| ||
 Protein deficit in EU agricultureJump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Food Group -> Food Group General Discussion | Message format |
Anne Thomas |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 319  | A worrying report suggests that we are relying extremely heavily on imported protein such as Soy beans in the EU. This is often grown in areas cleared of rainforest. We need to persuade our farmers to grow more of these crops for themselves as the price of oil goes up otherwise we will be stuck. We also need to eat less animal and more plant protein. See this FOE campaign for more information. https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12d9fa7853dd9af7 This is the last section of a rather long EU report. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT The EU Protein crop deficit A recent study published by the European Commission* on the protein crop sector reveals a remarkable decrease in protein crop production in the European Union in the past ten years. The main dried pulses excluding soybeans decreased by 30%, and soybean production by 12%. This trend increases an already existing alarming dependence of the Union on the imports of protein crops, which are mainly used for animal feed and carries major risks especially for the EU livestock sector, as price volatility on international markets has substantially increased. *(LMC international report). Overall EU protein crop production currently only occupies 3% of the Union's arable land (excluding fruit and vegetables). In spite of public support for the sector since 1978, production of dried pulses, which temporarily increased during the 1980s, has again decreased to roughly one million ha in 2008. More than 40 million tonnes of crop proteins, mainly soy beans and corn gluten feed are imported annually, representing 80% of the EU's crop protein consumption. In terms of land use abroad for crop protein imports into the EU, this represents ten per cent of the EU's arable land, or 20 million ha. Historical reasons for the deficit and its consequences The deficit in protein crop production goes back to previously established international trade agreements (the General Tariff and Trade Agreement (GATT) and the Blair House Agreement), which allowed the EU to protect its cereal production and in return allowed dutyfree imports of oilseed and protein crops into the EU. Protein crop production was therefore at a severe competitive disadvantage and fell sharply accordingly. Farmers and local processing business therefore lost interest in protein crops and also lost practical knowledge of cultivating and adding value to them. Breeders stopped developing disease resistant and highly performing varieties. European research in this field has also substantially declined reflecting the low demand in seeds and technical support. The EU is phasing out support for protein crops and drying facilities for lucerne/alfalfa and other leguminous fodders. The most worrying fact is that throughout Europe, practical experience in protein crop production as part of extended crop rotation is being lost, including on-farm selection, storage, processing and on-farm use as animal feed. Finally, also traders in oil and protein crops are now fully focussed on protein crop imports and show little interest in domestic production. Reducing the EU's protein deficit - an important element of CAP reform The European Commission and member states have pointed at advantages of a more balanced supply and consumption of domestic protein crops as part of an integrated strategy responding to new challenges like climate change, agricultural biodiversity loss, depletion of soils, and pollution of groundwater and price volatility for agricultural products on the world market. The extended use of protein crops in crop rotation offers major agro-environmental and climate mitigation advantages. Regarding climate change, leguminous varieties such as field peas, broad and field beans, lupins, lentils, chicken peas, but also lucerne/alfalfa and clover can substantially reduce green house gas emissions through assimilation and fixation of nitrogen in the soil and thus reduce of the use of nitrogen fertiliser by up to 100kg N per ha and month. With a higher percentage of protein crops in crop rotation, soil fertility and structure, nutrient storage as well as health of following crops is improved. Permanent grassclover mixtures for animal feed, mixtures of cereals and proteins cover soils better and so PR\837708EN.doc 9/10 PE450.760v02-00 EN reduce nutrient run-off into groundwater and rivers, as well as offering better conditions for bees and other pollinating insects. Extended crop rotation reduces the need for crop protection intervention and can contribute to the conservation of diversity in wild and cultivated species and varieties. Protein crops and enlarged crop rotation - reduced production costs and increased environmental advantages The extended use of leguminous crops in crop rotation substantially reduces the need to apply nitrogen fertiliser which contributes not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its production but also overall production