water table leading to the reformation of rivers, streams and wetlands. This is what happened on the Knepp estate which has helped to increases the diversity of habitats, and subsequently increased overall species diversity. If this occurred nationwide it could help to increase the UK's ranking on the Biodiversity Intactness Index which is currently 189/218. In areas of Dartmoor this had lead to an increase in Sphagnum, moorgrass, braken and gorse which are the key plants that support endangered habitats such a blanket bogs. If this could be used to increase the size of our peatlands, this could significantly increase the rate of carbon sequestration as peat is a greater store of carbon than terrestrial plants.

The Knepp estate has also seen an increase in eco-tourism as they promote a guided nature walk and a sustainable camping site. Whilst the book does not mention a specific figure in profits, this could help bring tourists to areas, such as national parks, provided that they stick to paths and follow the guides to avoid damaging the plant life. This could create a new economy for locals, reducing our dependence on intensive agriculture which is always a benefit in terms of ethics and climate change.

However there are objections, mainly from farmers. The idea of reducing intensive farming will most likely result in reduced yield as fertiliser and pesticide isn't allowed under this scheme. Reintroduction programmes are also expensive with the beavers in Knapdale costing the Scottish government £2 million which, given the countries current financial state, could be invested in the public sector. Personally, I feel that ethically we should be looking to invest in our conservation and this method can be done on a budget and we need to take any measure we can to improve the state of our wildlife. So to sum up, I think rewilding could be easily implemented by landowners and help improve the UK's biodiversity.


Click here to buy Wilding on Amazon. 

Scottish Beaver Reintroduction

The European Beaver that became extinct in the UK in the 16th century after being hunted to extinction for their fur and medicinal purposes. They excrete castoreum which is an oil originally used to treat headaches. Reintroduction programmes for this beautiful mammal began in the early 2000's in Scotland with aims of sustaining a healthy population in order to reverse years of hunting.

A photo of the Eurasian Beaver. Photo from CreamTeam.be

The first reintroduction programme began in 2001 and was located within the River Tay, Scotland's largest river. This area was chosen due to the high biodiversity, the designation of SSSI and the high population of salmon meaning there would be a good food source for the beavers. Despite some opposition after a few rouge escaped individuals, in 2011 up to 100 individuals were recorded with there being evidence of breeding and a growing juvenile population. The second project began in 2007 and was located within the Knapdale forest after an application was made by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and this project was given a gran of £1 million. and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The first reintroduction was in 2009 where 16 beavers were realised. There were however a few mortality's and a few runaways meaning that in 2014 there were 10 beavers remaining. Since then a successful family unit has been established with a growing juvenile population and 28 more individuals are planned to be released within the next few years.. In February 2019, the European Beaver was granted European protected status and the appropriate measures should therefore be taken to protect the new populations that have been established.

There are many benefits to beavers being present within certain ecosystems the main one being that fact that they are considered ecosystem engineers as they have the potential to alter or maintain their habitat. Beavers remove trees in a similar manner to coppicing which reduces the size of the canopy and canopy cover. Whilst this may seem like a bad thing, it actually increases diversity as it allows ground plants to grow, thus increasing insect diversity. The trees removed during this process are used to create dams which block a stream or rivers water course. This can create or restore wetlands which are key habitats from migratory birds in particular. This also acts as a store of water that can be extracted during periods of drought. The dams create ponds that offer protection and a food supply for beavers as well as provide a habitat for aquatic life and invertebrates, potentially attracting a greater population of pollinators.

There has also been some opposition to the project with one argument being it will affect the local agricultural industry as these areas are dependent on the existing drainage system, affecting water supply. The other major issue was cost with many questioning the running cost of the project and if locals would have to contribute towards the maintenance as well as if this would take away local government spending from other area. Question were also raised if other important Scottish species would still be receiving the same amount of funding towards their conservation efforts. There were also question about the impact on the topography as many were concerned with the stability of the river bank and burrowing may cause the river bank to collapse, leading to an increase in flooding to the surrounding area.

Despite these issue I personally believe the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages and projects like these help to maintain the ecosystem and improve diversity. Plus there is also the ethical issue as it was our (or our ancestors) fault for the initial extinction so shouldn't it be our responsibility to help introduce an maintain healthy populations? Hopefully this leads to other successful reintroduction programmes.


Resources -

•  https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/news/union-reiterates-opposition-reintroduction-beavers-tayside-following-snh-report
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/beaver-trial-faqs/when-do-beavers-start-breeding-and-are-they-around-all-year/
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-and-wild-places/saving-species/beavers
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38096751

Animal Agriculture and Climate Change

https://climatevulture.com/category/blog-topics/agriculture/

Climate change is a major global issue with it being a key talking point amongst governments and IGO's (*ahem America*). Everyone is aware of the obvious contributors including exhaust emissions and fossil fuels but recently it has been suggested that animal agriculture may be a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than originally thought. There has been evidence to suggest that as our meat consumption has grown so have our carbon emissions but this could also be due to the growth of industry, population and a greater dependence on fossil fuels. So does this mean documentaries like Cowspiracy are wrong?

