Just read a blog on salmon which cited Wikipedia numerous times. Citations certainly make it seem credible – but is it?

If one doesn’t know the subject intimately then Wikipedia may seem like a good source for reliable information. But, if you know the basics of a topic, then you can see this online encyclopedia may be frought with self serving editors (anyone can edit), lobbyists, activists or just plain angry people with an axe to grind and time on their hands.

For example, check out the page on “salmon”.  It starts out as a seemingly apolitical bank of knowledge with important biological and historical information on salmon. But then it gets fishy (pun intended) and diverts into another venue for anti-aquaculture (pro-wild?) activists or lobbyists determined to  promote their product.

It’s pretty obvious that Alaska salmon lobbyists (or their busy little helpers commonly referred to as environmental activists) have been busy chicken pecking their keyboard to manipulate the salmon page. 

Not surprisingly and just 3 paragraphs in (under ‘Lifecycle’), we see the first reference to Alaska – as if the lifecycle of salmon is significantly different or better in Alaska than other nations hosting salmon to their shores (it’s not if you were actually wondering).

Wiki editors then add that salmon populations are ’of concern’ in some parts of the world but in Alaska ’stocks are still abundant’. By the way, they didn’t used to be abundant – in fact, in the mid 20th century

"Abundant" salmon...thanks to aquaculture.

 there was a panic over the lack of salmon in Alaska. But now, thanks to billions of hatchery fish released each year the numbers are once again healthy. But the majority aren’t wild salmon, they are hatchery salmon (known as ‘ranched salmon’) - and this should be noted – it’s not.

Then the Wiki page on salmon falls apart – it turns into the typical “farmed bad/wild good” rant that probably only serves to confuse the consumer and possibly scare them away from a healthy protein source. Hot Dog anyone?

And on it goes; a stab at the nutritional benefit of farm-raised salmon, the carotenoid pigments, feed conversion ratios, environmental pressures etc etc etc.  Most overblown if not plain wrong and all without context. If only it mentioned ’salmon ranching’ to give the reader some information of aquaculture in Alaska…oh wait it does, and ofcourse it paints a nice pretty little picture;

“Another form of salmon production, which is safer but less controllable, is to raise salmon in hatcheries until they are old enough to become independent.  A variant method of fish stocking, called ocean ranching, is under development in Alaska. There, the young salmon are released into the ocean far from any wild salmon streams. When it is time for them to spawn, they return to where they were released where fishermen can then catch them.”

What a nice summary. But what about the term ‘Under development’? 1.5 billion released each year is hardly “under development”. (look at the graph above – salmon ranching started in the 1970’s)  And apparently there is little risk in releasing 1.5 billion fish each year. No environmental pressures at all? Yeah right.

If anyone wants a lesson on how to manipulate Wikipedia to be used as a promotional tool, we’d suggest you email the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute for some ‘Wikid’ lessons.

Here we are, the last week of December, and with the wind chill it’s feeling around, oh, zero degrees today. DELICIOUS. I swear my body’s not built for this weather. I need to move back to the Caribbean at some point – preferably sooner rather than later. Or maybe just find a happy compromise in the Carolinas. Either way I’m warmer and surrounded by palm trees (well, it’s more likely that they’re not neon or plastic, anyway).

TCI 08 <3

It seems like Congress has been daydreaming about living by the sea as well (or, you know, just taking their plane to their boat to their fourth home in St. Kitts), because there’s been a lot of headway made in ocean policy this past month or two. First port of call… ocean zoning!

Obama’s Ocean Policy Task Force announced mid-December that “nine new regional organizations would create master plans for federal waters by drawing on a massive database of scientific information.” AWESOME.  Awesome awesome awesome. This means policy makers are a. going to be listening to the scientists who have been working in these areas for years, b. that the plan will take into account the populations, pollutions, and uses of each particular area. There is no effective policy without science!

http://www.ucsusa.org/

Right now one of the biggest problems in marine policy is the lack of communication between stakeholders – anyone who holds an interest in the waters. That could be fishermen, coastal residents, anyone interested in aquaculture, recreational boaters, windfarmers, people who need sand, people who need oil/LNG, people who just want something pretty to look at, and so on and so forth. But right now there is not much infrastructure that allows everyone to talk about what they see, what they need, and why they need it.

credit: davegranlund.com

In 2008, Massachusetts passed the Oceans Act which started a smaller-scale, similar project in our coastal waters. Stakeholders (including state senators and representatives, reps for commercial fishing, reps for environmental orgs, reps for offshore renewable energy [no one likes to say wind near Cape Cod], and reps for Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, among others) are all brought to the table to hash out who gets to use what areas. The paper I wrote for WHOI described how difficult that process would be, and how it may be easier to let the stakeholders fight amongst themselves in a more decentralized fasion… but ANYWAY. I just googled it to see how it was coming along – the plan is going to be released THURSDAY. Holy crap. A year and a half later, nice timing on my part I guess.

