WEBVTT

00:12.500 --> 00:14.510
Prof: I'm sorry I have
to start off by apologizing;

00:14.510 --> 00:17.050
I have a cold,
so you may get more coughing

00:17.050 --> 00:18.200
then usual today.

00:18.200 --> 00:22.250
If I cough and pass out you can
leave class if I'm not recovered

00:22.253 --> 00:24.573
within about twelve minutes or
so.

00:24.570 --> 00:27.600
Usually it's the audience that
passes out but this time it

00:27.604 --> 00:28.354
might be me.

00:28.350 --> 00:31.800
Today and on Wednesday we're
going to talk about

00:31.801 --> 00:35.401
sustainability,
a remarkably interesting issue.

00:35.400 --> 00:39.290
Most people--some people are
beginning to realize the impact

00:39.289 --> 00:42.919
the food environment has on--our
food culture has on the

00:42.915 --> 00:43.965
environment.

00:43.970 --> 00:47.820
It has many different facets
and very few people know about

00:47.823 --> 00:50.463
all of them,
so I'm hoping to give you guys

00:50.464 --> 00:53.864
some new information so you get
a sense of what the modern food

00:53.863 --> 00:54.963
environment does.

00:54.960 --> 00:58.700
I'll start off with a little
bit of background in just a

00:58.700 --> 01:00.850
minute,
but before I do that I want to

01:00.854 --> 01:03.564
remind you--and this is a
reinforcement of what you were

01:03.561 --> 01:06.271
sent in an email--but the
teaching fellows will hold two

01:06.266 --> 01:09.026
review sessions,
one on Friday and one next

01:09.034 --> 01:12.734
Monday and you see the times and
the places listed here.

01:12.730 --> 01:15.080
So hopefully each of you that
wants to make one of the review

01:15.081 --> 01:16.771
sessions and go to at least one
of these.

01:16.769 --> 01:21.099
As I mentioned before,
the teaching fellows will not

01:21.101 --> 01:24.671
be there to just review the
information;

01:24.670 --> 01:26.680
it's not being prompted by
questions,

01:26.680 --> 01:29.700
so please come with questions
if you want them answered,

01:29.700 --> 01:33.000
and the teaching fellows will
respond to those in as much

01:33.001 --> 01:34.241
detail as they can.

01:34.239 --> 01:38.779
Okay, so the modern food
environment, think about what

01:38.781 --> 01:40.411
it's provided us.

01:40.410 --> 01:44.050
Americans spend less money per
capita on food than people

01:44.053 --> 01:45.943
anywhere else in the world.

01:45.940 --> 01:49.750
We go to a supermarket,
the typical large supermarket

01:49.754 --> 01:51.594
with 30,000 food items.

01:51.590 --> 01:55.790
We have fast food available to
us twenty-four hours a day,

01:55.790 --> 01:58.090
we have vending machines
everywhere,

01:58.090 --> 02:01.520
we have an enormous range of
choices in the food we want to

02:01.515 --> 02:01.865
eat.

02:01.870 --> 02:05.490
Just from within a little
walking distance of here there

02:05.494 --> 02:09.194
are dozens of food choices,
all sorts of different foods,

02:09.185 --> 02:11.765
ethic foods;
most of its available at low

02:11.768 --> 02:12.148
costs.

02:12.150 --> 02:15.990
We talked about the green
revolution and how it's helped

02:15.986 --> 02:19.616
address the world hunger
problem, so certainly modern

02:19.616 --> 02:21.706
agriculture has an upside.

02:21.710 --> 02:24.970
To the extent that people can
be fed for less money,

02:24.967 --> 02:28.927
more hungry people are fed than
was true earlier in history.

02:28.930 --> 02:32.990
We have foods now where people
are concerned about the nutrient

02:32.991 --> 02:35.221
value of the foods and the like.

02:35.220 --> 02:38.260
A lot of things have changed,
but there can be downsides to

02:38.264 --> 02:41.154
modern agriculture and we're
going to talk about some of

02:41.152 --> 02:41.892
those now.

02:41.889 --> 02:46.459
The key question really is that
we have unimaginable success in

02:46.464 --> 02:50.004
providing an abundance,
a wide of array of foods,

02:50.004 --> 02:52.814
but there is a potential
downside.

02:52.810 --> 02:56.790
We want to ask this class and
next, what is the impact of the

02:56.792 --> 02:59.582
modern food environment on these
things?

02:59.580 --> 03:02.480
We'll talk about each of these.

03:02.479 --> 03:06.339
Biodiversity is especially
interesting issue;

03:06.340 --> 03:08.140
we'll talk about that the next
class.

03:08.139 --> 03:12.069
I'll use oranges in Florida as
one example, and wheat in the

03:12.068 --> 03:13.468
Midwest as another.

03:13.467 --> 03:16.697
We'll talk about animal
welfare, and today I'd like to

03:16.702 --> 03:20.242
talk about the environment and
energy use in particular.

03:20.240 --> 03:23.960
What we're hoping is that when
you take the up and the down

03:23.955 --> 03:28.005
side of modern agriculture,
whether these two things can be

03:28.014 --> 03:32.224
reconciled in a way that still
provides access to healthy food

03:32.217 --> 03:36.007
at a low a cost as possible for
the world's hungry,

03:36.008 --> 03:39.128
but in doing that,
minimize the negative health

03:39.125 --> 03:42.305
impacts of the process of
producing the food.

03:42.310 --> 03:46.260
Can we distribute food
differently and solve the hunger

03:46.258 --> 03:46.988
problem?

03:46.990 --> 03:50.330
Can production keep pace with
population growth?

03:50.330 --> 03:52.360
I'll show you some statistics
on that.

03:52.360 --> 03:56.720
Can we do this with a tolerable
cost to energy and to the

03:56.716 --> 04:01.146
environment, and overall can we
enhance sustainability?

04:01.150 --> 04:02.930
These are all important
questions.

04:02.930 --> 04:06.760
Let's talk about what modern
farming is like.

04:06.758 --> 04:12.268
You'll see a video clip in a
short time that talks about

04:12.274 --> 04:18.094
how--how the view of our modern
farming comes about and how

04:18.091 --> 04:21.101
we've been shaped by that.

04:21.100 --> 04:24.630
A lot of us grow up with these
short of childhood storybook

04:24.632 --> 04:27.652
images of farms,
and we think of farms as these

04:27.653 --> 04:30.673
beautiful,
bucolic settings like these,

04:30.672 --> 04:34.572
where animals have plenty of
room to roam free.

04:34.569 --> 04:37.999
We see pictures like this,
we see cute pictures like this,

04:37.999 --> 04:41.249
and it all seems like its
pretty nice and wholesome.

04:41.250 --> 04:47.070
There is some farming like this
but it's losing way to different

04:47.067 --> 04:48.727
sorts of things.

04:48.730 --> 04:52.320
Here would be an example of a
tulip farm in the Netherlands,

04:52.321 --> 04:54.881
here's a cranberry bog in
Massachusetts.

04:54.879 --> 04:58.109
So we have these kind of nice
pictures of what farming is like

04:58.113 --> 05:01.193
and we think of cattle being
raised in this kind of way.

05:01.189 --> 05:06.699
But this is more typical of
what modern farming is like.

05:06.699 --> 05:11.279
You see here,
instead of a wide prairie with

05:11.278 --> 05:15.218
maybe hundreds of heads of
cattle,

05:15.220 --> 05:18.230
you might have as many as
100,000 crammed into a

05:18.232 --> 05:21.302
relatively small space,
in what people call an

05:21.297 --> 05:22.377
industrial farm.

05:22.379 --> 05:26.659
This has all sorts of
implications.

05:26.660 --> 05:30.410
Not to mention the welfare of
the animals themselves,

05:30.410 --> 05:32.790
but of course,
the environment.

05:32.790 --> 05:38.320
A lot of the way our food comes
to us is done courtesy of

05:38.321 --> 05:42.571
agribusiness--big agribusiness
companies.

05:42.569 --> 05:45.989
When most people think of the
food industry you think of

05:45.994 --> 05:49.294
companies whose names appear on
products that you buy,

05:49.293 --> 05:51.353
or places you go to buy them.

05:51.350 --> 05:54.730
You think of McDonald's,
you think of Kraft,

05:54.730 --> 05:57.970
you think of Coca-Cola,
you think of PepsiCo,

05:57.970 --> 06:01.740
Taco Bell, Pizza Hut,
Kellogg's, General Mills--those

06:01.735 --> 06:04.195
are the names that come to mind.

06:04.199 --> 06:08.149
In fact, those are only a
portion of the players in the

06:08.148 --> 06:09.318
food business.