costs for farmers. With a global trend towards rising crude oil prices, costs for agricultural inputs including fuels are also increasing continuously. Crop rotation including protein crops can reduce fuel consumption in soil treatment, as the content of humus and soil moisture is better preserved and requires less tilling. A recent study published by the European Parliament (PE 438.591) and a study of the French Commission on sustainable development of the French Government (Dec 2009 no 15) estimates a reduction of costs for fertiliser use in France of up to 100 Mio € per annum. In short, the following advantages of protein crop production within extended crop rotation have been identified in the mentioned studies: Increase of nitrogen fixation, creation of a balanced C/N ratio in the soil and improvement of humus content, reduction of pesticides treatments and use of herbicides as a consequence of reduced plant disease and herb invasion; improved soil structure. Quality of protein crop production and compound feeding stuff The efficiency of using protein crops in animal feed production strongly depends on the content of essential amino acids in the various crops and the composition of compound feedstuffs. Soybeans are currently considered to deliver the highest integrated content of these acids with a very good balance of nutrients especially for pork and poultry production. Therefore today the soy content of compound feedstuffs is around 50% for egg and poultry production is based on soy beans. In the production of pork meat and beef the soy content of compound feeds fluctuates around 28% and 21% respectively. Possibilities for substituting imported soybeans and other non-domestically produced animal feed products strongly depend upon new incentives for farmers to grow these crops and on adequate infrastructure for processing into animal feed. The European Commission should therefore look into possibilities to overcome the current low level of research, seed selection and marketing, knowledge of production, storage and use of these crops for on-farm feed production. Specific support, research, extension services and training In order to offer farmers new incentives to grow and use protein crops along with cereals and oil seeds and their by-products, the reform of the CAP should include horizontal measures which do not offer a specific crop premium but which encourage farming practices responding to the new challenges and at the same time overcoming the protein deficit of the Union. Article 68 of regulation 73/2009 has been used by a number of member states for specific support for protein crop production as a contribution to agro-environmental practices. However this option should become EU-wide practice to respond to the new challenges. The Commission should consider a top-up payment with compulsory rotation of at least four different crops including at least one protein crop, as well as increased support for non-arable permanent grassland areas including specific grass-leguminous fodder mixtures. These PE450.760v02-00 10/10 PR\837708EN.doc XT measures would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also contribute to a higher level of plant and animal health. The Commission should also consider specific support of investments in regional, local or on-farm facilities for storage, cleaning, and on-farm processing of protein crops as part of rural development programmes. It is also important to carry out a study on current deficits in research and seed production, including the needs of improved extension services and to consider a decentralised approach to research programmes which takes into account farmers' local knowledge and sustainable farming systems. The Commission might also consider to re-establish an agricultural research unit in the General Directorate for agriculture and rural development. Towards a better balance between and animal protein and crop protein production A very high percentage of protein crops is currently produced for animal feed, while the human consumption of grain legumes has continuously decreased in the EU. Regarding the commitments of the EU to actively contribute to global food security and to actively combat climate change, future agriculture and rural development policy should work towards not only a more balanced animal protein and crop protein production so as to reduce green house gases and run off of nutrients into watersheds, but should also motivate consumers, public procurement authorities and catering services to chose a more balanced, environmentally friendly and diverse choice of food in their diet. At the same time the Commission should take legislative initiatives to reduce food waste throughout the food chain, including slaughter offal and swill the use or disposal of which is still not adequately regulated. The Commission should firmly apply the precautionary principle in this field, but should also take legislative initiatives to reduce food waste and to improve the overall balance of animal and crop production in view of the new challenges | ||
| |||
| Agric |
| ||