As I was saying, all of the U.S. waters will now be completing a plan like this one, called “ecosystem-based management”. Policy makers will be listening to scientists about the particular needs and resources and issues of each area, and in turn coming up with a plan to addresses each piece in one giant plan. I imagine if it took one state 1.5 years it’ll take the whole country a lot longer, but I look forward to it.  (PS This is really where I see myself in five/ten years, I want to work on this!)

The second HUGE topic in ocean policy today is aquaculture. Most people don’t think of where their seafood comes from (or any of their food for that matter… but that’s a topic for a different day), but it’s becoming increasingly important because of the massive decline in wild fish. In response to the ever-smaller schools of fish being caught, fish farmers have started raising fish in pens in the ocean (aka aquaculture). This works with shellfish and shrimp too. I’m a little torn about this topic. It’s a plus that people recognize that continuing to fish commercially the way we do is not sustainable, but so far most of aquaculture isn’t either. Here’s a diagram from the Ocean Conservancy (lovelovelove) about the negative aspects of fish farming, and here are some positive choices.

And until two weeks ago, there was no national plan addressing these issues, either. Representative Lois Copps (D-CA) introduced a piece of legislation, the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009, to set standards that fish farmers will have to follow in order to prevent fish waste from settling on the bottom, predators from becoming entangled in nets, and chemicals and artificial growth hormones from being used on the fish. It will be included in Obama’s overarching ocean policy mentioned above, and nullify all previous piecemeal regulations now in place.

What a way to end the year! So when you’re out on Thursday night counting down the end of the decade, ask your servers where the caviar and salmon are from that you’re munching on. I’m going to keep dreaming of my warm weather until I can afford a plane ticket… here’s to a new resolution for travel!

As if we need yet another choice at the grocery store (organic or local? paper or plastic?) we now get to think about whether we should purchase wild caught or farm-raised fish. Though both options seem to have their downsides, I am leaning more towards eating SMALL amounts of wild caught and here’s why:

fish farm; photo via flickr user voux

To feed farmed salmon (for example), we’re actually draining the oceans of other species of fish. To produce one pound of farm-raised salmon, you need three pounds of wild fish such as sardines, anchovies, herring and mackerel among others. These smaller fish are what sustain the majority of marine life and we are depleting the resource rapidly. According to the Pure Salmon Campaign, two-thirds of a farmed salmon’s diet is fishmeal or fish oil, both products of these smaller wild fish.

To combat this issue, we are getting closer and closer to implementing the same type of system that we devised for agriculture. And that system is to find the cheapest, quickest most efficient source of protein. Whether it be a soy-bean based diet, a corn based diet, or a mixture of animal by-products, we are about to change the type of protein fish eat. In essence, engineering our food.

There are a multitude of other problems associated with farming fish, but one of the biggest is the spread of sea lice from farms to wild populations. Watch this video to learn more about how open net fish farms are affecting wild populations of salmon, particularly in the Pacific Northwest:

It’s time we take a closer look at the systems that produce our food, particularly aquaculture. Many generations, populations and cultures have subsisted on fish as a sustainable, healthy source of protein that also nourishes surrounding ecosystems.

Tonight at 9:00 pm I will be parked in front of my television in anticipation- The Discovery Channel’s famous show Dirty Jobs will feature some of our very own local clam farmers. The show came to Franklin County in September to film clam harvesting in Alligator Harbor as well as worm grunting in the Apalachicola National Forest.

Photo Courtesy of the Discover Channel

The host of the show, Mike Rowe, harvested clams with St. Teresa Clam Company’s owner Clayton Lewis, along with Bruce Skelton and Chip Earl. Lewis harvests clams from two leased areas of Alligator Harbor. They also filmed clam processing near the Sopchoppy River in Wakulla and a clam bake.

Photo Courtesy of the Discover Channel

Dirty Jobs is said to profile the unsung American laborers who make their living in the most unthinkable — yet vital — ways. I’m eager to see their take on our hardworking and dedicated clam harvesters.  Be sure and tune in!

When thinking about climate change, we usually think about the Earth’s atmosphere, but oceans are affected too, with serious impacts on marine life.

According to a new study by the FAO increasing temperatures could have dire consequences for the fishing industry. Over 500 million people rely on fish as a source of protein and income, and fish provide at least half the animal proteins and dietary minerals for 400 million of the world’s poorest people.

The FAO says both marine and inland fisheries are poorly positioned to withstand the new problems posed by climate change. Marine fisheries in particular may see major decline, as they are already trying to cope with overfishing, habitat loss and mismanagement.

These issues are explored in a forthcoming Insights, Fisheries: While Stocks Last? to be published in Spring 2010 to coincide with a major OECD conference on aquaculture.