06:09.319 --> 06:13.709
The food business is actually
comprised of those players,

06:13.713 --> 06:18.193
but some massive players as
well that end up controlling a

06:18.189 --> 06:20.229
lot of the food chain.

06:20.230 --> 06:25.950
An example would be ADM,
Archer Daniels Midland.

06:25.949 --> 06:35.209
They are a major agribusiness
company, $44 billion dollars of

06:35.206 --> 06:36.746
revenue.

06:36.750 --> 06:42.140
Another example would be
Cargill where grain,

06:42.136 --> 06:46.046
livestock, feed,
processed foods,

06:46.053 --> 06:50.833
etc., $120 billion dollar
business.

06:50.829 --> 06:54.289
Another company that very few
people have heard of:

06:54.288 --> 06:57.678
a very large company
headquartered in suburban New

06:57.678 --> 06:59.408
York is called Bunge.

06:59.410 --> 07:03.610
They're the leading exporter of
soybeans in the United States.

07:03.610 --> 07:08.750
There are a variety of other
companies involved as well,

07:08.747 --> 07:10.987
and you see them here.

07:10.990 --> 07:17.760
These are companies that may do
the genetic modification of

07:17.764 --> 07:21.554
seeds;
they may sell fertilizers,

07:21.552 --> 07:23.422
pesticides, etc.

07:23.420 --> 07:26.500
One of the companies,
not as big as the other

07:26.504 --> 07:30.154
agribusiness companies,
but in the news a lot because

07:30.151 --> 07:33.451
of how controversial they are,
is Monsanto.

07:33.449 --> 07:37.749
Now, Monsanto has raised the
ire of a lot of people concerned

07:37.754 --> 07:41.564
about the environment because of
things they make,

07:41.560 --> 07:45.320
particularly an herbicide that
I'll come back and mention

07:45.324 --> 07:47.444
later,
but also the genetic

07:47.439 --> 07:51.549
modification of foods,
the GMOs that we've talked

07:51.548 --> 07:53.318
about a little bit.

07:53.319 --> 07:56.139
We'll talk about more in the
next class.

07:56.139 --> 08:02.209
This slide shows some of the
people protesting against

08:02.214 --> 08:08.984
Monsanto, and you see this
increasingly around the world.

08:08.980 --> 08:14.400
In fact, a small number of very
large companies control a lot of

08:14.398 --> 08:15.858
the food chain.

08:15.860 --> 08:22.400
The goals of these companies,
as they state,

08:22.399 --> 08:27.469
is to control the food chain
from the seed to the table,

08:27.470 --> 08:30.720
from the field to the fork,
and they've managed to do this

08:30.716 --> 08:31.626
in some cases.

08:31.629 --> 08:36.989
Here would be an example
looking at plants and animals,

08:36.990 --> 08:40.190
and the vertical integration of
the industry,

08:40.190 --> 08:44.070
which means that a single
company might own a lot of the

08:44.070 --> 08:45.130
supply chain.

08:45.129 --> 08:49.759
If you look at plants and the
plants that we eat,

08:49.759 --> 08:55.479
it begins with seeds,
it involves the ownership of

08:55.477 --> 08:58.527
the land,
and then these things that you

08:58.532 --> 09:01.262
see listed here;
and a small number of companies

09:01.259 --> 09:03.799
might be involved with all of
these things.

09:03.798 --> 09:07.578
With animals you have a similar
situation.

09:07.580 --> 09:16.040


09:16.038 --> 09:26.558
A lot of the food chain--so it
works out like this,

09:26.557 --> 09:30.767
that a lot of the crops are
consolidated and 80% of the

09:30.767 --> 09:35.517
acreage in the United States is
comprised of these four crops:

09:35.522 --> 09:38.252
corn, soybeans,
wheat, and hay.

09:38.250 --> 09:44.570
We talked about the subsidies
that go to the corn and soybean

09:44.566 --> 09:50.566
farmers and we'll talk about
more of that later in a later

09:50.567 --> 09:55.197
class as well when we discuss
economics.

09:55.200 --> 10:00.790
Agriculture in the modern world
is different then our bucolic

10:00.788 --> 10:01.718
picture.

10:01.720 --> 10:05.600
Very highly mechanized,
highly efficient,

10:05.600 --> 10:10.550
controlled to a large part by
large agribusiness companies,

10:10.548 --> 10:14.808
considerable political
influence by these companies,

10:14.807 --> 10:17.377
and this leads,
in our country at least,

10:17.380 --> 10:18.700
to food surpluses.

10:18.700 --> 10:24.780
The American farm has changed a
good bit.

10:24.778 --> 10:31.288
If we look from 1950 to 2000,
there's been a 62% reduction in

10:31.293 --> 10:36.623
the number of farms,
but of course we're growing a

10:36.615 --> 10:38.565
lot more food.

10:38.570 --> 10:42.680
A 70% reduction in the number
of farm workers.

10:42.678 --> 10:45.698
This is made possible by
technology.

10:45.700 --> 10:50.420
A 21% reduction in total farm
acres,

10:50.418 --> 10:53.928
but despite that,
large average increase in the

10:53.929 --> 10:58.509
average farm size and of course
the amount grown per acre has

10:58.510 --> 11:00.650
gone up, and up,
and up.

11:00.649 --> 11:06.259
The small family farm has given
way to very large acreages owned

11:06.259 --> 11:11.069
by large companies--not totally,
but to some extent.

11:11.070 --> 11:14.820
This has changed the character
of modern farming in the United

11:14.822 --> 11:18.272
States and has some upsides in
terms of productivity,

11:18.269 --> 11:22.179
but some downsides as well,
and has changed the

11:22.179 --> 11:27.369
relationship of the person who
owns the fields to what's grown

11:27.368 --> 11:28.898
in the fields.

11:28.899 --> 11:34.059
The idea that the farmer at one
point was closely connected,

11:34.058 --> 11:36.508
almost in a spiritual way.

11:36.509 --> 11:39.409
With the land,
and appreciated the importance

11:39.412 --> 11:43.372
of the land and the importance
of keeping the land so that it

11:43.370 --> 11:47.600
would have a long life and could
be passed down in the family has

11:47.595 --> 11:50.415
changed;
in some cases to a different

11:50.421 --> 11:53.551
kind of method of farming--a
different model of

11:53.547 --> 11:57.417
farming--where the focus is on
exploiting the land as much

11:57.419 --> 12:00.249
possible,
getting as much from it as you

12:00.245 --> 12:01.625
can in the short term.

12:01.629 --> 12:04.109
This has long-term implications.

12:04.110 --> 12:09.200
One of the great concerns here
is the impact of modern

12:09.200 --> 12:12.660
agriculture on resource
depletion.

12:12.658 --> 12:15.958
I'd like to talk about
depletion of water,

12:15.964 --> 12:17.984
land, and fossil fuels.

12:17.980 --> 12:21.500
The results here are really
pretty impressive when you stop

12:21.496 --> 12:24.406
to look at them--impressive in a
negative way.

12:24.408 --> 12:27.318
First, let's talk about water.

12:27.320 --> 12:31.330
Now in the previous class,
we talked about the importance

12:31.332 --> 12:35.922
of water to the green revolution
and how important irrigation was

12:35.919 --> 12:39.289
to increasing productivity in
farm fields,

12:39.288 --> 12:41.418
especially in certain parts of
the world.

12:41.418 --> 12:45.498
The water has an upside but the
question is, is there enough of

12:45.504 --> 12:49.594
it around to continue to use in
the way we've been using it?

12:49.590 --> 12:53.990
Here would be an example of a
graph that shows how much it

12:53.991 --> 12:58.241
takes to produce corn that's
either irrigated or not.

12:58.240 --> 13:05.680
The amount of oil that it takes
to produce, in this case,

13:05.677 --> 13:13.247
corn in Nebraska if it's fed by
rain, or irrigated is much

13:13.250 --> 13:16.890
different;
so the irrigation is using oil

13:16.890 --> 13:20.510
resource and not only using up
the water but the oil resources

13:20.511 --> 13:23.601
as well to irrigate the corn
because of the machinery

13:23.599 --> 13:26.169
involved,
the pumping water long

13:26.173 --> 13:27.403
distances, etc.

13:27.399 --> 13:30.149
Of course the yield is greater
for the irrigation,

13:30.150 --> 13:32.680
the irrigated corn,
but the cost is greater in

13:32.678 --> 13:34.308
terms of the environment.

13:34.307 --> 13:37.537
And where one comes down on
whether it makes sense to

13:37.544 --> 13:40.724
irrigate the corn depends on
what you care about;

13:40.720 --> 13:43.410
whether you care about the
productivity or whether you care

13:43.413 --> 13:45.183
about the impact on the
environment.

13:45.178 --> 13:50.168
A lot of water gets used for
irrigation around the world.