Veteran Posts: 214 | Yes, true. I have some more specific observations... Growing protein (mainly legume, almost none in this part of the world) and grain (mainly barley and wheat in this part of the world) crops to feed animals is pretty unsustainable, let alone importing large quantities of soybeans which are a very major element in animal feeds. It's fundamentally immoral - from both human and animal perspectives - to produce protein and grain crops to intensively rear animals for food the way industrial agriculture does. We should stop it! Animals are useful ways of producing food from marginal land that isn't good enough to produce vegetable / grain crops, their diet should be supplemented by waste / substandard food where available, not by crops produced on prime agricultural land. If these are insufficient to produce the amount of meat we desire then we will just have to eat less meat (and we should). I say that as an omnivore and independent of any moral argument about whether we should eat flesh at all. Yes we should eat more legumes directly... BUT! I and others have tried to grow protein crops up here and it's damn hard. Broad beans and field beans (a coarser type of broad bean) are the only reliable outdoor crops I've found in this climate. I have grown canneloni and yin yang beans (both dwarf french types) very successfully in a polytunnel here but not outdoors, though it might be possible if done right in a good summer. Climbing Borlotto beans are very viable outdoors in the Thames Valley but much less so here. Soybeans were abject failures even in a polytunnel here and outdoors down south. So, dried broad beans are about the only winter source of vegetarian protein we can grow here on a significant scale (please correct me if I'm wrong) without protection like polytunnels or in a very few, very small and favourable spots. I think that animals are an appropriate source of protein in this climate, but only if they are fed appropriately and treated honourably. | ||
| |||
| Anne Thomas |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 319 | Our broad beans did really well last year and we went from a family in which only 1/5 liked them to all liking them. Picked and eaten fresh from the garden they are very different from those served up for school dinners etc. We also managed to get a small second crop by chopping the plants off about 15cm from the ground after we had harvested the first. We've saved some seed for this year. Peas also did quite well and again are easy to save for the next year. Our soy beans were hopeless. One survived but did not crop. We are also omnivores but tend to have a local chicken about once a fortnight and use it in different ways for several meals then have a vegetarian week, maybe with some venison for one meal. We stopped having beef during the BSE crisis about 20 years ago and have never gone back to it. It seems the most carbon intensive of shop bought meat. If you know that it is fed on grass that might be different but its hard to get data. | ||
| |||
| Anne Thomas |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 319 | Sunflowers also seem to do OK up here if you start them inside early enough. Saves importing bird food and can be nice in muesli, though a bit fiddly to shell. | ||
| |||
| Anne Thomas |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 319 | This is the reply I received from the MEP on the matter. Bit of a fudge me thinks. Dear Ms Thomas, Thank you for contacting Struan Stevenson MEP concerning the draft report on the EU protein deficit. I agree with you in wanting to see greater production of animal feed in the UK. Protein crops are currently under-represented in the UK, and throughout Europe, despite the advantages for sustainability in agriculture. The major cause for this is the difficulty in overcoming erratic crop performance which leads to the crop being uncompetitive. While yield potential of pulse crops is high, average yields have been about half of the best achieved, and in broad terms the best UK yields fall short of current yield potential by about 25%. By contrast, most soybean feed now comes from the Midwest of the United States or South America, simply because these areas have the climatic and soil conditions best adapted to producing soy. The natural advantage these areas enjoy means that European soy is increasingly uncompetitive on the world market. Instead, European land is used for producing crops where we have a natural advantage, such as wheat. As food security becomes a growing concern around the world, it is sensible for crops to be grown in the areas of the world where they can enjoy the highest yields. While some soy production in South America has taken place on deforested land, much of it has not. Brazil alone has more agricultural land not in production than the USA has in production, suggesting that Brazil could significantly increase agricultural production without encroaching on the rainforests. Protection of the rainforests is vitally important and in addition to some agricultural practices (mainly to make room for cattle ranches) deforestation in Brazil has a number of other causes, including inadequate law enforcement and poor governance issues, all of which must be