Singapore’s Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) is to invest in aquaculture and agriculture to improve technology and research and improve food availability. Over the next five years the AVA wants to raise fish production from 4% to 15%. Singapore’s largest commercial fish farm, the 18-month-old Barramundi Asia, is considering applying for a loan to improve its aquaculture technology and increase its annual production of barramundi – or Asian sea bass – to 3,000 tonnes by 2012, and 20,000 tonnes by 2020.

Kevin Libin, journalist at National Post, Canada’s national newspaper, gets right to the point. “…environmental groups are arguably the biggest political obstacles to (aquaculture) expansion.”

In his December 7, 2009 piece entitled “From sci-fi tech, food for the masses”, Mr. Libin makes the case for intensive food production as the best way for this planet to provide food for a projected 9 billion inhabitants.  

His point is simple; it’s better for the planet to intensify terrestrial food production and use state-of-the-art technology, thus leaving poor quality farm land as forest, mountains and rolling hills.

Will this feed the world?

 Although “greenies” would suggest that acres and acres of ”ma and pa” organic fields would be lovely, the fact is, there isn’t enough farm land in the world to supply the demand for protein.

Same goes with aquaculture.  Pound for pound, acre for acre, fish farms output more food, with fewer inputs and emissions, than land farms, without ravaging oceans or clearing land. “What most people don’t realize is that fish are so much more efficient at converting into food,” says Dr. Patrick Moore: their cold blood and not having to fight gravity makes seafood emit less than half the greenhouse gases of equivalent amounts of land-based meat.”

Alaska is a prime example of this. Back in the “good ‘ol days”, wild salmon were simply caught and consumed. But soon, demand outstripped supply. With record low catches in the 1960’s Alaska made a decision – intensify the culture of salmon – grow salmon in hatcheries and release them into the ocean to graze for food. Others parts of the world took it one step further – grow salmon in hatcheries and continue to culture them in enclosed nets in the ocean. Either way, we have effectively created efficiencies in growing salmon for human consumption.

Yes, there is a risk to this intensive production of protein, and therefore, the benefit must outweigh that risk. As Mr. Libin correctly points out, the clear benefit is leaving most of the planet alone.

Of course, a true stab at the hypocrisy of “environmental” groupies isn’t complete until Dr. David Suzuki has been challenged.

Mr. Libin writes, “David Suzuki rhapsodizes about Cuba’s “sustainable” archaic ox-ploughed farms, but that country imports 85% of its food.”

To read the entire article, click here.

I have recently been commissioined to build a small Aquaponic system for a B&B in the forest near Knysna. The intention, is that this system will eventually become a training facility and I will conduct Aquaponic (AP)courses from the site. The delegates will stay at the B&B for the duration of the course and learn AP in a lecture room environment as well as hands-on in this training system.

Like all other systems, this one starts with a “rough” plan. Here it is;

Briefly, it consists of two areas.  The first is a 6m x 3m hobby tunnel in which we will have a small 1.8m diameter (1.2m deep) mesh pond and 4 x 3m growbeds.  The second is an area of similar size, but under shade cloth.  Here there will be a 3m diameter (1.2m deep) mesh pond and 4 x 3m growbeds.  A 5000L tank at a lower level will act as the sump.

The area chosen is an existing terrace which we are widening.  This area was previously used as a vegetable garden, but with the drought and regular raiding by baboons and monkeys, it has fallen into disrepair.  Here is what it looked like before I started.

And here is what it looks like after some clearing and compacting was done.

After two weeks work, we have achieved the following;

• Cleared and compacted the terrace.
• Cast a slab for the sump at the lowest point and placed the sump.
• Cast a slab for the smaller tank which will be inside the greenhouse tunnel.
• Planted the poles for the shade cloth area.
• Constructed the greenhouse frame, levelled and concreted into place.
• Planted the poles for the growbed stands.
• Unrolled and bolted together the mesh pond frames.

Here is about where we are now.

I will be sure to keep you posted.

Synaptoman

A geodesic cage used by Open Blue Sea Farms

If the the future of food is hazy right now due to overconsumption, globalization, and climate change, the future of seafood is even murkier. The global fish catch topped out sometime in the 1990s, leaving many fish populations more or less permanently overstressed. Aquaculture has grown to satisfy rising global demand – but fish farms have brought environmental devastation to many a coastal zone.

Is the answer to pack up those coastal operations and move fish farming offshore? That’s the question I attempt to answer in this Yale Environment 360 piece. I started out with the assumption that, whatever the environmental hazards, a big move into deeper waters is inevitable someday – the economic and political pressures pointing in that direction, now weak in the United States and elsewhere, are only going to rise as the world’s demand for protein goes up.