13:50.168 --> 13:54.428
If we look at how water is--the
water use is partitioned around

13:54.427 --> 13:58.127
the world,
here's the picture we have:

13:58.130 --> 14:04.380
that 70% of water use around
the world goes to agriculture.

14:04.379 --> 14:07.369
One wouldn't have thought it
would have been that high.

14:07.370 --> 14:14.690
Only 23% goes to industry,
7% for municipal and personal

14:14.691 --> 14:15.491
use.

14:15.490 --> 14:20.090
If so much of the world's water
is being used for agricultural

14:20.087 --> 14:24.607
purposes, let's look at what
that means in terms of the water

14:24.610 --> 14:25.440
supply.

14:25.440 --> 14:30.570
Here's how much water it takes
to produce different crops.

14:30.570 --> 14:34.370
This graph that you'll show,
shows the number of gallons of

14:34.365 --> 14:37.175
irrigated water to produce one
kilogram,

14:37.178 --> 14:40.558
a little more then two pounds
of four things,

14:40.557 --> 14:42.847
and I'm about to show you what
those four things are.

14:42.850 --> 14:44.960
As you can see,
the top bar,

14:44.956 --> 14:47.916
370 gallons,
is required to produce one

14:47.922 --> 14:52.372
kilogram of something that I'll
show you in a minute;

14:52.370 --> 14:56.100
and then it goes up to 1,651
gallons of water to produce a

14:56.101 --> 14:58.001
kilogram of something else.

14:58.000 --> 15:01.860
So vast differences in the
water usage to produce things

15:01.855 --> 15:03.255
that we might eat.

15:03.259 --> 15:10.009
The 370 is a kilogram of corn;
502 is a kilogram of sugar

15:10.014 --> 15:14.384
beets;
the 1,242 is a kilogram of rice;

15:14.379 --> 15:18.429
and the 1,651 is a kilogram of
beef.

15:18.427 --> 15:23.017
Now, think about the production
of corn and what humans choose

15:23.022 --> 15:23.702
to eat.

15:23.700 --> 15:28.680
Now you have choice,
as a human, to eat the corn,

15:28.677 --> 15:35.207
or you can have the corn fed to
the cow and then eat the cow.

15:35.210 --> 15:38.520
So those are all choices we
make.

15:38.519 --> 15:42.599
The energy cost of that choice,
whether you eat the raw product

15:42.597 --> 15:45.557
or you eat the product of the
raw product,

15:45.557 --> 15:50.147
namely the beef from the cow,
has big differences in cost.

15:50.149 --> 15:52.439
There are two costs here.

15:52.440 --> 15:55.780
There's depletion of water
resources and there's the energy

15:55.783 --> 15:58.903
used to produce the water,
bring the water to market in

15:58.898 --> 16:00.108
the second place.

16:00.110 --> 16:03.430
This is a big controversy
around the world.

16:03.427 --> 16:06.397
In India, for example,
there have been protests

16:06.397 --> 16:08.717
against the soft drink
companies,

16:08.720 --> 16:11.830
particularly in this area of
India that you see down there in

16:11.832 --> 16:14.172
the area of Kerala,
in the state of Kerala.

16:14.168 --> 16:19.238
There is concern there because
of extraction of water for the

16:19.235 --> 16:24.045
production of soft drinks,
and how the water resources are

16:24.048 --> 16:26.328
limited in those areas.

16:26.330 --> 16:29.630
People are considering this
exploitation of the land by

16:29.633 --> 16:32.683
American companies,
and because of the dangerous

16:32.679 --> 16:36.139
groundwater shortage you see
things like this where people

16:36.143 --> 16:39.063
are protesting against
Coca-Cola, especially.

16:39.057 --> 16:42.827
Here would be another example
of that.

16:42.830 --> 16:48.900
Now, the water depletion is
becoming a major issue around

16:48.899 --> 16:50.199
the world.

16:50.200 --> 16:54.610
One particular close-to-home
example of this is an aquifer

16:54.611 --> 16:59.181
that covers eight different
states in the Midwestern part of

16:59.178 --> 17:03.048
the United States called the
Ogallala aquifer.

17:03.048 --> 17:07.048
It's a vast water supply,
and used to a great extent to

17:07.051 --> 17:11.501
fuel the agriculture industry in
this part of the country.

17:11.500 --> 17:15.740
It's a major agricultural
resource but it's considered to

17:15.740 --> 17:19.830
be--it's projected to be
unusable in a period of twenty

17:19.830 --> 17:20.590
years.

17:20.588 --> 17:22.878
What does that mean?

17:22.880 --> 17:27.380
Well it means that the local
water resource is depleted,

17:27.380 --> 17:31.430
so to the extent that these
farmers can get water that's

17:31.429 --> 17:34.889
relatively local--although
nothing is local,

17:34.890 --> 17:38.390
it's not like each farmer has a
well that goes into this aquifer

17:38.394 --> 17:41.544
and water is pumped there,
it's still transported some

17:41.537 --> 17:44.817
distance--but it means water
will have to come in from some

17:44.819 --> 17:45.669
other place.

17:45.670 --> 17:48.830
Well where is that other place,
and is there water around to do

17:48.834 --> 17:50.014
this kind of a thing?

17:50.009 --> 17:51.959
This is a pretty alarming
statistic.

17:51.960 --> 17:56.360
We can talk about the depletion
of water resources around the

17:56.362 --> 17:56.952
world.

17:56.950 --> 18:00.170
Let's talk about energy and
what kind of energy goes into

18:00.165 --> 18:01.195
food production.

18:01.200 --> 18:04.890
When people are eating these
kinds of foods,

18:04.890 --> 18:08.960
they're generally not thinking
about where the foods come from,

18:08.960 --> 18:11.830
but if you trace it back,
one could make the argument

18:11.825 --> 18:14.465
that these foods come from a
place like this,

18:14.470 --> 18:18.140
or a place like this,
or a place like this.

18:18.140 --> 18:21.440
Then we have global warming as
an issue and a lot of other

18:21.439 --> 18:21.959
things.

18:21.960 --> 18:26.080
This has been pointed out by
authors in recent years,

18:26.076 --> 18:30.026
and one particularly
interesting story on this came

18:30.034 --> 18:33.364
out in 2004, called The Oil
We Eat.

18:33.357 --> 18:38.107
In this case there was
geopolitical implications of the

18:38.111 --> 18:42.861
work in this particular story
about how the food chain went

18:42.864 --> 18:47.664
back to oil coming from Iraq,
but also they talked about the

18:47.663 --> 18:51.163
energy cost of modern food
tastes and what people are

18:51.155 --> 18:54.265
choosing to eat,
and what impact that has on the

18:54.268 --> 18:56.378
environment and on energy
depletion.

18:56.380 --> 18:59.970
Now, when people talk about oil
being related to food,

18:59.970 --> 19:02.540
they generally will think about
this kind of thing:

19:02.544 --> 19:05.324
it has to be shipped some
distances and there's cost in

19:05.324 --> 19:08.624
that to be sure and those would
be examples of that as well.

19:08.617 --> 19:11.367
In fact, there is a lot more to
it.

19:11.367 --> 19:14.787
Now let's look first at how
much energy Americans use in

19:14.788 --> 19:15.408
general.

19:15.410 --> 19:20.580
This is the per capita energy
consumption in different parts

19:20.577 --> 19:23.797
of the world,
and we're going to compare in

19:23.797 --> 19:27.237
this graph less developed
countries to a little bit more

19:27.244 --> 19:30.874
developed countries to the USA,
and how much energy the

19:30.865 --> 19:33.095
countries are consuming per
capita.

19:33.097 --> 19:35.757
You can see an enormous
difference.

19:35.759 --> 19:37.489
Now why is this?

19:37.490 --> 19:41.440
Why are Americans using so much
more energy than the rest of the

19:41.438 --> 19:41.938
world?

19:41.940 --> 19:45.240
Well we can speculate about
what that might be.

19:45.240 --> 19:48.450
Is it industry that's heavy
energy use?

19:48.450 --> 19:50.340
Well, that's part of the
picture potentially.

19:50.337 --> 19:54.727
Is it Americans' fascination
with the automobile,

19:54.726 --> 19:58.656
poor mass transit,
people reliant on getting

19:58.656 --> 20:01.666
around one by one,
by one in cars,

20:01.673 --> 20:02.683
etc.?

20:02.680 --> 20:04.470
That's a part of it too.

20:04.470 --> 20:07.680
Energy guzzling vehicles,
that's a part of it,

20:07.679 --> 20:11.239
all these things play a role;
but the way we deal with

20:11.240 --> 20:13.380
agriculture is a player here as
well.

20:13.380 --> 20:17.340
Americans are certainly using
more then their share.

