The Energy Cost of Food

[Coyotl]

Sustainability is an imperative. Buy Local!

The Energy Cost of Food
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-07-22/the-energy-cost-of-food

by Eric Garza Ph.D, originally published by Aisthetica | TODAY

Download as a PDF (229 KB)

At the grocery cooperative nearest my home I can buy kale from California, grapes from Argentina, olive oil from Italy, miso from Japan, and apples from New Zealand. I can enjoy a diet that’s utterly dissociated from Vermont’s Champlain Valley where I live, one that renders my local climate, the character of the local soil and geography, and even the passage of seasons irrelevant to my food choices. I can eat as if I lived in a tropical paradise where summer never ends, while living in a temperate paradise where summer lasts just a few short months.

As I walk out of my co-op I’m reminded of the source of this modern food miracle: a nearby service station sells gasoline for $3.67 per gallon, and diesel for 30 cents more. This is pricy compared to what these fuels cost a decade ago, but they still provide astonishingly cheap energy. And it’s this cheap energy that powers the globalized, industrial food system that delivers food to my co-op from the four corners of the Earth, regardless of weather, regardless of the season.

Just how much energy does it take to fuel the US food system? A lot. It required just over 12 Calories of fuel to produce one Calorie of food in 2002, once waste and spoilage were accounted for.1 Of these, 1.6 fuel Calories were used in the agricultural sector, while 2.7 were used to process and package food. Distribution, which includes transportation, wholesale and retail outlets, and food service operations such as restaurants and catering services, used another 4.3 fuel Calories. Finally, food-related household energy use added another 3.4 Calories to the tab. This figure has been on an upward trend; it took just over 14 fuel Calories to deliver a Calorie of consumed food in 2007, and if we extrapolate this trend the US food system requires about 15 Calories of fuel to deliver a Calorie of consumed food in 2013.

..........

[SoCalDem]

1. Another unfortunate consequence is that we no longer have "fresh" produce

unless you have a farmer's market that does not buy in bulk from a warehouse somewhere.


Seasonal fruits & veggies used to taste GREAT because they were likely to be fairly local..

They were cheap too, because their shelf-life was pretty short.

Now they have to pick them so damned early, they are rather tasteless.

They must be picked super-early so they can withstand the rigors of extreme-travel to market.

Some fruits are WORTH waiting for their "peak performance", and gorging on fresh juicy peaches for a short time every summer...or bing cherries..or watermelon..is (to me) better than having them all year long and relatively tasteless..(as well as super-expensive)

[el_bryanto]

4. The flip side was that much of the country didn't get fruits or veges for a large part of the year

The winter months, for example.

It's a trade off.

Bryant

[kestrel91316]

2. I have virtually eliminated animal products from my diet - due to health concerns, environmental

concerns, and animal welfare concerns.

If people would even cut their meat/dairy intake by 30% we could reap huge benefits worldwide. But they won't.

[zipplewrath]

3. I have no doubt it would

But I'm curious what you think these benefits would be.

The natural consequence of a 30% reduction in meat and dairy intake would be a collapse of meat and dairy prices. There would be significant loss of ranches and meat and dairy production businesses. It would probably cause a drop in gasoline prices as well, which would result in a rise in fuel use over all.

People would be healthier, at least those that reduced their meat and dairy intake. Not so sure how it would affect the health of those that lose their meat/dairy related jobs. There would be less feed corn and other types of land use for animal food. That might slow down the rate of habitat desctruction in certain areas. There would be less animal flatulence (including from many people) which would reduce green house gas emmissions.

Just kinda wondering what you were thinking.

[kestrel91316]

6. What do you think people will eat instead of meat and dairy, and who do you think will grow it?

Mind you, I am NOT ONE OF THOSE WACKO VEGAN NUTS. I don't have a moral objection to the idea of eating other creatures - I just think it's a waste of fossil fuels and causes too much pollution, so we should cut back. People still have to eat, and the resulting large increase in fruit, vegetable, grain, and legume production jobs will more than make up for the loss in livestock production jobs.

We'd all be a lot healthier from eating less animal products overall. And so would the environment.

[zipplewrath]

9. I presume fish

some increase in vegetables and fruits, probably nuts. As you suggest though, the efficiency of these foods will require vastly less infrastructure and manpower than large animal production. (Chickens are actually relatively efficient).