And, on the surface anyway, offshore aquaculture is promising. The entrepreneurs and advocates I talked to seemed environmentally responsible and thoughtful. If you locate a fish farm in deep water (employing large pens or cages designed to withstand the stress of the open ocean), many of the problems endemic to coastal fish farming – accumulating waste, nutrients, et al and the attendant ecosystem damage – are minimized.

On the other hand, as I note in the piece:

The example of the lone, tiny fish farm surrounded by miles of open water is not an ideal indicator, though. O’Hanlon and other fish farmers say that to be profitable they’ll need to scale up.

“It’s an industry that will achieve better economics as it scales,” says Neil Sims, the co-founder and CEO of Kona Blue Farms, an offshore operation in Hawaii that farms a local species of yellowtail it calls Kona kampachi. “We need to grow this industry. Larger pens are going to be more efficient than smaller ones. Better technology, more automation is going to be better than using manpower. We need to locate closer to the market or find ways to get product to market more inexpensively.”

Indeed, if deep-sea fish farming is to have any impact on the seafood marketplace, not to mention global food supplies, it will have to get much, much bigger. That prospect alarms environmental groups that have spent years fighting poorly managed industrial fish farms.

As fish farming migrates offshore, we’re going to have to confront these problems. Right now, though, there’s basically no federal U.S. aquaculture policy. And the longer we go without one, the greater the risks.

Way back in 1989, Jared Diamond defined the ‘evil quartet’ of habitat destruction, over-exploitation, introduced species and extinction cascades as the principal drivers of modern extinctions. I think we could easily update this to the ‘evil quintet’ that includes climate change, and I would even go so far as to add extinction synergies as a the sixth member of the ‘evil sextet’.

But the future could hold quite a few more latent threats to biodiversity, and a corresponding number of potential solutions to its degradation. That’s why Bill Sutherland of Cambridge University recently got together with some other well-known scientists and technology leaders to do a ‘horizon scanning’ exercise to define what these threats and solutions might be in the immediate future. It’s an interesting, eclectic and somewhat enigmatic list, so I thought I’d summarise it here. The paper is entitled A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010 and was recently published online in Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

In no particular order or relative rank, Sutherland and colleagues list the following 15 ‘issues’ that I’ve broadly divided into ‘Emerging Threats’ and ‘Potential Solutions’:

Emerging Threats

1. Microplastic pollution – The massive increase in plastics found in the world’s waterways and oceans really doesn’t have much focus right now in conservation research, but it should. We really don’t know how much we’re potentially threatening species with this source of pollution.
2. Nanosilver in wastewater – The ubiquity of antimicrobial silver oxide or ions in products these days needs careful consideration for what the waste might be doing to our microbial communities that keep ecosystems alive and functioning.
3. Stratospheric aerosols – A simultaneous solution and threat. Creating what would in effect be an artificial global cooling by injecting particles like sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere might work to cool the planet down somewhat. However, it would not reduce carbon dioxide, ocean acidification or other greenhouse gas-related changes. This strikes me as a potential for serious mucking up of the global climate and only a band-aid solution to the real problem.
4. Deoxygenation of the oceans – Very scary. Ironically today I was listening to a talk by Martin Kennedy on the deep-time past of ocean hypoxia and he suggests we’re well on our way to a situation where our shelf waters could essentially become too anoxic for marine life to persist. It’s happened before, and rapid climate change makes the prospect plausible within less than a century. And you thought acidification was scary.
5. Changes in denitrifying bacteria – Just like we’re changing the carbon cycle, we’re buggering up the nitrogen cycle as well. Changing our water bodies to nitrogen sources rather than sinks could fundamentally change marine ecosystems for the worse.
6. High-latitude volcanism – One of these horrible positive feedback ideas. Reducing high-latitude ice cover exposes all these slumbering volcanoes that once ‘released’, start increasing atmospheric gas concentrations and contributing to faster ice melt and sea level rise.
7. Trans-Arctic dispersal and colonisation – Warming polar seas and less ice mean fewer barriers to species movements. Expect Arctic ecosystems to be a hotbed of invasion, regime shifts and community reshuffling as a result.
8. Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish – Not one I would have focussed on, but interesting. These spiny, venomous fish like to eat a lot of other species, and so represent a potentially important invasive species in the marine realm.
9. REDD and non-forested ecosystems – Heralded as a great potential coup for forest preservation and climate change mitigation, focussing on maintaining forests for their carbon sequestration value might divert pressure toward non-forested habitats and ironically, threaten a whole new sphere of species.
10. International land acquisition – Global financial crises and dwindling food supplies mean that governments are acquiring more and more huge tracts of land for agricultural development. While this might solve some immediate issues, it could potentially threaten a lot more undeveloped land in the long run, putting even more pressure on habitats.