20:17.337 --> 20:19.997
Now the Michael Pollan,
that we all know,

20:20.000 --> 20:24.670
wrote an article in 2002 in The
New York Times and what he

20:24.674 --> 20:29.524
wanted to do was to take a farm
animal and find out how much

20:29.515 --> 20:34.765
energy it required--was required
to raise this farm animal from a

20:34.765 --> 20:39.355
tiny animal to the point it got
brought to market.

20:39.357 --> 20:42.217
What he did was he went and
bought a cow,

20:42.221 --> 20:44.301
this is the particular cow.

20:44.298 --> 20:49.158
He found a place that--where--a
farm where he could go and

20:49.163 --> 20:53.093
theoretically invest in this
single animal,

20:53.087 --> 20:56.947
and then he followed this
animal through the various

20:56.946 --> 21:00.536
places in its lifecycle,
and tried to figure out how

21:00.535 --> 21:02.705
much energy was required to
raise it.

21:02.710 --> 21:07.450
First, there was the shipping
of the calf to the feed lot,

21:07.450 --> 21:10.430
so the calf is born in one
place and then it's shipped to a

21:10.432 --> 21:12.282
different place,
to a feed lot,

21:12.276 --> 21:14.376
so there's oil required for
that.

21:14.380 --> 21:18.780
The feed to feed that animal
isn't grown locally and the calf

21:18.780 --> 21:21.970
isn't grazing,
but it's feed that's shipped

21:21.969 --> 21:26.259
in, and a feed lot might be an
example of that picture that you

21:26.263 --> 21:29.663
saw before of California and the
100,000 cows.

21:29.660 --> 21:33.290
There are fertilizers,
petroleum-based fertilizers

21:33.285 --> 21:36.975
that are used for the feed that
gets shipped to the

21:36.983 --> 21:41.503
cow--pesticides fall into that
category too--and then this cow

21:41.497 --> 21:45.047
was given hormones to maximize
its growth.

21:45.048 --> 21:50.808
Petroleum products are used to
generate that.

21:50.807 --> 21:53.907
Now, some people are concerned
about the health impacts of

21:53.911 --> 21:56.961
hormones, but aside from that,
there are energy costs.

21:56.960 --> 22:00.050
And then of course the cow gets
shipped to market.

22:00.048 --> 22:04.888
He figured that by the time you
add all that up 283 gallons of

22:04.886 --> 22:08.296
oil would be required to raise
that cow,

22:08.298 --> 22:14.068
and there are probably things
that he didn't calculate in,

22:14.067 --> 22:17.177
like the costs of irrigating
the crops that feed the cow.

22:17.180 --> 22:21.290
Now, if we talk about the
energy balance in the

22:21.288 --> 22:24.948
environment the cow gives energy
back,

22:24.950 --> 22:29.060
people eat the cow and they get
calories from it,

22:29.057 --> 22:31.807
so there are calories coming
out of this process.

22:31.807 --> 22:35.377
How does that compare with the
calories going in?

22:35.380 --> 22:37.320
Well it's not even close.

22:37.317 --> 22:42.547
If you add up the amount of
energy available in 283 gallons

22:42.548 --> 22:45.658
of oil,
compared it and put a calorie

22:45.655 --> 22:49.535
number to that,
and then figure how many

22:49.544 --> 22:56.144
calories are coming from the cow
back into the food supply,

22:56.140 --> 22:59.340
it's really not a close contest
at all.

22:59.337 --> 23:03.527
This is a losing proposition in
terms of sustainability.

23:03.528 --> 23:07.698
Some people have estimated that
if you live in the United States

23:07.702 --> 23:11.812
the single best thing you can do
to improve the environment and

23:11.810 --> 23:14.860
increase sustainability,
is to drive less.

23:14.857 --> 23:21.457
The second most powerful thing
you can do is to eat less beef.

23:21.460 --> 23:23.650
Why would it be?

23:23.650 --> 23:25.010
Well, you see the numbers here.

23:25.009 --> 23:29.889
Now again, you could eat the
corn that feeds the beef and the

23:29.892 --> 23:34.782
energy transaction is much more
sustainable then what you see

23:34.776 --> 23:35.506
here.

23:35.509 --> 23:39.409
You see other examples of this,
so for example,

23:39.410 --> 23:43.460
if you take Diet Coke and how
many calories of energy it takes

23:43.464 --> 23:47.254
to produce the Diet Coke you
might get no energy back from

23:47.253 --> 23:51.183
it--or just say one calorie from
something like this--but it

23:51.175 --> 23:54.495
would take this many calories to
produce it.

23:54.500 --> 23:59.670
This kind of a product which is
made to--basically to provide

23:59.670 --> 24:00.620
pleasure.

24:00.617 --> 24:05.467
There's no nutrient value
there, so it's totally a product

24:05.465 --> 24:10.055
of pleasure that--where people
want to get from it,

24:10.057 --> 24:13.487
but a lot of calories are being
subtracted by the environment to

24:13.490 --> 24:16.270
produce it and not--nothing's
really coming back.

24:16.269 --> 24:20.629
Here's another example of this.

24:20.630 --> 24:25.020
If we look at how many
kilograms of grain it takes to

24:25.015 --> 24:28.585
produce a kilogram of chicken,
a kilogram of pork,

24:28.586 --> 24:30.696
or a kilogram of beef,
it's really much different.

24:30.700 --> 24:34.510
So even within the animals that
humans consume,

24:34.507 --> 24:39.307
there are big differences in
what it costs to produce them,

24:39.307 --> 24:42.037
so the graph looks like this.

24:42.038 --> 24:46.618
You have a difference of two
when you go from chicken to

24:46.615 --> 24:51.775
pork, but then a difference of
more then three when you go from

24:51.775 --> 24:53.435
chicken to beef.

24:53.440 --> 24:58.010
The energy calculus here of how
much it takes to produce a

24:58.009 --> 25:02.259
pound--or whatever unit you want
to express it in,

25:02.259 --> 25:05.829
in this case kilograms--of
different kinds of foods varies

25:05.828 --> 25:09.268
a lot depending on the food even
if you're eating animal

25:09.273 --> 25:10.093
products.

25:10.087 --> 25:15.747
Beef comes up time and time,
and time again in this equation

25:15.748 --> 25:19.488
as being the most energy
inefficient.

25:19.490 --> 25:24.400
The world's desire for beef is
increasing.

25:24.400 --> 25:30.320
It seems like every time people
start eating less beef,

25:30.317 --> 25:32.987
the beef industry comes out
with another round of food

25:32.994 --> 25:35.974
marketing to try to encourage
people to eat more beef--which

25:35.974 --> 25:38.404
is of course what they're in
business to do.

25:38.400 --> 25:43.730
Now one way that people have
expressed this energy use,

25:43.730 --> 25:45.490
and this is a relatively new
concept,

25:45.490 --> 25:48.620
is something called food miles
and I think I've eluded to this

25:48.618 --> 25:49.798
earlier in the class.

25:49.798 --> 25:55.558
The concept was developed by a
professor in City University

25:55.557 --> 25:59.897
London named Tim Lang,
who's very long been a very

25:59.898 --> 26:03.758
vocal and effective proponent of
sustainability issues.

26:03.759 --> 26:07.629
What he wanted to do was to
come up with a way that would

26:07.631 --> 26:11.991
provide numbers for how much it
cost to deal with a certain part

26:11.988 --> 26:15.728
of the food chain,
and to put this in terms that

26:15.727 --> 26:17.577
people could understand.

26:17.577 --> 26:21.497
The food miles is the concept
he came up, and you can guess

26:21.500 --> 26:23.530
from the term what it means.

26:23.528 --> 26:28.598
What it--he basically is
talking about how much it costs

26:28.596 --> 26:34.676
to get food from the place its
raised or grown to the consumer,

26:34.680 --> 26:37.700
and how much energy is involved
in that transaction.

26:37.700 --> 26:41.620
He talked about energy use to
the point the food is produced,

26:41.617 --> 26:46.457
how many gallons of oil it
takes to raise this food or that

26:46.461 --> 26:49.351
food,
how much water it takes and

26:49.351 --> 26:53.351
what's the oil cost of that,
the amount of grain it takes to

26:53.351 --> 26:55.871
feed different animals,
and you can see how all that

26:55.873 --> 26:56.323
works.

26:56.317 --> 26:58.677
In this case,
we're talking about what it

26:58.679 --> 27:01.979
takes to get it from the farm or
the field to the market,

27:01.981 --> 27:04.581
and that's what food miles is
all about.

27:04.577 --> 27:08.457
It's actually a pretty
interesting and complicated

27:08.457 --> 27:11.137
topic,
but it has to do partly with

27:11.137 --> 27:13.667
the number of miles the food
goes,

27:13.670 --> 27:16.870
the mode of transportation is
important in that,

27:16.867 --> 27:20.227
and then of course you have to
calculate in how much it costs,

27:20.230 --> 27:23.030
how much energy is used for
consumers to go buy the food,

27:23.028 --> 27:25.628
and that becomes interesting as
well.

27:25.630 --> 27:28.760
Food is shipped in different
ways.

27:28.759 --> 27:33.769
How much is--which particular
mode is the primary method of

27:33.771 --> 27:38.441
shipping will determine the cost
and the food miles.

27:38.440 --> 27:41.510
For example,
shipping something by ship is

27:41.509 --> 27:45.329
less demanding--less energy
demanding--than shipping

27:45.327 --> 27:48.837
something by train;
and then the truck is the least

27:48.840 --> 27:51.040
efficient of these different
methods.

27:51.038 --> 27:54.838
Some things are shipped
primarily by one of these and

27:54.837 --> 27:59.147
others by the other methods,
so that's part of the food mile

27:59.148 --> 28:00.318
calculation.

28:00.317 --> 28:04.377
Now it becomes a kind of
complex issue.

28:04.380 --> 28:07.790
By the way, this is concept
that I think is here to stay,

28:07.788 --> 28:13.138
and there's some movement in
the UK to have food miles listed

28:13.141 --> 28:16.301
on packages,
so somebody could actually look

28:16.296 --> 28:19.456
and see how much energy
expressed as food miles is used

28:19.460 --> 28:21.980
to bring that particular food to
market.

28:21.980 --> 28:24.710
But people are still working
out the equations for

28:24.707 --> 28:27.767
calculating something like this
and here's where it gets

28:27.768 --> 28:29.548
interesting and complicated.

28:29.548 --> 28:33.158
Let's say, for example,
a farmer raises a ton of some

28:33.157 --> 28:37.317
food and that particular ton of
food has to get to a market a

28:37.323 --> 28:38.923
hundred miles away.

28:38.920 --> 28:43.620
Well that seems to be a pretty
easy thing to calculate because

28:43.615 --> 28:46.615
you could just say,
well it's a hundred miles,

28:46.621 --> 28:49.651
it's a hundred food miles for
that part of the transaction.

28:49.650 --> 28:52.890
But in fact,
whether one trip is made,

28:52.890 --> 28:55.180
or whether a number of trips
are made,

28:55.180 --> 28:56.810
depending on the size of the
truck the farmer uses,

28:56.811 --> 28:57.761
will affect the food miles.

28:57.759 --> 29:02.389
So if the farmer makes one trip
in a large truck less energy

29:02.388 --> 29:07.488
will be used than if he has to
make ten trips in smaller truck.

29:07.490 --> 29:11.190
This has to get figured in
somehow.

29:11.190 --> 29:12.360
Not easy to do.

29:12.357 --> 29:16.237
Whether a food is frozen or
refrigerated as its moving from

29:16.238 --> 29:19.848
Point A to Point B becomes a
very important part of the

29:19.848 --> 29:24.128
picture because of course the
energy costs for that goes up.

29:24.130 --> 29:29.850
Another interesting twist on
this is how consumers get the

29:29.846 --> 29:30.546
food.

29:30.548 --> 29:34.098
The people that are really
paying attention to the food

29:34.096 --> 29:37.836
miles concept are trying to
calculate in whether consumers

29:37.839 --> 29:41.849
have to drive to buy the food,
how many trips that might take

29:41.852 --> 29:44.432
to get the food,
how far they have to go to get

29:44.430 --> 29:47.480
it, or whether the food is
brought to someplace near them.

29:47.480 --> 29:51.190
For example,
if a farmer brings stuff in to

29:51.190 --> 29:56.050
a distribution center and then
the product goes from the

29:56.048 --> 30:01.128
distribution center to a store,
and then consumers make a trip

30:01.127 --> 30:03.947
to the store to buy it,
there's a lot of energy

30:03.954 --> 30:06.684
involved in that;
but if the farmer brings things

30:06.675 --> 30:09.935
right to a local area--say in a
farmer's market--and people

30:09.942 --> 30:12.312
perhaps can even walk there to
get it,

30:12.307 --> 30:15.147
then the energy transaction is
much smaller.

30:15.150 --> 30:17.860
So you get to see how
complicated the issue can

30:17.858 --> 30:18.388
become.

30:18.390 --> 30:22.350
Then here's why it's partly
important, so Wal-Mart for

30:22.348 --> 30:26.308
example to its credit,
is paying a lot of attention to

30:26.308 --> 30:28.698
the issue of sustainability.

30:28.700 --> 30:31.900
They made a commitment to
trying to buy sustainable

30:31.903 --> 30:33.893
products as much as possible.

30:33.890 --> 30:38.490
Well, given the massive size of
Wal-Mart and their buying power,

30:38.492 --> 30:41.862
and how much of the food chain
they can affect,

30:41.855 --> 30:43.605
this is a big thing.

30:43.607 --> 30:47.947
What happens if the sustainable
food they buy comes from China,

30:47.950 --> 30:51.080
and it has to be shipped
halfway around the world in

30:51.083 --> 30:53.483
order to get it to the United
States?

30:53.480 --> 30:57.320
Is that better than
buying--better or worse--than

30:57.318 --> 31:00.358
buying food that's grown
unsustainably,

31:00.358 --> 31:04.518
but it's closer by so you
shrink the food miles?

31:04.519 --> 31:08.929
You can start to see how this
picture, if one really wants to

31:08.934 --> 31:12.844
know, how much energy is
involved in the foods we buy,

31:12.836 --> 31:15.336
it depends on a lot of things.

31:15.337 --> 31:17.957
Where it's grown,
how it's grown,

31:17.959 --> 31:21.629
how much water is used,
how much oil went into getting

31:21.628 --> 31:25.568
the water out of the ground,
what food is used to feed the

31:25.569 --> 31:28.409
food,
whether they're oil based

31:28.405 --> 31:30.185
products,
fertilizers,

31:30.186 --> 31:33.336
pesticides, hormones,
herbicides all used in this

31:33.335 --> 31:34.315
transaction.

31:34.317 --> 31:37.997
Then of course how far it has
to go and how far we have to go

31:37.997 --> 31:40.937
to buy it are all issues that
enter into this.

31:40.940 --> 31:45.480
It would be very nice if this
could somehow be collapsed into

31:45.481 --> 31:49.421
an index or a number that people
could understand.

31:49.420 --> 31:53.630
Let's just say you had an
energy impact number that went

31:53.626 --> 31:57.986
from zero to a hundred or
something and you'd like to have

31:57.987 --> 32:01.197
your energy impact as low as
possible.

32:01.200 --> 32:04.570
Of course this--there would be
tremendous debate about what

32:04.567 --> 32:08.227
would go into the energy impact
equation, but people are working

32:08.228 --> 32:09.388
on this concept.

32:09.390 --> 32:12.430
Hopefully at some time
something like this will come

32:12.433 --> 32:16.133
about so that consumers who care
about the issue will have some

32:16.134 --> 32:18.814
way of knowing,
because otherwise we just don't

32:18.810 --> 32:19.100
know.

32:19.098 --> 32:22.568
I mean you just don't know.

32:22.567 --> 32:26.997
Let's just say you're agnostic
about Coke versus Pepsi,

32:27.000 --> 32:29.590
and you like them both the same
but you want to have them on

32:29.587 --> 32:31.037
some kind of a basis,
maybe a lot,

32:31.035 --> 32:31.865
maybe a little.

32:31.867 --> 32:36.537
Maybe it would matter to you
which came from a further

32:36.538 --> 32:40.418
distance away,
and wouldn't energy index like

32:40.416 --> 32:42.176
that make sense?

32:42.180 --> 32:45.760
Perhaps--I'm just saying this
hypothetically,

32:45.758 --> 32:50.798
just say that Coca-Cola happens
to be bottled 20 miles away but

32:50.799 --> 32:53.809
the Pepsi Cola is 120 miles
away.

32:53.808 --> 32:55.068
Would that matter?

32:55.067 --> 32:56.617
Well, it's starting to matter
to people,

32:56.617 --> 32:58.437
so it would be nice to get a
sense of this,

32:58.440 --> 33:00.890
but we don't have the index
yet, but right now people are at

33:00.894 --> 33:03.224
least thinking about it and
thinking of the criteria that

33:03.224 --> 33:04.104
would go into it.

33:04.097 --> 33:09.287
When we ask about current farm
practices and whether they're

33:09.286 --> 33:14.466
sustainable, part of it depends
on population demands on the

33:14.472 --> 33:15.882
food supply.

