User:Jpshipsey8/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Jpshipsey8. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Environmental concerns

Impacts of animal agriculture

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, animal agriculture makes a "very substantial contribution" to climate change, air pollution, land, soil and water degradation, land use concerns, deforestation and the reduction of biodiversity.^[1] The high growth and intensity of animal agriculture has created severe damage to the environment worldwide; with meat production predicted to double from now to 2050, maintaining the status quo's environmental impact would demand a 50 percent reduction of impacts per unit of output. As the FAO states, animal livestock "emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." ^[1] Some researchers argue that establishing sustainable production systems will depend upon a large-scale replacement of traditional livestock with edible insects; such a shift would require a major change in Western perceptions of edible insects, pressure to conserve remaining habitats, and an economic push for food systems that incorporate insects into the supply chain. ^[2]

Greenhouse gas emission

In total, the emissions of the livestock sector account for 18 percent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. ^[3] This is a greater share than transportation. ^[1] Using the ratio between body growth realized and carbon production as an indicator of environmental impact, conventional agriculture practices entail substantial negative impacts.^[3] An analysis conducted at the University of Wageningen, Netherlands found that the CO2 production per kilogram of mass gain for the five insect species studied was 39-129% that of pigs and 12-54% that of cattle. This finding corroborates existing literature on the higher feed conversion efficiency of insects than those of mammalian livestock. For four of the five species studied, GHG emission was "much lower than documented for pigs when expressed per kg of mass gain and only around 1% of the GHG emission for ruminants."^[3]

Land degradation

Animal livestock is the largest anthropogenic user of land.^[1] 26 percent of the Earth's ice-free terrestrial surface is occupied by grazing, while feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land and livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the planet's surface. Livestock activity, such as overgrazing, erosion, and soil compaction, has been the primary cause of the degradation of 20 percent of the world's pastures and rangeland.^[1]

Ammonia pollution

Animal livestock is responsible for 64 percent of man-made ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain. ^[1] By extension, animal waste contributes to environmental pollution through nitrification and acidification of soil. ^[3]

Water resources

With 64 percent of the world's population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025, it is vitally important that we reassess our usage and treatment of water resources. ^[1] As the FAO states,

The livestock sector [...] is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, "dead" zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world's fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorous into freshwater resources. Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables.^[1] (brackets added)

Comparison to animal agriculture

The more efficient methods of matter assimilation and nutrient transport used by insects make insect cultivation a more efficient method of converting consumed matter into biomass than rearing traditional livestock; more than 10 times more plant nutrients are needed in order to produce one kilogram of meat than one kilogram of insect biomass. ^[4] This indicates that lower resource use and ecosystem strain could be expected from insects at all levels of the supply chain.^[4] Edible insects also display exponentially faster growth and breeding cycles than traditional livestock. As the Wageningen report states, "the average daily gain (ADG) of the five insect species studied was 4.0-19.6 percent, the minimum value of this range being close to the 3.2% reported for pigs, whereas the maximum value was 6 times higher. Compared to cattle (0.3%), insect ADG values were much higher." Additionally, all insect species studied produced much lower amounts of ammonia than conventional livestock, though further research is needed to determine the long-term impact. The authors conclude that insects could serve as a more environmentally friendly source of dietary protein. However, a complete lifecycle analysis for species of edible insects is currently lacking. Such an analysis is needed for a conclusive evaluation of the potential of insect protein to play a greater role in the human food mix. ^[3]

Food security

Current use in food supply

Edible insects have long been used by ethnic groups in Asia, Africa, Mexico and South America as cheap and sustainable sources of protein, and the major role of entomophagy in human food security is well-documented. ^[5] Up to 2,086 species are consumed by 3,071 ethnic groups in 130 countries. ^[6] While more attention is needed to fully assess the potential of edible insects, they provide a natural source of essential carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals and vitamins and offer an opportunity to bridge the gap in protein consumption between poor and wealthy nations. ^[5]

Indigenous cultivation

Edible insects can provide economic, nutritional, and ecological advantages to the indigenous populations that commonly raise them. ^[7] For instance, the mopane worm of South Africa provides a "flagship taxon" for the conservation of mopane woodlands, and some researchers have argued that edible insects provide a unique opportunity for insect conservation by combining issues of food security and forest conservation through a solution which includes appropriate habitat management and recognition of local traditional knowledge and enterprises.^[7] The rural people, who primarily "search, gather, fix, commercialize and store this important natural resource", do not exterminate the species which are valuable to their lives and livelihoods.^[6]

Pest harvesting

Some researchers have proposed entomophagy as a solution to policy incoherence created by traditional agriculture, by which conditions are created which favor a few insect species, which then multiply and are termed "pests". ^[4] In parts of Mexico, Sphenarium purpurascens is controlled by its capture and use as food. Such strategies allow decreased use of pesticide and create a source of income for farmers totaling nearly $3000 per family. Some argue that pesticide use is economically inefficient due to its destruction of insects which may contain up to 75 percent high quality animal protein in order to save crops which contain no more than 14 percent animal protein. ^[4]

Policy instruments

International bodies

The Food and Agriculture Organization suggests that the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM) could be used as a source of financing for the spread of a number of initiatives aimed at reducing the impact of livestock. ^[1] It is conceivable that the CDM, or some other grant program, could provide incentives for the development of a legal and resource base for a system of entomophagy.

References