Potential Solutions

1. Synthetic meat – Ever thought about eating a sausage grown in a vat rather than cut from a dead pig? It could become the norm and a way of reducing the huge pressure on terrestrial and aquatic systems for the production of livestock and fish for human protein provision.
2. Artificial life – Both a risk and a potential solution. While I’ve commented before on the pointlessness of cloning technology for conservation, the ability to create genomes and reinvigorate species on the brink is an exciting prospect. It’s also frightening as hell because we don’t know how all these custom-made genomes might react and transform naturally evolved ones.
3. Biochar – Burn organic material (e.g., plant matter) in the absence of oxygen, you get biochar. This essentially sequesters a lot of carbon that can then be put underground. The upshot is that agricultural yields can also increase. Would there be a trade-off though between land available for biochar sequestration and natural habitats?
4. Mobile-sensing technology – Not so much a solution per se, but the rapid acceleration of remote technology will make our ability to measure and predict the subtleties of ecosystem and climate change much more precise. A lot more work and application required here.
5. Assisted colonisation – I’ve blogged about this before. With such rapid shifts in climate, we might be obliged to move species around so that they can keep up with rapidly changing conditions. Many pros and cons here, not least of which is exacerbating the invasive species problems around the globe.

Certainly some interesting ideas here and worth a thought or two. I wonder if the discipline of ‘conservation biology’ might even exist in 50-100 years – we might all end up being climate or agricultural engineers with a focus on biodiversity-friendly technology. Who knows?

CJA Bradshaw

Sutherland, W., Clout, M., Côté, I., Daszak, P., Depledge, M., Fellman, L., Fleishman, E., Garthwaite, R., Gibbons, D., & De Lurio, J. (2009). A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010 Trends in Ecology & Evolution DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.003

Welcome to the final 2009 issue.  This month we have an article by guest writer, Frank Callo as well as an assortment of other fine goodies.   Enjoy.

The Agrarian Urbanite is a monthly grassroots publication dedicated to providing practical agricultural education focused on sustainable, regenerative and organic techniques.

The Agrarian Urbanite is a guide for creating balanced, healthier and sustainable communities & neighborhoods.

The Agrarian Urbanite hopes to restore Spirit, Humankind and Earth by being a catalyst for folks to think beyond the garden, building foundations of knowledge & inspiring action.

Volume 1 Issue 7 Dec 2009

Now, get to reading!

A Sally Lightfoot Crab (Grapsus grapsus) sits atop a rock, Galapagos Island, Ecuador. A recent study found hard shelled crabs and lobsters grew thicker shells when exposed to more acidic ocean water.

Courtesy, kookr @ flickr

As the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere increases, the ocean too sees higher dissolved carbon dioxide levels. This is because the ocean is a natural carbon dioxide filter, or sponge, as earlier reported in Carbon dioxide absorbed by ocean diminishes.

Ocean water pH falls as more carbon dioxide is absorbed, making the ocean more acidic. For the most part, acidification of the ocean concerns marine researchers.

Organisms with shells were previously thought to be the most seriously effected by acidification. Because, As Science daily reports, “carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater — one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.”

This prompted a recent study were organisms were exposed to varying levels of dissolved carbon dioxide. The results surprised researchers. According to a University of Chapel Hill study published in Dec, by the scientific journal, Geology, some crab, shrimp and lobster living in more acidic sea water actually grow thicker shells.

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said study co-author Anne Cohen of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in a statement. “We can’t assume that elevated (carbon dioxide) causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms”

Science daily reports Justin B. Ries, an author of the study, thinks the shelled animals were “somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”

While it is clear that some organisms are not negatively impacted by high dissolved carbon dioxide levels, researchers explain this may still be bad news for sensitive ocean ecosystems. Seven of the 18 shelled species were able to build more calcium carbonate shell, but National Geographic explains, “Ten types of organisms (including oysters, scallops, temperate corals and tube worms) had reduced calcification under elevated CO2, with several (hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins) seeing their shells dissolve.”

The pencil urchin on the right was exposed to current CO2 levels; the smaller urchin was exposed to the higher CO2 levels in the study by the University of Chapel Hill.

Courtesy, Tom Kleindinst, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

This could also led to shifts in the predator-prey relationship. “There is no magic formula to predict how different species will respond, but one thing you can be sure of is that ecosystems as a whole will change because of these varied individual responses,” Ries said in a statement.

So, while it may be both interesting and surprising that a few organisms are benefiting from ocean acidification and global warming in general; it’s important to view ocean ecosystems on a larger scale. Larger, stronger shells might provide a temporary advantage, but food chains come full circle. Crabs for instance, feed on clams, which saw their shells dissolve in the acidic sea water. No matter how thick their shells grow crabs will always need something to eat. Perhaps thicker shells aren’t so advantageous for animals like crab, shrimp and lobster when it come to hunting for food.

Written by Niall Fahy of RealitySandwich.com

http://realitysandwich.com/urban_farming_revolution

What if we were to grow food, demonstrate the principles of sustainability, and provide green education and employment in our own neighborhoods?

An Australian sustainability collective has come up with a novel approach to bringing ecological organic food production into our cities. Their design is fast, efficient, cheap, demountable, and scalable. Welcome to the urban farming revolution proposed by CERES.

Cities, in the normal scheme of things, suck inordinate amounts of resources from the surrounding countryside. They are massive energy sinks, guzzling power and food while producing tonnes of carbon dioxide and waste. Moreover, the city limits demarcate a perceived division between synthetic and natural — between the high speed sophistication of modern civilization and the relative placidity of agrarian life. We often tend to think that in our living arrangements one has to largely forsake one’s connection to either culture or nature.

Climate change and the approach of peak oil will demand localization of food and energy production. With this in mind, CERES (the Center for Education and Research in Environmental Strategies) — a community based model of sustainable society in the metropolis of Melbourne, Australia — plans to build a number of modular high-density organic farming hubs on disused pieces of land throughout the city.

These intensive urban mini-farms are designed to be highly productive, energy efficient, customizable, and cheap to build using shipping containers and plastic poly-tunnels. Incorporating aquaponic vegetable cultivation, fish farming, mushroom production, beehives, and a food processing and distribution service, the farms are designed within the permaculture ethos of mimicking nature’s flows. The waste of one process becomes fuel for the next, and each stage of the process yields a product.

Aquaponic farming means that water (rather than soil) is used as a medium in which to grow plants. In an urban setting, this solves the all-too-likely issue of soil contamination due to industrial pollution. In the CERES model the aquaponic system will be fertilized using water pumped from the fish farm beneath, which is rich in nutrients from their waste. The fish are fed vegetable scraps and worms grown in mushroom compost. Root systems of tomatoes, cucumbers, eggplants, leafy greens, strawberries, sprouts, and herbs will in turn clean the water before it recirculates to the fish.

Biodigesters that can decontaminate organic waste and turn it into usable energy are another potential component of this rapid-turnover design, as are solar panels and a water harvesting system. The food distribution area — which will operate as a co-operative — could also function as a café, education center, and community social space. As no permanent structures are built, the need for planning permission is eliminated, making the hubs easier to implement and also more palatable to any property developers or government bodies that may end up being involved.

One of these farms can be set up within a week, and the first will be installed in Melbourne in early 2010. The project’s proponents want this to be the first of many, and are talking to the local Office of Housing and Schools, seeking pieces of land that will be available for as little as three years. And they can’t wait to see what people around the world will do with their idea. The hubs will be intended to inspire people all over the world to follow suit and refine the designs to fit their own local needs.

Given sufficient opportunity, the concept could provide a significant portion of the city’s food while providing education and employment for hundreds of urban farmers and installers. Through being empowered in this way, communities can become more self-sufficient, not to mention happier.

Central to the concept is that sustainability initiatives are located in a participatory social setting. At CERES this entails community arts and music festivals, an organic garden and market/food co-op, a plant nursery, a bicycle workshop, a café, community and school gardens, an energy park, weekly sweat lodges, and numerous experiential education programs.

The vision is that sustainability need not entail a return to antiquated ways of living, but can merely mean the incorporation of innovative technology into a respectfully treated environment. This sharing of their aspirations for urban farming is one way they hope to tap into the global community’s yearning for reconnection with the Earth, feed their neighbors, and help to make our cities places where nature is not absent.

Earth Solutions deeply resonates with this article and the spirit of this movement. We plan on expanding our current Village in a Box product line by adding biodigesters, spirulina ponds and other sustainable living tools. Our goal is to provide resources for people to lift their ideas into action and become more deeply integrated in the care of our planet and our communites.

Image by nicolas.boullosa, courtesy of Creative Commons license.

The Blue Water Revolution

Farmed Tuna from Kona Blue I have not tried, but it on first look seems to be a novel idea.

Yoga podcasts by Peter Barnett who is also the owner of Black Dog Yoga Studios in Sherman Oaks, California

I’m starting to realize that my life is really pretty monotonous. I think it’s even worse right now because I was sick and I missed 2 and half weeks of school, so I’m desperately trying to catch up on my workload. I’ll try to concentrate on one topic per day for this assignment, because until I experiment with changing things in my life, it will be pretty redundant.

Friday started off pretty much like every other day. My alarm went off at 10am and I got up at 10:30. Again, lights, coffee, computer. I wonder if I could go a whole week without coffee. I think I’ll try it for this project… Spent sometime on Facebook, did some work for my website, watched a little TV, and before I knew it was time for lunch.