tackled. Ultimately soy can be grown in Brazil in areas far from rainforests, and as long as we can clearly identify where production has taken place, I am not opposed to the EU importing animal feed sourced from Brazil. With these competing factors in mind, it is clear that if we are to reduce our dependence on imports, we must improve the economic viability of growing protein crops in the EU, using GM and all the other tools available to us, so that our farmers are not made to endure further costs from legislation that dictates against the market. Local food and feed is important but a sensible balance between imports and domestic production must be found. As this report has such a balance we have supported it. Thank you again for your email and please do not hesitate to contact us again should you have further queries. Yours Sincerely, Catriona Meehan Office of Struan Stevenson MEP President of the Iraq Delegation Senior Vice-President of the Fisheries Committee European Parliament Brussels Tel.: +32 2 2833544 Fax.: +32 2 2849710 email: struan.stevenson@europarl.europa.eu www.struanstevenson.com www.youtube.com/StruanStevenson -----Original Message----- From: Anne Thomas [mailto:anne.katherine.thomas@googlemail.com] Sent: 03 March 2011 08:46 To: STEVENSON Struan Subject: [SPAM SUSPECTED] Please vote for home-grown proteins Dear Scotland Members of the European Parliament, I am very concerned about the impacts of factory farming in the UK and Europe. Factory farming of livestock requires huge quantities of imported animal feed. Most of this is soy grown on massive plantations in South America. These plantations are destroying forests and wildlife and are a major contributor to global climate change. Worse still, most imported soy is genetically modified, requiring increased pesticide use. These pesticides are poisoning people and the environment in South America. I want our meat and dairy to be produced differently. Instead of importing animal feed from South America, I want to see alternatives to soy grown in Europe. Growing more protein crops like peas and beans could have many economic and environmental benefits - both for farmers and consumers. Peas and broad beans grow well in Scotland and are nitrogen fixers so used as part of a crop rotation reduce the need for nitrogen fertilisers which are based on oil and therefore both contribute to climate change and are becoming increasingly expensive. Several studies have shown protein crops improve soil quality and tackle climate change while reducing use of fertilizers and costs for farmers. I am aware you now have a major opportunity to back these benefits in a report being discussed in the European Parliament this month: "Draft report on the EU protein deficit: What solution for a long-standing problem?" I urge you to reject the inclusions of GM in this report and instead support its proposals on reducing Europe's dependence on soy imports and developing home grown proteins for animal feed. Please ensure these proposals are taken forward in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. You can contact me by email (preferably - to save resources) or at the following address: Yours sincerely, Anne Thomas | ||
| |||
| Anne Thomas |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 319 | Dear Struan Stevenson, Thank you for your reply. I am glad you support the report, but in suggesting it is all right to rely on imports of soy because land can be more productive elsewhere I do not think you have taken the long view of global food security into account. The farmland in South America that is not in production has very often been leached of its nutrients due to intensive agriculture which is why there has been the pressure to encroach on areas of rainforest. Use of GM and intensive fertiliser and pesticide use may increase yeilds in the short term but often at the expense of long term soil fertility and run off affecting waterways. Climate change is likely to make the areas you mentioned a lot drier and yields will therefore fall. The Midwest of America is already using all the water it can. See 'When rivers run dry' by Fred Pearce. http://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm?book_number=1827 Importing food stuffs from around the world may be cheap today because of poverty wages in the developing world and cheap oil. It will not continue to be so. Oil supplies are peaking. The current Arab unrest has sent prices spiralling and that very quickly has effect on food prices when so much food is imported. You must be aware of this from your Iraq portfolio. See Jeremy Leggett's article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2011/feb/10/peak-oi... Given our current food system often uses up to 10 calories of oil for every calorie of food there is a need for urgent change because of the twin threats of Climate Change and Peak Oil. Your letter suggests mainly business as usual with a gradual change if the economic circumstances are right. I think we need to be much bolder. See the 'A farm for the future' video. http://www.viddler.com/explore/PermaScience/videos/4/ Regards Anne Thomas | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |