ENVIR ST 309 Final Exam

Food Waste along Supply Chain

Food loss in Agricultural Production

Food loss in Processing

Food waste in Distribution and Retail

Food waste in Restaurants and Catering

Food waste in Domestic Consumption

Farm Level food loss

Consumption or damage from insects, rodents, birds, or microbes.

Damage by extreme weather like droughts, floods, hurricanes, and freezes.

Non-harvesting due to diminished returns meaning its not financially worth harvesting

Overplanting

Farm-to-Retail

Rejection due to food safety regulations

Byproducts from food processing are landfilled or incinerated

Outgrading of blemished, misshapen or wrong-sized foods

Spillage and damage

Inefficiencies during harvesting, drying, milling, transporting, or processing

Retail Losses

Dents and damaged packaging

Unpurchased holiday foods

Spillage, abrasion, bruising

Overstocking & overpreperation

Culling “ugly” foods blemished, wrong sized

Consumer-level losses

Spills, bruising, inadequate storage, and aging

confusion over “use-by” and “best-before” dates

Lack of knowledge about preparation and appropriate portion sizes

Plate waste and uneaten leftovers

Waste proportions along the food chain

16% at farm level

2% at processing level

40% at retail level

43% at consumer level

Waste by Amount (Volume)

Most waste comes from the vegetables and dairy

Waste by Value ($)

Meat and poultry

Waste by Calories (Kcal)

fats and oils

Regional differences in food waste: Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa:

Majority of food waste comes from the production level

Regional differences in food waste: North America and Oceania, Industrialized Asia, and Europe

Most food waste comes from the consumer level

EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy

1. Source Reduction: Reduce volume of surplus food generated

2. Feed Hungry People: Donate extra food to food banks, soup kitchens, etc.

3. Feed Animals: Divert food scraps to animal feed

4. Industrial Uses: Provide waste oils for rendering, fuel conversion, and to recover energy

5. Composting: Create a nutrient-rich soil amendment

6. Landfill/Incineration: Last resort to disposal

If you wanted to have the largest impact with the most preferred outcome, what level of the EPA’s waste “Recovery” hierarchy, which food items, and which step in the supply chain would you focus on?

If you wanted to make the biggest impact, you would want to focus on waste reduction, likely targeting the consumption side of things if you’re in America. Foods to target would likely be dairy and veggie products, since these make up the largest volume of waste

Disposal alternatives: Landfill

Landfills can be expensive

generate high amounts of CH4 & GHGs

They have minimal every recovery

They have high transportation costs

BUT… There are ways to address this, such as capturing methane gas and refining it into compressed natural gas, which the Madison landfills do.

Disposal Alternatives: Incineration

Waste-to-energy plants

This alternative reduces land requirements, but can have high emissions and air quality concerns with low energy recovery

In-sink disposal → Wastewater Treatment plant

Disposals in 50% of U.S. households

Less hauling emissions

Typically regains some energy via anaerobic digestion and biogas generation

Diversion Alternative: Composting

Recovers nutrients - space saving

has potential transportation savings

GHG reductions over anaerobic landfill: larger GHG savings when we consider nutrient recycling benefits

Diversion Alternative: Anaerobic Digestion

Energy Recovery: Significant CH4 capture

Nutrient/solids recovery: bedding, compost, fertilizer

Diversion Alternative: Animal Feed

Over 80% of food manufacturing byproduct/waste is used as animal feed

this alternative has high energy recovery

Direct nutritional value

But… it can be inconsistent and have challenges with food safety

Impacts of household size on waste

Single-person households generate the most waste, 2 person household produce significantly less, but any increase after this has little change in waste production

Consumer purchasing habits and food waste per week

the more a person frequents the store, and the more aware they are of prices, the less food waste they will produce

Importance of infrastructure and convenience.

exposure to the option and making it easily accessible improves participation over time in a behavior

Policy Innovation and food waste: Good Samaritan Act, Food Recovery Act

GSA: Exempts people who make good-faith food donations of food to non-profits from liability

FRA: USDA must establish Office of Food Recovery to coordinate reduction of food waste

Use-By/Best-By Dates

People often don’t fully understand the difference between them or treat them by fact rather than suggestion. Lots of food can last beyond its use-by date, and these exist to drive more consumption. Changing this behavior can lead help to reduce consumer level food waste

What is a CSA and how have they changed overtime?

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), is a process where community individuals pledge to support a farm operation. Used to be more a relationship of shared benefit and risks where the community would ride out the seasons with the farmer. However, now it is more of a shopping experience where members “shop” and select the produce that they prefer

Connection between organic farming and community

Farming and food can bring the community together. At Squashington Farm, their farm not only offers fresh produce to the community, but they actively donate food to food pantries as well as community fridges. Additionally, they use their physical land to support the community, hosting different events and activities.

History of Squashington Farm

Self-taught organic farmers got by with help from older farming neighbors who lent land and tools for them to begin their organic farming journey

Real Organic Project

Real Organic Project is a farmer-led grassroots movement and add-on food label that distinguishes soil grown and pasture raised food. the label has the intention of fighting greenwashing in organic labelling

Importance of buying local

Purchasing local keeps significantly more money in the local economy (out of $100, $68 stays in the local economy)

5 solutions to feed the world while conserving the planet?

1. Slow and change agricultural expansion

2. Close yield gaps: May not always be economically realistic

3. Increase resource use and efficiency: Benefits not evenly distributed

4. Close diet gaps

5. Reduce waste

Yield Gap Definition

The “Yield Gap” is the difference between realized productivity and the best that

can be achieved using current genetic material and available technologies and

management.

Yield Gaps

The “Yield Gap” is the difference between realized productivity and the best that can be achieved using current genetic material and available technologies and management.

Ways of closing yield

Yield gaps are often the result of nutrient or water limitations/deficiencies, and you must identify local causes of yield gaps to inform effective interventions

○ Better deployment of existing crop varieties with improved management should be able to close many yield gaps.

○ Estimates of yield potential based on optimal management conditions. But it may not always be economically realistic

Goldilocks’ problem

Even though excess nutrients cause environmental problems in some parts of the world, insufficient nutrients are a major agronomic problem in others.

○ Many yield gaps are mainly due to insufficient nutrient availability.

Spatial Optimization

Optimizing crop production on a given piece of land. Land is optimized in parts of US and Europe, however in Africa, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, it is not.

Closing diet gaps

Simply put, we can increase food availability (in terms of calories, protein and critical nutrients) by shifting crop production away from livestock feed, bioenergy crops, and other non-food applications. Today, much of the food be grow dowsnt reach our plates. For example, adding together croplands devoted to animal feed and pasture and grazing land, 75% of the world’s agricultural land

Zambian Agriculture: How did colonial era project and maize affect food security

The green revolution and colonialism introduced SR52, a high yielding single cross maize hybrid developed in Zambia in the 1950s. Maize was encouraged by the colonial and post-colonial government to support mine workers. It was easy commercial farming production but was not intended for small-scale farmers. Now maize accounts for 70% of cropped area and 90% cereal production

Maize impacts on Native crops

Maize is not as drought and heat-tolerant as native plants, nor do they have as long of a growing season. Native crops are also more nutritious. Because of maize introduction, native plants became considered “poverty foods”

Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Zambia

Higher yield declines when average temp. is higher. Because of climate change, temperatures are getting higher, and rain is unchanging. Expected 24% production loss of maize by 2050

Adaptations for Climate Change in Zambia

Irrigation systems are a great adaptation but they only work in places where the water table is high enough.

Encourage farming crops that already have a high tolerance

Reforestation

Internal migrations in zambia and their impacts

No fields left uncultivated which has forced migration to open lands. This leads to deforestation of new areas

Kariba dam project & implications

Construction of the dam was completed in 1959 and it became the largest reservoir in the world by volume. River once had a cultural meaning to the people. The damming now also stops flooding which causes nutrients in the soils to not be replenished. The dam also does not produce enough electricity which leads to black outs in the country

Impact of charcoal industry

Charcoal industry makes up 2.3% of GDP and has led to 7.3% loss of national forest cover

Lessons learned from machine learning predictive model & farmer interviews

Machine learning models have had inaccurate predictions. But, overall, the models predict increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation

Rationale behind school food as food systems intervention

70% of publicly managed food systems around the world are school food programs, and school food is a powerful lever for shaping agricultural practices and dietary norms at the population level

Opportunities associated with school food interventions

Sustainable Meal Programs can be particularly valuable for climate change adaptation because they can (1) Catalyze sustainable demand for regenerative agriculture (2) help low-income families adapt to changing climate (3) Support a shift to healthy, plant-friendly (3) Support a shift to healthy, planet-friendly diets (4) reduce emission and waste from cooking

3 pathways to intervention in US school food

1. Federal Legislation

2. State Legislation

3. Incremental steps at the state or federal level

US School Food Projects

• some legislation to increase school kitchen budgets, and supplement reimbursements

• local purchasing grants

• Big focus on removing artificial color and dyes (less processed food)

• Free school means for everyone

Japan’s school lunch objectives

teach kids how to sustain and improve health through proper nutrition while also fostering an appreciation for the gifts of nature, respect of life, and encourage a spirit of environmental conservation. Also to acknowledge how the activities of many people support food industry and respect them. Finally, understand Japanese and local traditional cuisine. Their lunches feature local ingredients and traditional foods

Brazil Post-2008 School Lunch

Major legal changes in 2009 mandated universal free meals and values-aligned procurement. Able to feed 40 million students each day. 30% of fed. funding must be used to purchase school food from family farms and co-ops (Prioritizing marginalized farmers, women and indigenous groups). Restrict ultra-processed foods (75% must be natural or minimally processed). Based on local decision making and civic engagement

South Korea post-2008 School Food Program

emphasize univeral free, environmentally friendly school lunch (no mandate). Feeds 5 million students each day. 99.9% of elementary and middle schools provide free meals. School meals are the largest consumption channel for environmentally friendly foods. They also have nutrition plans that teach traditional home-style meals. Infrastructure for public kitchens where food is cooked and distributed to schools to address the lack of space.

10 cents a mean and Michigan farmers

Provides schools with grants to pay for Michigan-grown fruits, veggies, and other food. Provides up to 10 cents per meal in matching grants to school districts to increase the amount of Michigan farm foods that end up on students’ plates

Lessons moving forward

Lesson 1: Maximizing social inclusion is essential. This can be done by providing universal free meals and direct public dollars to equitable and sustainable food systems. As well as social inclusion of both producers and students to make solutions viable

Lesson 2: A food system approach is key to rapid and enduring change. This means that policies, incentives and technical assistance are needed for producers to see a profit from regenerative agriculture and access to schools. Additionally, community-based culinary capacity is important

restoring degraded land

Restoring degraded land involves rebuilding soil health to restore productivity and resilience, as bell as restoring vegetation and ecosystems to recover biodiversity, hydrology, and ecological function

Ecological Restoration Methods

1. Reforestation/Afforestation - planting trees or restoring native forest cover

2. Agroforestry - integrating trees with crops or livestock

3. Cover Cropping - planting non-cash crops between growing seasons

4. Reduced/ No-Till Agriculture- Minimizing soil disturbance via till

5. Rotational / Adaptive Grazing - Moving livestock strategically to prevent overgrazing

6. Wetland / Riparian Restoration - Rewetting drained wetlands or restoring stream buffers

7. Native Species Revegetation - Reintroducing native grasses, shrubs, and plants to degraded landscapes

Prods and Cons of restoring degraded land

Can improve ecological function to meet future demand and reduce pressure. BUT their potential depends on economic governance, restoration success, and policy. Sometimes they can have biophysical challenges with

low soil fertility (often require significant inputs to be productive),

poor water availability (erosion and compaction reduce water retention),

high restoration costs (Rehabilitation can be expensive and slow),

lower productivity (Yields may remail below prime ag. land),

risk of failure (restoration may not succeed).

Political challenges of restoring degraded land

Policy tools encourage expansion into degraded lands to spare forests. But this can perpetuate harmful agricultural practices with politicians promoting it with very uncertain data.

Land tenure uncertainty – degraded lands often have unclear

ownership/use rights.

• Competing land uses – degraded lands may still support grazing,

biodiversity, or local livelihoods.

• Infrastructure gaps – degraded lands may be remote or poorly

connected to markets

Economic Challenges of restoring degraded land

Clearing forests may still be cheaper than

restoring degraded land.