33:15.880 --> 33:21.490
The increasing population is
expected to put real strain on

33:21.491 --> 33:27.491
the land resources because we're
losing farmland to things like

33:27.491 --> 33:29.611
erosion,
monoculture,

33:29.614 --> 33:33.004
and other factors that are
affecting its use,

33:33.000 --> 33:35.490
water and the fossil fuels,
as I mentioned before.

33:35.490 --> 33:39.550
Here's the expected time in
several countries for the

33:39.547 --> 33:43.057
population to double:
70 years in the U.S.;

33:43.058 --> 33:46.318
37 in India;
Mexico 37 years;

33:46.318 --> 33:49.188
23 in Ethiopia;
and if you look at the world

33:49.194 --> 33:50.224
average, it's 50 years.

33:50.220 --> 33:54.730
That means we'll need double
the food in 50 years that we'll

33:54.728 --> 33:55.568
need now.

33:55.567 --> 33:59.557
Will we be able to produce this
and at what point do the lines

33:59.556 --> 34:00.076
cross?

34:00.078 --> 34:01.728
Right now we have a surplus.

34:01.730 --> 34:05.590
That doesn't mean that,
as I've said before several

34:05.585 --> 34:07.205
times,
that doesn't mean that

34:07.212 --> 34:09.592
everybody has food because the
political and distribution

34:09.590 --> 34:12.570
problems are significant;
but at least the world has

34:12.572 --> 34:13.472
enough food.

34:13.469 --> 34:17.899
At some point the population
demands will outstrip our

34:17.896 --> 34:21.946
ability to produce more food,
because there's only so much

34:21.949 --> 34:24.069
land in the world where food can
be grown.

34:24.070 --> 34:27.610
The productivity has gone up,
and up,

34:27.610 --> 34:30.440
and up and is starting to
plateau in certain parts of the

34:30.443 --> 34:32.543
world,
so at what point does this

34:32.541 --> 34:34.061
really become a crisis?

34:34.059 --> 34:38.069
Some estimates are that in the
next forty years the world

34:38.070 --> 34:41.150
population will reach a number
like this;

34:41.150 --> 34:44.950
this will require triple the
current food production,

34:44.949 --> 34:49.939
and this requires a ten-fold
increase in energy because of

34:49.938 --> 34:54.838
the expected declines in crop
yield from loss of land and

34:54.842 --> 34:55.722
pests.

34:55.719 --> 35:01.729
When you put this altogether do
we have ten times the energy

35:01.730 --> 35:06.520
that we have now to apply to the
food supply?

35:06.518 --> 35:11.078
Agriculture consumes a fair
amount of the world's energy.

35:11.079 --> 35:14.569
This is discussed in a number
of different places,

35:14.570 --> 35:18.020
including The Atlas of
Food,

35:18.018 --> 35:21.438
and a book by Cornell
researchers, Pimentel &

35:21.442 --> 35:24.512
Pimentel, and these are very
interesting.

35:24.510 --> 35:27.800
The book on the left, The
Atlas of Food--I'm sorry I

35:27.795 --> 35:30.675
don't have a more crisp picture
of this--but this is

35:30.682 --> 35:33.292
authored--one of the authors is
Tim Lang,

35:33.289 --> 35:35.789
the person I mentioned who
developed the concept of food

35:35.789 --> 35:37.739
miles,
so these are good resources if

35:37.740 --> 35:39.490
you care to read more about
this.

35:39.489 --> 35:41.989
The book on the left is much
more accessible,

35:41.987 --> 35:44.937
the book on the right is very
heavy in statistics.

35:44.940 --> 35:49.720
If we just take a common food
and think about the energy cost,

35:49.715 --> 35:53.865
and let's just take this bag of
Doritos as an example,

35:53.865 --> 35:56.055
what's involved in this?

35:56.059 --> 35:59.569
Well if you just think about
the corn that's the primary

35:59.565 --> 36:02.685
ingredient in Doritos,
what's involved in that?

36:02.690 --> 36:05.720
Well there is of course the
getting it from different

36:05.724 --> 36:09.284
place--from place to place so it
has to get from the farm to a

36:09.284 --> 36:13.194
processing plant,
that produces the products that

36:13.192 --> 36:18.102
will go on a tractor trailer to
some distribution center;

36:18.099 --> 36:21.519
and then there all the little
local deliveries that go to get

36:21.519 --> 36:24.769
the Doritos into the little
markets that are scattered all

36:24.769 --> 36:28.279
around the country,
so this is a lot of transport

36:28.284 --> 36:29.324
that goes on.

36:29.320 --> 36:32.160
Again, we're talking about the
just corn part of this.

36:32.159 --> 36:35.319
If I showed you the ingredient
list from a bag of Doritos--I

36:35.318 --> 36:37.458
don't know how many things are
in it,

36:37.460 --> 36:39.870
but it's probably thirty
ingredients or something like

36:39.869 --> 36:42.599
that--each of these ingredients
will have an energy cost,

36:42.599 --> 36:45.659
but since corn is the
predominant we can talk about

36:45.661 --> 36:46.091
that.

36:46.090 --> 36:50.270
We can think about the oil
that's necessary to create this

36:50.271 --> 36:54.381
transaction of just buying
something simple like a bag of

36:54.378 --> 36:55.258
Doritos.

36:55.260 --> 36:59.800
Well, there's oil involved in
the genetic modification of the

36:59.798 --> 37:03.278
corn and bringing those seeds to
the farmer.

37:03.280 --> 37:07.060
There's the seed transport from
the place that genetically

37:07.063 --> 37:11.183
modified seeds are made to the
distributor, the seeds then have

37:11.177 --> 37:14.407
to go to the farm;
there's shipping involved in

37:14.407 --> 37:15.037
all this.

37:15.039 --> 37:17.169
Then there's of course the
planting of the seeds,

37:17.170 --> 37:19.490
and then all the things that
you see under the growing and

37:19.490 --> 37:21.570
harvesting we've talked about
before, and are pretty

37:21.567 --> 37:24.667
self-evident;
so there's a lot of oil used in

37:24.668 --> 37:26.298
something like this.

37:26.300 --> 37:29.610
Then there's the transport and
processing.

37:29.610 --> 37:32.950
The corn gets harvested,
it gets sent to a storage

37:32.947 --> 37:36.487
place, it then gets sent to the
processing center.

37:36.489 --> 37:38.909
Then the processing itself is
energy intensive,

37:38.905 --> 37:41.685
and then of course it has to
get to the market and the

37:41.688 --> 37:43.998
consumer has to go the market to
buy it.

37:44.000 --> 37:47.180
You add all this up,
and you've got quite a lot of

37:47.184 --> 37:50.894
energy gets involved in
developing a product like this.

37:50.889 --> 37:55.909
Let's move from the energy cost
to the impact on the

37:55.909 --> 37:57.289
environment.

37:57.289 --> 38:01.249
As an example we'll use corn
and King Corn I used

38:01.248 --> 38:06.358
intentionally because it's the
name of movie that's out on this

38:06.360 --> 38:09.150
topic,
but also it's the king of the

38:09.150 --> 38:12.720
American agriculture system,
partly because of the heavy

38:12.719 --> 38:13.379
subsidies.

38:13.380 --> 38:16.820
The film that I mentioned some
of you may have heard of called,

38:16.820 --> 38:20.260
King Corn: You Are What You
Eat, has come out just recently.

38:20.260 --> 38:23.610
Two young men,
Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis,

38:23.610 --> 38:26.980
looked to see how corn is
actually raised in the United

38:26.983 --> 38:30.423
States and developed a very
engaging movie about it,

38:30.420 --> 38:32.390
so if you haven't seen it I
urge you to,

38:32.389 --> 38:37.889
because they talk about what
goes into making corn,

38:37.889 --> 38:41.989
but also what corn makes and
the number of products it's in.

38:41.989 --> 38:46.319
They also talk in the movie
about how much of our bodies are

38:46.322 --> 38:49.412
made up of corn in one way or an
other,

38:49.409 --> 38:52.649
because if you add up all the
different foods that corn goes

38:52.650 --> 38:55.020
into,
how much of that ends up in our

38:55.021 --> 38:57.081
body is really quite impressive.

38:57.079 --> 39:02.599
Modern agriculture raises
serious concerns about safety,

39:02.603 --> 39:05.623
pollution, and biodiversity.

39:05.619 --> 39:08.649
We'll talk about some of this
in class on Wednesday.

39:08.650 --> 39:14.650
A lot of chemicals go into
producing modern agriculture.

39:14.650 --> 39:18.260
Now, the chemicals work in
terms of production,

39:18.255 --> 39:22.095
so if you look at the yield,
the bushels per acre,

39:22.097 --> 39:26.017
from 1900 and to today you see
vast increases.