Lunch was a bagel with light Philadelphia cream cheese and smoked salmon. I’ve been really careful about the money I spend on groceries for some time now, so I felt I needed a little reward. So, is salmon farming a good thing or a bad thing? My money’s on bad thing. Here’s what David Suzuki has to say on the subject:

“Open-net-cage fish farming is a controversial practice that has raised serious environmental concerns around the world.

Problems associated with open-net-cage salmon farming include:

• Sea lice: Sea lice are natural parasites that attach to and feed on salmon, consuming mucus, skin, muscle, and blood. In high numbers, lice cause stress, osmotic failure (disturbed salt-water balance), increased susceptibility to viral or bacterial infection, and ultimately death. Sea lice are considered common and benign on adult salmon, but they are naturally rare on juvenile wild salmon. Where there are no fish farms, there are few sea lice on juvenile wild salmon, because the wild adult salmon that carry the parasite are offshore when juveniles enter the sea. Industrial fish farms, however, create densely packed host populations dangerously near B.C.’s wild salmon rivers. Because the farmed fish are held in net pens, they are exposed to parasites that infect wild fish or other nearby farms. Sea lice infect the farmed salmon, which then amplify the parasite in the surrounding environment. One louse can easily kill the smallest juvenile pink or chum salmon. Juvenile pink and chum salmon do not have thick protective scales and are simply too small to tolerate lice. The juvenile salmon become infected as they migrate past the salmon farms, and many die. Since sea-lice infestations began in the Broughton Archipelago in 2001, sea lice have commonly killed over 80 per cent of the annual pink salmon returns to the area, causing a rapid four-year decline. If the sea lice infestations continue the Broughton, pink salmon are expected to collapse to one per cent of their historical abundance in a further four years, and local extinction is certain.
• Pollution: Farmed fish are grown in net cages that float in the ocean.  Pollution from fish excrement and waste from excess food is discharged directly into the marine environment. This pollution can be divided into two classes, organic and chemical. The main source of organic pollution from salmon farms is fish excrement and uneaten feed. Other contributions to organic waste are fish mortalities that sink to the seabed, and fish blood from farms that harvest and bleed fish on site. The accumulated waste can smother the organisms and set up anoxic (oxygen depleted) conditions in the seabed sediment. The direct decomposition of farm waste is only one way in which oxygen depletion from seawater can occur. A more troubling contribution comes from nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) contained in the waste. Nutrient pollution, especially nitrogen, has been identified as a primary cause of degradation in marine waters. The extra nutrients from the organic waste stimulate the growth of marine plants and algae, which deplete dissolved oxygen when they die and decompose. The sources of chemical pollution from salmon farms include antibiotics and other drugs, pesticides, feed additives, paints used on netcages and boats to prevent marine growth (antifouling paints), and disinfectants. Many of the chemicals used in aquaculture have been adopted from other industrial sectors and have never been evaluated with respect to their effects on marine ecosystems.

• Drugs: A variety of chemicals, including antibiotics, pesticides and fungicides are used on salmon farms to treat disease outbreaks. These drugs are often administered to the fish through their feed. Since salmon are mostly raised in open marine netcages, most of the drug, or its metabolic byproducts, end up in the marine environment through uneaten feed or the salmon’s excrements.Not surprisingly, investigators have shown that antibiotics can significantly alter the microbial community found in marine sediment. Measurements reveal that antibiotics found in marine sediment near salmon farms lower the conversion rates for sulphates and nitrates. What consequences may arise from an altered marine microbial community has not been studied. There is also the question of the possible effects of any chemicals produced when the fish metabolically convert the administered antibiotic. Sea lice infestations often cause problems at salmon farms, and are the primary reason that pesticides are used. The Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency has only approved azamethiphos for use against sea lice. Although not approved, the other pesticides are used with the permission of a veterinarian, often with little or no data available on their effects on the marine environment.
• Escapes of farmed fish: When farmed salmon escape, they pose several problem to wild species. Escaped salmon can be carriers of disease and parasites, which pose a threat to wild salmon populations. When the species farmed is native to an area there may still be an impact from escaped farmed salmon breeding with populations of wild salmon that are genetically adapted to specific streams. In British Columbia there is a greater danger arising from the fact that most of the salmon farmed are Atlantic salmon. Evidence exists that escaped Atlantic salmon can breed in BC’s wild streams. The potential negative consequences of this could be dramatic.
• Net loss: A total of 2.7 to 3.5 tonnes of wild fish are used to make 1 tonne of farmed salmon. Salmon farming proponents often point out that, since the wild fisheries are collapsing, farming the oceans is necessary to feed a hungry world. They claim that their industry can supply food while taking pressure of ocean resources. But it isn’t that straightforward. The impact of aquaculture (farming of a seafood species) varies, depending on what species is farmed and what method is used. With regard to taking pressure of ocean resources, a key factor is whether the species being farmed is carnivorous or not. There are more than 220 different species of seafood currently farmed in the world and about 85 per cent of the total production is made up on non-carnivorous species. In British Columbia, however, the majority of aquaculture production consists of salmon, a carnivore. In order to try and mimic their natural diet, carnivorous species are given feed that is high in fishmeal and fish oil. These key ingredients are obtained from wild fish such as sardines, mackerel and anchovies, which are mainly supplied by South American fisheries.”