[flvegan]

10. "...instead of meat and dairy?" "I presume fish" (facepalm)

[LeftyMom]

11. Fish are a plant, the Vatican said so.

I should have listened to my auntie when she warned me about Protestant boys.

[flvegan]

12. Fish...fruit or vegetable?

What did she say about Congregationalist Buddhists?

*heads explode*

[LeftyMom]

13. Back in the Middle Ages fasting was common and

most orders of monks had to abstain from meat. The fishmongers complained and the monks did too (except when they found loopholes to get around the dietary rules.)
Point being that's why some ignoramus tries to sell you the Catch of the Day when you tell them you don't eat meat.
I'm kidding about my aunties. They're personified elderly Catholic stereotypes with mass cards and JFK plates and everything, but they know that fish aren't plants.

[flvegan]

14. Back in the Middle Ages, most orders of monks had no Google.

If said monks weren't near water, no proof could be furnished that fish weren't plants. Burden of proof. Now? Not so much.

Wait...I thought you said fish were plants. If fish are plants, then plants might be fish. Does this mean I can't eat plants? I'm so confused.

What's wrong with JFK plates? (I assume those have to do with a certain Kennedy, and not some elderly "Just F*cking Kidding" internet meme I missed)

[LeftyMom]

16. I edited to explain a bit better.

While you were posting.

[flvegan]

17. Ignoramus Monk?

Were I a lead singer, that would be my stage name.

And I'd have a British accent. Except when I sang.

I wish it wasn't so late, I could really go for a vegan broiled swordfish steak. Since they're plants. Sayeth the monks...and some on DU.

ooooooooommmm

[kestrel91316]

18. Indeed. Sigh.

[flvegan]

19. Tip of the cap to you.

Post #2. I hope your health reaps benefits.

[kestrel91316]

20. Thanks, though I am in excellent health and am doing this as prevention.

[flvegan]

21. Prevention or otherwise, my wish is the same. n/t

[FarCenter]

5. You need to know the actual energy costs, not distance

Veg from CA may use less energy getting to New York City than veg from the Hudson Valley.

The CA food may come by refrigerated rail cars, which are very efficient, while the food from upstate may come by truck in small lots, which is very inefficient.

[Coyotl]

7. Yes, think in energy cost, ecological impact, and best productive use of our collective time working

If some transportation workers are instead producing wealth, not just distributing someone else's production effort, everyone has more at the end of the day, not?

[surrealAmerican]

8. Good point ...

... and that's not even getting into the farming methods your local farmer may be using vs. those of the more distant farmer. There is no real way for you, as a consumer, to be able to compare the impact of this cabbage as opposed to that cabbage. There are simply too many variables.

[laundry_queen]

15. Or grow your own

It's really easy. I started out with a small deck this year (bought a house, yard was being worked on) and I currently have 4 tomato plants, 3 potato plants (in grow-bags), 3 pepper plants, 5 cucumber plants, carrots, beets, lettuce, green onions, a few strawberry plants and some herbs. This is all either in containers or 'grow-bags' on a small 8x10 deck. Some I started with seed, some I bought starter plants (I'm in a cold climate and moved in to my house too late to start my own plants in advance) and it's been a piece of cake to look after. I just water every other day (unless it rains) and so far I've had 4 salads from my lettuce, cucumbers and tomatoes. I've made pesto from my basil. My potatoes are blooming like crazy, so I'm looking forward to a lot of potatoes. Currently I have tons of peppers, cucumbers and tomatoes.

I plan on having an actual garden next year. I also plan on planting some fruit trees hardy for my area. My parents have an apple tree and nearly every year we have tons of apples that we cut up and freeze and use for desserts all winter long. A garden only takes an hour or 2 a week to look after if it's well organized, and you can be sure it's fresh, free of pesticides, and higher in phytonutrients than store bought equivalents. If everyone planted a small garden...or even a tomato or pepper plant on their balcony, so much energy could be saved...

[Coyotl]

22. I'm eating a bounty of organic vegetables and berries already.

Already because I live in the Oregon Coast climate, so some things are later than in other areas.

So far, I'm eating spinach, lettuce, peas, beet greens, kale, broccoli, potatoes, zucchini, beans, cherry tomatoes, various peppers, carrots, onions, garlic, herbs, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries. The corn has silk, sunflowers are blooming and lots of flower highlight the garden. The orchard is doing great too.