It is suggested that livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. With the addition of the byproducts, it could be as high as 51% with a projected increase of 80% by 2050. These byproducts include transportation, food and heating. Most of these emissions are methane that are produced by the growing cattle industry and bad land management and with methane having a global warming potential 86 times greater than carbon dioxide, it is no wonder livestock are essentially destroying out planet. Methane is produces in the stomach of cows and sheep as the ingested plants undergo fermentation that produces methane as a by-product essentially meaning cow farts are destroying the environment. It doesn't take a genius to realise that as the "need" for beef grows so will these toxic methane emissions. In fact methane emissions from livestock are similar to those produced by natural gas, questioning if we should be shifting from promoting electric cars to a more plant based diet.

With animal agriculture covering an estimated 45% of land, livestock is a primary contributor to habitat loss and deforestation on a global scale. Globally, all agriculture is responsible for 80% of deforestation, with the biggest causes for habitat destruction in the Amazon basin being cattle ranches and soya plantations. Although crops are a cause for deforestation, we will see a very small percentage of these yields as most will be used for animal feed. In order to achieve maximum yield and profit, cattle require a large amount of food. If we think about this in terms of tropic levels, as we move up a level (or a stage in the food chain) 90% of energy is lost so we need more cows to produce the amount of beef we need to meet our energy needs. This means more cattle ranches and more animal feed. As most of us are aware, forests are an important carbon sink and help to reduce the enhanced greenhouse effect and if agriculture continues to grow, so will the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Did you know a farm with 2,500 cattle produces the same amount of waste as over 410,000 people? If it is disposed of incorrectly it can result in anaerobic digestion, again resulting in the release of methane. Another side effect is eutrophication reducing nutrient availability, creating algal blooms and a decline in biodiversity. Not to mention the fact it is a direct cause of water pollution and poses a huge health risk to animals and humans alike.

So overall do I believe a plant based diet will help reduce carbon emissions. Yes, all the facts support this. However it is important that we also understand that we have a meat eating culture spanning thousands of years and we have been taught our whole lives nutrition must contain animal products. Therefore this change cannot be expected to happen overnight but even if you only eat meant 3 or 4 times a week, you will still have significantly cut your carbon footprint.



Resources -

• https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/this-is-how-animal-agriculture-causes-deforestation/ 
• http://stockfreeorganic.net/deforestation-livestock-destroying-the-living-earth/
• https://news.mongabay.com/2012/09/agriculture-causes-80-of-tropical-deforestation/
• http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
• https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
• https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/901V0100.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EP
• https://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf

Is organic food better for the environment?

Organic Food photograph, http://csglobe.com/booming-organics-u-s-farmers-forced-to-import-organic-crops-to-meet-non-gmo-demand/

The UK organic food industry grew 7.1% from last year and is continuing to grew in popularity with consumers as many believe this will not only benefit our health but the environment. With growing concerns about GMO's and pesticides driving this belief, it is no wonder that the £2 billion industry continuing to grow with every supermarket seemingly expanding their organic range. This got me thinking if there was any truth to these claims or is this just a marketing tactic to get us to buy more expensive food?

So what does organic food really mean. Well according to DEFRA, organic food is defined as "the product of a farming system which avoids the use of man-made fertilisers, pesticides; growth regulators and livestock feed additives. Irradiation and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products produced from or by GMOs are generally prohibited by organic legislation." This means that organic farms are working to achieve a more sustainable food system that, in theory, is more socially, economically and (most importantly) more environmentally sustainable. Basically organic farmers aim to produce a more 'natural' farm environment by using nothing that has been man made which sounds like this is better for the environment but is this really the case?

Firstly lets look at pesticides which are chemicals that are often sprayed on crops to kill pests in an attempt to increase crop yields and subsequently profits. Obviously chemical pesticides, including herbicides and insecticides, are man made and every food business has to comply with UK legislation and regulations that limits the Maximum Residue Levels. Despite the strict regulations and monitoring there are some major issues that threaten the environment. One main issue is that pesticides often threaten and kill non target organisms, including key pollinators such as bees, which are vital to any ecosystem. One example of this is DDT which was widely used after WWII and was found to be toxic to many marine animals such as seas shrimp. However, the main issue was caused by biomagnification in birds higher up the food chain as it caused egg shells to become thin, causing a decline in juvenile populations. There is also the issue of leaching and runoff that often occurs after periods of heavy rainfall which is a fairly common occurrence in the UK. This often leads to the polluting of nearby water sources which, again, threaten aquatic life but also affects the surrounding terrestrial wildlife. Nearby soil can become polluted and/or reduce soil fertility, potentially causing a decline in wild plant population. This may lead to a smaller habitat for small mammals and insects so in theory, organic food could help to improve biodiversity as it stops the use of toxic chemicals which can build up in the surrounding area.