39:26.018 --> 39:30.008
Scientists have tried to
separate out what are the

39:30.012 --> 39:33.032
factors contributing most to
this,

39:33.030 --> 39:37.550
and what they've hypothesized
is this: that genetic advances,

39:37.550 --> 39:41.750
genetic modification and
breeding has led to a lot of the

39:41.746 --> 39:44.796
increased yield,
fertilizers are a part of it,

39:44.798 --> 39:47.998
and then they don't quite know
yet what the pesticides are

39:48.001 --> 39:50.921
playing in terms of the
contribution to the increased

39:50.923 --> 39:51.603
yields.

39:51.599 --> 39:54.679
So these things work,
but at what cost?

39:54.679 --> 39:56.929
Well the first the pesticides.

39:56.929 --> 40:02.529
There's a lot of concern that
once you start using artificial

40:02.532 --> 40:07.952
pesticides, that you have to use
more artificial pesticides

40:07.949 --> 40:10.939
because here's what happens.

40:10.940 --> 40:16.400
The pesticides get applied to
crops and they work;

40:16.400 --> 40:19.880
except they don't kill
everything, and insects evolve

40:19.884 --> 40:22.234
to resist a particular
pesticide.

40:22.230 --> 40:28.020
These particular pests that are
resistant to that pesticide will

40:28.023 --> 40:33.263
prosper in very large numbers,
especially in areas where

40:33.264 --> 40:36.534
monoculture is the reign of the
day.

40:36.530 --> 40:41.720
By monoculture we mean raising
one crop in vast acreages,

40:41.719 --> 40:46.179
so I'll talk about biodiversity
in the next class and we'll talk

40:46.182 --> 40:50.432
about the state of Iowa as an
example and how much of Iowa is

40:50.434 --> 40:53.344
occupied by either corn or
soybeans,

40:53.340 --> 40:55.880
and a small number of variety
have corn or soybeans,

40:55.882 --> 40:57.132
so this is monoculture.

40:57.130 --> 41:01.030
The pest that survived the
pesticide application thrives

41:01.025 --> 41:05.485
under these circumstances which
usually leads to the application

41:05.489 --> 41:09.599
of even more pesticide or the
development of new pesticides

41:09.599 --> 41:12.929
and then of course each time
that happens it has

41:12.929 --> 41:15.409
environmental implications.

41:15.409 --> 41:20.469
Here would be an example;
this is an advertisement in

41:20.465 --> 41:24.695
France for a particular
pesticide made by Monsanto to

41:24.697 --> 41:27.787
get rid of a spider that eats
corn.

41:27.789 --> 41:33.969
Now we talked about--we'll move
from pesticides to herbicides

41:33.972 --> 41:38.612
and talk about weed killers for
the moment.

41:38.610 --> 41:42.270
I may have mentioned before
that Monsanto--and I talked

41:42.266 --> 41:46.466
about herbicide as being one of
their major products--they make

41:46.465 --> 41:48.765
a weed killer called Round Up.

41:48.768 --> 41:51.638
A lot of you have probably used
this around the house,

41:51.643 --> 41:54.413
where you spray it on plants
and kills the weeds.

41:54.409 --> 42:00.269
Round Up is sold to consumers
like us, but its biggest

42:00.269 --> 42:03.699
application is used in farms.

42:03.699 --> 42:07.189
You can imagine how weeds
growing around plants

42:07.190 --> 42:11.140
interfere--compete for resources
with the plants,

42:11.139 --> 42:14.429
and therefore farmers have to
worry a lot about these.

42:14.429 --> 42:18.479
If you have some agent that you
can spray on the weeds that

42:18.476 --> 42:22.656
kills them, then that's good in
the eyes of the farmer and it

42:22.664 --> 42:24.764
can increase productivity.

42:24.760 --> 42:28.200
One of the fundamental problems
though is that something that

42:28.204 --> 42:31.764
kills weeds might very well kill
the crop that it's designed to

42:31.762 --> 42:34.362
protect,
because if it gets on that kind

42:34.356 --> 42:36.496
of thing then it becomes a
problem.

42:36.500 --> 42:43.080
The Monsanto Company and the
farmers had this basic problem.

42:43.079 --> 42:45.499
The farmers,
because they didn't want the

42:45.501 --> 42:48.411
weed killer to kill the corn or
the soybeans,

42:48.409 --> 42:52.609
and Monsanto wants to sell as
much as Round Up as possible,

42:52.610 --> 42:56.030
so they created an ingenious
solution to this,

42:56.030 --> 42:59.380
Monsanto did,
by genetically engineering corn

42:59.380 --> 43:03.800
and soybeans for a product they
call Round Up Ready Corn or

43:03.795 --> 43:07.065
soybeans to resist their own
herbicide.

43:07.070 --> 43:11.240
They genetically modified the
structure of corn and soybeans

43:11.244 --> 43:15.564
so that Round Up applied to the
weeds around these--these corn

43:15.559 --> 43:19.239
and soybeans that are growing
won't kill the corn and

43:19.237 --> 43:20.297
soybeans.

43:20.300 --> 43:24.170
The farmer's happy because it
doesn't--then the herbicide

43:24.168 --> 43:26.998
application doesn't threaten the
crop,

43:27.000 --> 43:29.660
Monsanto's happy because
they're making money from the

43:29.664 --> 43:32.534
seeds and more Round Up can get
applied in the process.

43:32.530 --> 43:34.920
So Monsanto wins in two ways.

43:34.920 --> 43:40.090
The concern about this is the
heavy pesticide use,

43:40.090 --> 43:43.780
the herbicide use in this case,
and what it means to the

43:43.775 --> 43:46.085
groundwater,
to air pollution,

43:46.085 --> 43:49.615
and the like and what can be
done about this.

43:49.619 --> 43:52.909
More application of these
things are not what

43:52.907 --> 43:56.867
environmentally concerned groups
would like to see.

43:56.869 --> 44:03.469
Here are a few numbers just to
show you how much stuff is

44:03.474 --> 44:05.604
applied to what.

44:05.599 --> 44:11.399
The percent of corn that's
grown in monoculture or rotated

44:11.398 --> 44:17.098
with soybeans in the United
States, 82% vast acreages;

44:17.099 --> 44:22.159
fertilizer is applied to 98% of
corn;

44:22.159 --> 44:26.799
insecticides are applied in 97%
of corn acreages;

44:26.800 --> 44:33.910
of all the herbicides 55% go to
corn and of all insecticides 44%

44:33.911 --> 44:36.171
are used for corn.

44:36.170 --> 44:41.030
The corn production in this
country is very chemical

44:41.034 --> 44:45.714
intensive and there are energy
costs for this,

44:45.710 --> 44:47.870
but concerned about the
environment and we'll talk more

44:47.869 --> 44:48.629
about that later.

44:48.630 --> 44:52.020
It's very interesting to think
about how corn gets raised.

44:52.018 --> 44:55.708
Let's talk about climate change
for just a moment,

44:55.713 --> 44:57.453
which is a big issue.

44:57.449 --> 45:01.109
A lot of people are more
concerned about climate change

45:01.114 --> 45:01.934
than they.

45:01.929 --> 45:06.399
Agriculture is contributing to
climate change but it also is

45:06.400 --> 45:11.250
being affected by climate change
and I'll show you a map in a few

45:11.253 --> 45:14.893
moments that is--I find
completely startling that

45:14.893 --> 45:16.943
addresses that issue.

45:16.940 --> 45:21.020
There was a really terrific
report written for the Food and

45:21.019 --> 45:24.539
Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations,

45:24.539 --> 45:28.419
published in Rome called,
Livestock's Long Shadow.

45:28.420 --> 45:32.860
In this case this report talked
about the environmental issues

45:32.862 --> 45:37.232
of livestock production around
the world and what it means to

45:37.231 --> 45:40.801
our environment and to health
and well-being.

45:40.800 --> 45:46.570
The global warming potential is
really considerable.

45:46.570 --> 45:51.850
They talked about carbon
dioxide as a contributor to

45:51.847 --> 45:55.877
global warming,
and most of us think a lot

45:55.882 --> 45:58.522
about this,
because these are the units

45:58.518 --> 46:01.448
that were taught to think about
global warming in.

46:01.449 --> 46:05.509
They also talked about the
impact of methane and nitrous

46:05.510 --> 46:08.910
oxide as contributing to the
global warming.

46:08.909 --> 46:12.269
To put the relative
contribution in context,

46:12.268 --> 46:15.338
what they did is they said well
let's take global warming,

46:15.340 --> 46:18.560
let's take carbon dioxide and
consider that one unit of

46:18.561 --> 46:22.651
contributor to global warming,
then what would methane and

46:22.648 --> 46:26.808
nitrous oxide be in relationship
to that number one?