• Upfront investment barriers for

farmers/ranchers.

• Weak market incentives to prioritize

degraded land over fron

Problem with laens

Lawns require more irrigation and fertlizers than agricultural crops grown in the country. And, because of cutting lawns, gas mowers account for 5% of air pollution in the US. EPA estimates americans spill 17 mil. gal of gas each year

Benefits of edible landscapes

Can direct energy and space used for lawns into gardens and change the default being turfgrass.

Diversity of plants can promote different types of insects and animals

promote education of where food comes from

Other ways to convert lawns

Rewilding (promoting native grasses, plants, etc.)

Stats on Private land ownership

● ~60% of US land (1.4 billion acres) is privately owned

● Private landowners manage:

90% of U.S. cropland

○ 70% of forest-use land

○ 66% of grassland/pasture

● Trade Offs:

○ Food, income, control vs. biodiversity and ecosystem health

Private Land in the Legal System

law is a human construct, with rights and responsibilities created for humans, not nature. It has clear boundaries between properties and the strengths of these rights has evolved overtime. It is private land owners legal right to do what they want with their land, so asking to conserve land is asking land owners to not use their legal rights

Colonial Influences

Generations of colonization, settlement, and military, economic, political, and legislative forces have produced contemporary boundary lines, jurisdictional claims, and tenure arrangements

Mechanisms of private land conservation (regulation, voluntary federal & local programs)

Regulation: Engaged Species Act, Clean Air and Water Act (top-down)

Voluntary federal programs: Conservation Reserve Program (for farmers), Conservation Easements (in perpetuity)

Local/Regional/Federal Governments: Extension Offices, Quercus

Obstacles

Environmental Norms, Market pressure, Lack of ownership (renters). Also public v. private is not always binary (Indigenous lands, conservation easements held by private and managed by public, Land trusts, etc.)

Benefits of Agroforestry

Agroforestry is the intentional integration of woody vegetation, such as trees and shrubs, with crops and/or livestock simultaneously or sequentially on a land management unit.

Riparian Forest Buffers

Riparian buffers are managed strips of trees along waterways. They can filter nutrient runoff, prevent erosion, and protect water quality. Additionally, they provide habitat and prevent flooding

WINDBREAKS/SHELTERBELTS

Slow wind to protect crips and livestock as well as increase yields. These barriers protect soil and water quality, reduce erosion, and provide habitat

ALLEY CROPPING

Planting of tree rows and agricultural crops to diversify production and improve whole-farm yield. Controls the microclimate and protects crops, as well as improves soil health.

SILVOPASTURE

integration of trees and grazing livestock operations on the same land. They provide shade and shelter for livestock, and benefits water quality, biodiversity, and reduces erosion.

FOREST FARMING

• Cultivation of high-value crops under the protection of a managed tree canopy. • Multi-story cropping systems.

• Harvest cultivated non-timber forest products (e.g., mushrooms, ginseng, etc.).

Global trends in Agroforestry

Estimated 3.27 billion rural people live within forest and play key roles in people’s lives. Only about 1.7% of US farms practice agroforestry… BUT, globally 1.2 billion people practice (~9% if ag. land in EU)

Challenges to adoption in US

High upfront financial costs, and gaps in mature yields.

Risks and uncertainty about management and profit

Lack of knowledge

Social norms and traditions

tree establishment problems (planting the wrong trees)

Di4erent types of values that are aligned with agroforestry (intrinsic, relational, etc.)

Promoting intrinsic and relational values can create long-term commitment and greater permanence. Policy can also be made to align with local goals. We need financial incentives to adopt agroforestry as well as work to promote recognition of cultural and ecological values, leverage social influence mechanisms, and shift to participatory policy approaches.

DESIGNING FOR LONG-TERM PERSISTENCE & PERMANENCE (agroforestry)

• Align incentives with ecological timelines

• Trees are long-term: need long-term contracts

• Support intrinsic & relational values

• Stewardship, aesthetics, legacy, community motivations lead to stronger persistence than payments alone

• Reduce early-stage risk

• Cost-share, technical assistance, insurance mechanisms

• Build social infrastructure

• Farmer networks, demonstration sites