Obviously the main disadvantage of organic food is that it is more expensive so many of us opt for the cheaper option but I'm more interested in the environmental impact and the possible sustainability. One main threat is that organic food requires a greater land area with studies showing that organic farms require 84% more land to produce the same yield as a conventional farm. There are several reasons for this such as plants grow a lot quicker on conventional farms so a greater number of crops can be harvested. Obviously this is due to the use of fertilisers, pesticides and GM crops but it can be argued that conventional farms allow use to create more space for wildlife and biodiversity. If the land would actually be used for biodiversity is questionable but the argument and potential is there. However, this does make conventional farming more socially sustainable for future populations which could be needed as our population continues to rise.

Organic farming also has a much lower carbon footprint without the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides that are often made from petroleum based products. This means there is less greenhouse gases being produced as well as there being a more efficient use of our finite resources. Organic farms also have a much higher rate of carbon sequestration or in other words organic farms remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, consequently helping to reduce the enhanced greenhouse effect. it has been recorded that roughly 575 - 700 kg per ha are removed annually in temperate areas which is almost double that of conventional farms. It is believed this is due to the treatment of soils which allows smaller plants, such as grass, to grow and this is also aided by crop rotation making organic farms more environmentally sustainable when talking about climate change.

Another potential environmental issue is that organic crops may attract a greater population of pest species that could have an impact on surrounding biodiversity. Although there are methods of biological pest control, such as companion planting and importation, the use of pesticides and herbicides has been proved to be more effective at completely irradiating pests. Without these methods there is a possibility that the number of invasive species surrounding the organic agricultural land will increase. However, this is a very weak argument as it could be argued that and biodiversity saved could be threatened by the pesticides anyway as they have been known to kill non target organisms.

Looking at all the evidence, I would come to the conclusion that yes organic crops are much better from the environment as they have a much smaller ecological footprint. However, this does not mean they are more sustainable as there is a significantly higher economic cost as they are more expensive to consumers and more expensive to grow. With organic crops yields averaging 20% lower than that of organic farms, organic food lowers food security also lowering the sustainability. So yes, they are better for the environment and the wildlife but organic farming methods do need to improve to increase the overall sustainability.

References - 

• UK Government, Pesticides in food, Food standards agency, January 2018,  https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/pesticides-in-food
• Julie Day, The Debate over Organic vs. Chemical Fertilizers, Today's Homeowener, 2008,  https://www.todayshomeowner.com/debate-over-organic-chemical-fertilizers/
• Mark Lynas, How land-inefficient is organic agriculture?, marklynas.org, July 2012, http://www.marklynas.org/2012/07/how-land-inefficient-is-organic-agriculture/
• BBC News, Plant pests: The biggest threats to food security?, Science and Environment, November 2011, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15623490
• Tomekde Pont, The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture, Science Direct, Agricultural Systems Volume 108, April 2012, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X

Can Cotton Be Sustainable?

Image from www.heraldsun.com.au

I was in Primark the other day (not the most eco-friendly I'll admit) and I noticed that they had a sustainable cotton section. Cotton farming requires a huge amount of land that is often derived from unsustainable deforestation methods (i.e. slash and burn) and the growing and harvesting process has a huge environmental impact so I was happy to see a big retailer trying to reduce the environmental impact. However this did get me thinking what made this cotton sustainable? Can cotton farming ever be sustainable?

Firstly why is cotton farming so unsustainable? 

Cotton farming has huge ethical and environmental implications the first of which being the huge water consumption with the average water footprint being 10,000 litres per kilogram. With 730 million without access to clean water globally, cotton farming increases water scarcity in the areas with the greatest need for water. Cotton is also considered the 'dirtiest crop' by many organisations, such as the EJF, with cotton farming using 16% of all insecticides. Over 98% of all insecticides kill no target species causing a decline in the main pollinator species. There is also a risk of contamination of aquatic environments from runoff causing a decline in aquatic organisms. There are also health implications for workers and with 99% of all cotton farmers living in third world countries, there is a lack of safety and hazard testing. For example, a common pesticide used for cotton farming is easily absorbed via the skin and has the potential to kill. Other health implications of insecticides include respiratory illnesses, memory loss and seizures. There is also a huge amount of pollution produced as a result of deforestation and the chemicals used in the dyeing and bleaching process causes a large amount of environmental degradation. These chemicals include heavy metals and benzidine/chlorine bleaches which have been linked to an increased risk of cancer. 