Source: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salmon/

Comments: First of all, this might seem like a lame attempt at copy pasting a whole bunch of information, but the information is actually taken from several pages which I read and edited into a condensed version. Second of all, why does this class keep making feel bad about everything I do? Third of all, salmon isn’t just bad. It’s TERRIBLE! They eat 3 times the amount of fish they produce AND the fish they eat comes from South America?!?! Damn… What I think is unfortunate is that we aren’t made aware of any of these issues. Even if we buy salmon from Canada, we don’t know how it was raised, if antibiotics where used, where the feed comes from, etc. What worse is that we aren’t presented with any alternatives (not at my grocery store anyway). I didn’t see any wild smoked salmon for sale. The problem is that smoked salmon is one of the BEST foods on earth. What to do?

The rest of the day was pretty uneventful. I wrote a reflexion for this class and then read the next Social Context reading on my to do list. Around 10pm, I went to see some friends who were dining out at a restaurant. I had a bi-bim-bap, which is a Korean dish made with rice, various marinated vegetables, beef and an egg (I know… beef… egg… bad). Got home around 2am and I couldn’t sleep so I watched some TV. That’s pretty much it!

3144509    อุตสาหกรรมการผลิตสัตว์น้ำ    Aquaculture Industry

ภาพรวมของอุตสาหกรรมการผลิตสัตว์น้ำทั้งภาครัฐและเอกชน รูปแบบของการเพาะเลี้ยงและการจัดการฟาร์มสัตว์น้ำสวยงามและสัตว์น้ำเศรษฐกิจ ปัญหาและอุปสรรคในการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์น้ำ การผลิตยาและสารเคมีที่ใช้ในการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์ ธุรกิจที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสัตว์น้ำ โรงงานผลิตอาหารสัตว์น้ำ สินค้าสัตว์น้ำและบรรจุภัณฑ์ ห้องเย็นและกระบวนการแปรรูปผลิตภัณฑ์สัตว์น้ำ ตลาดกลางสินค้าสัตว์น้ำ การควบคุมคุณภาพผลผลิตสัตว์น้ำ การจัดการพิพิธภัณฑ์สัตว์น้ำ บทบาทของสัตวแพทย์ในธุรกิจสัตว์น้ำ

(Overview of governmental and private sector of aquaculture industry, ornamental and economical aquatic animal culture and farm management, problems and solutions in aquaculture, manufacturing of drugs and chemicals for aquatic animals, aquaculture related business, aquatic animal feed manufacturing, aquatic animal product and packaging, cold storage and frozen food processing, central market for aquaculture products, quality control of aquaculture products, aquatic animal museum management, role of veterinarians in aquatic animal business.)

(3144509 จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย)

251101     การเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้าทั่วไป     General Aquaculture

ประวัติการเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ า ความรู้ทั่วไปเกี่ยวกับการเพาะเลี้ยงปลาและสัตว์นํ้ าอื่นๆ การสร้างบ่อ การใส่ปุ๋ย การให้อาหาร และปัญหาที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ า

(History of aquaculture; general information on breeding and cultivation of fishes and other aquatic animals including pond construction, fertilization, feeding and related problems.)

(251101 มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์)

251211     หลักการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้า     Principles of Aquaculture

ความรู้ทั่วไปเกี่ยวกับเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ าในโลก ประวัติการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ า และสภาวะปัจจุบันเกี่ยวกับการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ าในประเทศไทย ความรู้เกี่ยวกับดิน นํ้ า ปุ๋ย และอาหารเพื่อการเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ า ตลอดจนชนิดของสัตว์นํ้ าที่นิยมเลี้ยง

(Introduction to aquaculture of the world; history and present status of aquaculture in Thailand; information on soils, water, fertilizers, and feed as related to aquaculture; and species suitable for culturing purpose.)

(251211 มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์)

251351     คุณภาพนํ้าสําหรับการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้า     Water Quality for Aquaculture

คุณภาพนํ้ าสํ าหรับการเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ า การหมุนเวียนของแร่ธาตุ ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างคุณภาพนํ้ ากับกํ าลังผลิตของบ่อเลี้ยงสัตว์นํ้ า

(Water quality for aquaculture, nutrient cycle, and relationship between water quality and aquatic animal pond productivity.)

(251351 มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์)