46:26.809 --> 46:30.759
You can see the methane has 23
times the potential to

46:30.755 --> 46:35.605
contribute to global warming and
the nitrous oxides are multiples

46:35.612 --> 46:39.022
of that,
so the extent that agriculture

46:39.023 --> 46:43.003
is producing these things,
then we've got something to

46:43.001 --> 46:45.421
worry about,
so I'd like to put some of this

46:45.423 --> 46:46.023
in context.

46:46.018 --> 46:50.968
Certainly we've talked about
the energy costs of producing

46:50.972 --> 46:56.192
foods in terms of oil use and
that would of course contribute

46:56.186 --> 47:00.006
to the carbon dioxide and the
emissions.

47:00.010 --> 47:02.120
Well let's talk about the other
as well.

47:02.119 --> 47:04.509
Now this report,
by the way, concludes after

47:04.507 --> 47:07.447
adding all this up,
the global greenhouse gas

47:07.449 --> 47:10.819
emissions from animal
agriculture exceed emissions

47:10.818 --> 47:12.398
from transportation.

47:12.400 --> 47:16.180
That's really pretty striking,
and this is just from animal

47:16.181 --> 47:20.421
agriculture, we're not talking
about plant agriculture as well.

47:20.420 --> 47:23.800
Here's where it comes from.

47:23.800 --> 47:27.740
The carbon dioxide emissions
are the things that we've talked

47:27.742 --> 47:31.182
about already,
but the methane emissions come

47:31.181 --> 47:34.431
from rumen in animals,
I'll describe a little bit

47:34.427 --> 47:37.707
about what that means,
and then the release of methane

47:37.713 --> 47:40.423
from animal manure,
and the amount of this out

47:40.416 --> 47:41.866
there is really remarkable.

47:41.869 --> 47:45.409
The nitrous oxide come from
release from urine and manure

47:45.407 --> 47:48.117
from animals,
vast amounts of these sorts of

47:48.123 --> 47:48.823
things.

47:48.820 --> 47:50.930
Just take a cow,
for example,

47:50.934 --> 47:55.554
and think about how big a cow
is and how much urine and manure

47:55.545 --> 47:58.185
comes from something like that.

47:58.190 --> 48:02.000
I mean my--we were--my kids and
I and my wife were in Scotland

48:01.996 --> 48:04.616
and Ireland this summer driving
around,

48:04.619 --> 48:09.149
and we saw lots of farm animals
as we were driving around,

48:09.150 --> 48:12.970
and one time we went past a cow
that was urinating and my kids

48:12.974 --> 48:16.614
were just amazed by how much was
coming out of that cow.

48:16.610 --> 48:18.650
They said, oh my God it's like
a fire hydrant,

48:18.652 --> 48:21.422
I've never seen anything--they
were just absolutely amazed and

48:21.423 --> 48:22.473
they're grown kids.

48:22.469 --> 48:26.709
This is really pretty--pretty
impressive how much can come,

48:26.710 --> 48:29.350
and you think about that one
farm in California with 100,000

48:29.347 --> 48:30.997
animals,
and the amount of manure that

48:31.003 --> 48:33.253
might get produced there,
it's really quite impressive.

48:33.250 --> 48:37.210
These things are issues.

48:37.210 --> 48:41.460
Now the way the rumination
works in cows because of the

48:41.458 --> 48:45.858
world's desire for beef and the
vast number of cows being

48:45.864 --> 48:48.684
raised,
the cows eat the grass or feed,

48:48.679 --> 48:52.109
or whatever it happens to be,
and it goes into their

48:52.110 --> 48:53.390
digestive system.

48:53.389 --> 48:58.369
If you look to the left you see
the rumen, the number one on

48:58.367 --> 48:59.377
this list.

48:59.380 --> 49:03.750
The food enters this area of
the cow's body but then gets

49:03.751 --> 49:07.031
regurgitated,
and the cow eats it again.

49:07.030 --> 49:09.210
It gets regurgitated back into
the mouth,

49:09.210 --> 49:11.670
that's what rumination is in an
animal,

49:11.670 --> 49:15.540
and then finally it gets
digested, it gets swallowed and

49:15.536 --> 49:18.136
then digested and gets
metabolized.

49:18.139 --> 49:21.749
Now in this process,
methane gas is released,

49:21.750 --> 49:24.980
large amounts of methane gas
are released from the cow,

49:24.980 --> 49:28.900
and this enters the atmosphere
and becomes part of the emission

49:28.898 --> 49:29.528
picture.

49:29.530 --> 49:34.840
The animal is a digestive
machine: it consumes energy,

49:34.840 --> 49:37.230
it gives energy,
and in the process creates

49:37.231 --> 49:39.281
byproducts,
one of which is methane,

49:39.282 --> 49:41.322
and that is affecting the
environment.

49:41.320 --> 49:45.990
This report from the Food and
Agriculture Organization

49:45.987 --> 49:51.097
calculated the percent of total
global emissions for carbon

49:51.097 --> 49:55.677
dioxide that come from just
animal agriculture,

49:55.679 --> 49:59.049
now again not the other plant
part of the picture but just the

49:59.050 --> 50:01.350
animals,
and they calculated of the

50:01.353 --> 50:03.963
carbon dioxide emissions in the
world,

50:03.960 --> 50:06.980
9% come just from animal
agriculture.

50:06.980 --> 50:11.480
The methane emissions,
it's 37% and the nitrous oxide

50:11.476 --> 50:13.376
emissions it's this.

50:13.380 --> 50:17.910
Remember the relative capacity
of methane and nitrous oxide to

50:17.909 --> 50:22.589
contribute to the global warming
picture over carbon dioxide.

50:22.590 --> 50:27.230
These numbers are very high and
of great concern to the food

50:27.228 --> 50:28.328
environment.

50:28.329 --> 50:32.079
The question is what can be
done about it.

50:32.079 --> 50:35.859
So the fact that environmental
activists are saying eat less

50:35.860 --> 50:37.400
beef, you can see why.

50:37.400 --> 50:40.950
If concern about the
environment is high on your list

50:40.947 --> 50:43.197
of priorities that makes sense.

50:43.199 --> 50:46.289
It makes sense in a lot of ways.

50:46.289 --> 50:49.479
Eat less meat in general makes
sense, but eat less beef in

50:49.483 --> 50:52.793
particular makes perfect sense
for all sorts of reasons when

50:52.791 --> 50:53.801
you add it up.

50:53.800 --> 51:00.780
You can also see how many
energy inputs there are into the

51:00.782 --> 51:05.072
whole picture of food
production.

51:05.070 --> 51:07.150
Now this is the map that's
really pretty startling.

51:07.150 --> 51:10.580
This was a map that was
produced that tried to model

51:10.579 --> 51:14.549
what climate change will do to
where in the world particular

51:14.547 --> 51:17.637
foods can be grown,
looking at now and the year

51:17.639 --> 51:18.379
2050.

51:18.380 --> 51:23.970
This is a little bit blurry,
but what it says is that the

51:23.972 --> 51:30.362
areas that are the cross-hatched
bars are regions where wheat can

51:30.364 --> 51:36.164
grow and the yellow bars are
where wheat can grow now.

51:36.159 --> 51:39.979
You can see large areas of the
United States are viable for

51:39.983 --> 51:43.743
growing wheat at the present
time and that area expands up

51:43.744 --> 51:44.804
into Canada.

51:44.800 --> 51:48.300
By the year 2050,
with a projected climate

51:48.300 --> 51:52.570
change, the blue bars are where
wheat will grow.

51:52.570 --> 51:56.890
You can see that there's almost
none left in the United States.

51:56.889 --> 52:00.979
These are really very profound
changes.

52:00.980 --> 52:03.130
Now what does this mean?

52:03.130 --> 52:05.090
Does this mean we're going to
be growing bananas in the United

52:05.090 --> 52:05.380
States?

52:05.380 --> 52:09.720
Does it mean we're going to
growing pineapple in Iowa?

52:09.719 --> 52:12.049
What does it really mean?

52:12.050 --> 52:15.930
Well, who knows how it's all
going to sort out but it--no

52:15.931 --> 52:19.881
matter what's going to grow
where and whether this is good

52:19.884 --> 52:24.534
or bad for the economy overall,
you certainly can't argue with

52:24.534 --> 52:27.124
how startling a phenomenon this
is.

52:27.119 --> 52:32.529
The agriculture is driven by
climate change--you can see that

52:32.527 --> 52:37.667
here--but it's also of course a
big contributor to climate

52:37.666 --> 52:38.656
change.

52:38.659 --> 52:42.779
For those people interested in
sustainability and energy use,

52:42.784 --> 52:45.884
one thing they have to think
about is food.

52:45.880 --> 52:52.000