There is also a huge socioeconomic impact with the workers in third world nations receiving low wages and the rich TNC's receiving the majority of profits, driving the poverty cycle. The majority of workers receive wages lower than the amount needed to meet their basic human needs. Many of these workers work long working days (with hours above the limit set by the International Labour Organisation) and overtime often goes unpaid. There is also a huge number of children working in the fields and Uzbekistan has been outed for shutting schools and forcing children to work in cotton fields. 

This begs the question what is the difference between 'normal' cotton and sustainable cotton, like the one used in Primark?

Sustainable cotton is defines as the sources being 'either organic, better or recycled' which has the potential to vastly reduce the environmental footprint of cotton farming. With the greatest amount of energy being used, resulting in a large amount of pollution, is during the extraction and processing of cotton so recycled cotton will greatly reduce the ecological footprint. Cotton that is certified GRS (Global Recycle Standard) ensures that cotton has been produced with minimal environmental and chemical impacts throughout the entire production process. This ensures the cotton farm has a chemical management system in place to meet all the legal requirements and to reduce the amount of pollution and run off. It also ensures that all companies meet the set target for energy use (as set by Textile Exchange) and there are frequent reviews to help improve energy efficiency. there are also set targets for water use and air pollution levels helping to reduce the environmental impact further.

Organic is defined as "produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" in the Oxford dictionary. Although natural pesticides and fertilisers can still be harmful, there is less contribution to acidification and eutrophaction, reducing the impact on aquatic life and the soil in the surrounding area helping both the local people and the biodiversity. The chemicals used to treat regular cotton can bio-accumulate within the food chain meaning the impacts can be seen in the top predators even though they are not in direct contact with the chemical as it is stored in the fatty tissue of smaller, prey organisms. Pesticides have been linked to 67 million annual deaths in birds in the U.S. alone due to the bio-accumulating properties. With less pesticide use, there is a greater chance of bio-diversity recovering in cotton farming areas.

Photo of certified organic cotton labels from babycribbed.com

There are also major differences to the workers, with organisations working to improve working conditions. The Better Cotton Initiative ensure that farmers receive more of the profits, better working conditions and healthcare and has been based on UN labour standards. This mean there is a better quality of life for the workers as there is less fear of discrimination and better workers rights so they are not afraid of becoming unemployed if they do not receive a pay cut. The increase in disposable income means there is a greater chance of improving sanitation, education and access to clean water and food. The knock on effects mean that workers under these initiatives have a chance at a better quality of life.

There are a large number of cotton standards and projects to help improve the sustainability but with less than 1% of the worlds cotton being certified organic, there is still a huge amount of demand and need for unsustainable farming methods to meet the huge demand. With 120.8 million bales (at 480 pounds each) being produced in 2017, more retailers need to enforce these farming methods to ensure the minimal environmental impact and ensure we have cotton as a resource for the future. However, in my opinion cotton is one of the most unsustainable materials and there are better options for retailers to invest in with a much smaller impact. For example, not only is hemp a more durable material, which will help reduce the production demand, but also requires half the amount of land that cotton does and requires less water at 2,000 L per kg. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry. A life cycle assessment carried out but the Textile Exchange staes that organic farmed cotton was "significantly more environmental friendly" but organic cotton also requires more land than convential cotton as it has a much lower yield so some believe that it may lead to an increase in deforestation, questioning the sustainability of organic cotton. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry.

Overall, my personal view is that recycled cotton is a better option than organic and conventional cotton due to the reduced chemical and land use. Despite this I do feel that there are better options available and companies should be investing in these materials. I do feel that some responsibility should lie with the consumer as there are alternatives such as buying second hand clothing and choosing your clothing brands more carefully.



References - 

• Risks of cotton processing, Organic Cotton, (2016), https://www.organiccotton.org/oc/Cotton-general/Impact-of-cotton/Risk-of-cotton-processing.php 
• Ethical Issues in Cotton Production,  Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd, (August 2017), http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/fashionindustry/cotton.aspx
• Global Cotton Production, Statista, (2018), https://www.statista.com/statistics/259392/cotton-production-worldwide-since-1990/
• What Is the Most Animal and Eco-Friendly Material for Clothing?, Lindsay Patton, (January 26 2015),  http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/what-is-the-most-animal-and-eco-friendly-material-for-clothing/
• Global Recycled Standard, Textile Exchange, (2017), http://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Global-Recycled-Standard-v4.0.pdf
• 13 brands sign sustainable cotton pledge - but is organic cotton really better?, Vlvlan Herdrlksz, Fashion United, (7 June 2017), https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/13-brands-sign-sustainable-cotton-pledge-but-is-organic-cotton-really-better/2017060724755