The Carbon Footprint of Agriculture

Published in Spinsheet - September 2015

The carbon footprint of Agriculture has been scrutinized for some time now.  Skeptics and supporters alike are all looking at the impact of our food systems in unique ways for a sustainable future that our children and planet can enjoy.  In my own line of research I find myself feeling well displaced from such investigations yet even then I stumble into the occasional article or grant that forces me to look at food in new ways.  The local health department over the last few years, funded by the Department of Agriculture, has been working with me on a unique food delivery pilot study to help resolve both carbon imprint of shipping foods and more so the availability of foods in our ‘Food Deserts’.  In my role of overseeing a small university organic garden and leading these food delivery mechanisms I’ve even had colleagues reach out regarding the environment who are studying the health impacts of vegetarianism or vegetable prominent diets.  Researchers are quickly proving the increased health impacts on societies through green diets and now are beginning to analyze the footprint from such eating habits.  Data for distance shipped and cooler space used are being coupled with data on packaging.  Corrugated cardboard holding 1000 calories of cabbage carries a different footprint than white paper holding 1000 calories of frozen meat.  How does this correlate?  And, how would a plant based food culture really impact our environment.  Big questions all prompted by a more engaged and intelligent global society looking for long-term answers regarding human and earth health.

With each of these studies, and each of these researchers buried in papers, agonizing over minute data sets revolves the bigger consideration.  How, on a human scale do these issues impact us and are there more basic initiatives in addressing the problem which should be acted on first?  One simple example is eating local.  Food is fresher, money stays in the pockets of your neighbors who grow or sell the food and we use less carbon shipping produce across the country or worse - in from another countries.  However, one of the biggest directives that could have tremendous local positive impact is the use of chicken waste as a fueling source.

A 2010 study by the National Chicken Council ranks both Maryland and Delaware in the top 10 broiler producing states.  These relatively small states combined create our Eastern Shore.  The Eastern Shore is a unique environmental setting compared to other chicken producing regions.  With fairly low-lying land that is completely surrounded by water, Eastern Shore’s agriculture becomes a significant influencer on Bay health.  The 650 million pounds of chicken manure created in the Delmarva Peninsula is often used as a fertilizer applied to the tops of fields.  What doesn’t run off is taken up by corps, mostly in the form of nitrogen.  The remaining phosphorus, which is abundant in chicken waste and which isn’t greatly absorbed by current crops, easily leaches into the water system.  This phosphorus impacts the Bay in many ways, one example being algae blooms.  Recent reports have pointed out such record setting blooms that ultimately create what we call the ‘dead zones’ in our Bay.  Adding to that, Bay health reports often show environmental progress on the Western banks while the Eastern shore lags behind.  Much of the negative health attributed to agriculture.

Incinerating the chicken waste is a costly effort contributing to neither our farmers nor our environment and ultimately would be a negative air quality impact.  An alternative proposal by AgEnergyUSA in partnership with Perdue is to build a power generation plant turning 200 tons of waste into electricity.  This is the second proposal offered to Maryland legislature; the first from another investor has now seemingly stagnated.  Different than many waste power-producing plants the current proposal will take this biomass (which by nature is carbon neutral) and from an anaerobic digester produce biogas.  A few bi-products will result in usable quantities of nitrogen such as liquid fertilizer going back to farmers and then the excess phosphorus will be isolated and marketed off in other forms like peat moss.

This is an extremely positive opportunity for Bay health.  It doesn’t come without its concerns however.  Critics suggest this is only a short-term solution.  However, reducing environmental pressure while researching further advancements can’t be a bad step.  It also could create a vacuum for many farmers who rely on affordable chicken waste fertilizing their farms and growing their livelihood.  They will be forced to re-evaluate equipment needs, affordable supply chains and more.  On the other hand, with appropriate support they may also be able to tap into current technology enabling them to measure exact inputs both avoiding over application of costly fertilizers and limiting nutrient leaching or run off.  The Public Service Commissions Ten-Year Plan (2012-2021) expects 20% of Maryland’s power to come from renewables by 2022.  My hope would be building ways to reduce negative Bay health, build up sustainable power systems while still respecting the great heritage of agriculture on the Eastern Shore.