Sustainable But really !

For the last year Ive become increasingly cross with hearing the word sustainable used in ways that really dont make sense. So after a little bit of thought, and the knowledge that its New Years Day and Im always promising myself Ill blog more here, I thought Id write a bit about what I think sustainable really means.

And maybe I need to explain what leads me to live what I hope is a fairly sustainable life and why.

In 1976, in the middle of that dreadful summer of drought, my mother said to me

"Youll be alive when the oil runs out".

I was 6. I didnt know what that meant but I knew I needed to find out, and so find out I did.

And in my mind that meant, at that age, no cars, no electricity and the need to find alternatives. I remember talking about solar power and wind and water being things that could be used to create power. And I remember thinking that resources were precious, whatever they were, and realising at that early age that Earth wasnt a finite resource if we carried on the way we were.

And then the 1980s happened. The world forgot about the problems and consumerism hit. Thát hard, cold consumerism which seemed so exciting but in actual fact set us on a completely ridiculous road.

Anyway, enough of me. Except to say that all of the above has led me to lead a life where Ive constantly had that tiny phrase in the back of my head, in every thing Ive ever done.

"Youll be alive when the oil runs out".

So what is sustainable?

And actually what is sustainability?

Are they the same?

For me they have to be. A sustainable life is one where you consider your every action, your every purchase. 

Food that travels half way around the world so we can have strawberries at Christmas.

Food distribution systems that mean food grown in the south of the UK, often travels to the Midlands or further, and back, before it lands in stores.

50% of fresh foods ending up in the bin before they even hit the shops.

Cheap clothing being made in sweat shops so we can have more.

Cotton being the crop that worldwide uses the most chemicals than any other.

Continual use of chemicals that have an adverse effect on our pollinators because the companies that make them claim theyre safe.

Monoculture.

Soil degradation

I could go on. 

The point is that none of these things are sustainable. And yet we carry on and ignore the issues. Its just the way it is.

Or is it? Is there another way? 

Well of course there is. And it doesnt have to be about becoming a yoghurt weaver!! 

Its about personal responsibilty and not being afraid to speak up for whats fair and right. Its about having a set of ethics and sticking to them, even when people think youre a bit odd.

But mainly its about having respect not just for the human species but for all the species on the earth and for the earth itself. Its about seeing worth in both people and things and being prepared to pay for that worth. Its about seeing things through, and not just seeing things as a project that probably wont last, but about making sure everything we do has legacy and makes a change. And, and heres the one most people squirm at, its about making sure we all are paid our worth in whatever we do, and not being afraid to state our worth.

And there I will stop.

Happy New Year to you all. And remember, together we can all make a change.

 

Read More..

Sustainable feed resources

Fish farming is very efficient in terms of the conversion of protein, which means an important ecological advantage in light of the sustainability of fish feed resources.

One of the most-frequently cited issues with the sustainable development of aquaculture is the capture of other fish as raw material to be used as fish feed in the form of fish meal and fish oil. It is seen as an issue because a food production sector is in part relying on a capture fishery for the supply of raw materials for the production of aquaculture feed.

Typically, these other fish species are small, oil-rich, bony pelagic fish that are not normally used for direct human consumption. Two decades ago, the majority of fish meal and oil was used to make feeds for land animal production. At present, over 50 percent of fishmeal and over 80 percent of fish oil is used for aquaculture.

If aquaculture is to fill the gap in demand for seafood, this raises important sustainability issues as to the availability of sufficient feed supply. This is particularly relevant given the fact that fishmeal and fish oil production has been, and is likely to remain, relatively constant at around 6 million and 0.9 million tonnes per year, respectively.

However, as the demand for fishmeal and fish oil in aquaculture has increased, so the price has risen. This has driven both terrestrial agriculture and aquaculture to seek nutritional alternatives to fishmeal and fish oil. This is an on-going process and estimates made by the International Fishmeal & Fish oil Organisation (IFFO) show that the growth of aquaculture and the substitution of fishmeal and fish oil can continue together. The IFFO has started to produce datasheets on fisheries for fish meal and fish oil and these are available at the IFFO web site.

Conversion of caught wild fish to farmed fish

It has been noted that certain types of fish, particularly salmon, are net consumers, requiring in the region of 3 kg of wild fish as feed to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. While it is true that growing high-quality salmon requires considerable amounts of fishmeal and oil, improved technology in fishmeal and oil production as well as better feeding practices on farms have reduced the ratio over time.

Salmon are an exception, because their diets require large amounts of fish oil. For aquaculture overall, the ratio is now well below one: less fish is used for feed than is produced at farms. For carnivorous species, the ratio is still decreasing and expected to reach 1.0 around 2012 (IFFO).

These figures do not include recent gains thanks to the recovery of meal and oil from aquaculture waste. Increasingly in Europe, waste from aquaculture is collected and processed, redirecting around 50 percent of the harvested weight to valuable products.

It should also be noted that wild carnivorous fish also need food. It is estimated that it takes 10 kg of forage fish to produce 1 kg of salmon caught in the wild6. If by-catch values are added to the equation, another 5 kg of forage fish has to be added. Hence, even a 3 to 1 ratio for farmed salmon would be significantly better than a 10-15 to 1 ratio of salmon caught in the wild.

 Efficiency of food conversion in farmed fish

 The food conversion ratio (FCR) is defined as the weight of food that is required to produce one kilogram of fish. In the early days of aquaculture, farmed fish were fed with whole trash fish and FCRs were more than 20 to 1. Through the years, the ratio has dramatically declined. With the advent of dry, pelletised feeds and modern extrusion technologies, FCR levels are now almost 1 to 1. Certain trout and salmon farms achieve an FCR of less than 1:1, making them far more efficient converters of marine protein than their wild counterparts.

As fish feeds represent an increasingly high share of total production cost, fish farmers have every interest in using feeds as effectively as possible, thereby also reducing the potential environmental impacts of non-consumed feeds. Overfeeding or underfeeding would increase the FCR. Therefore, many farms are equipped with underwater surveillance and monitoring systems as well as devices controlling the supply and delivery of feed.

 Replacement of marine protein sources by (terrestrial) plant protein

For various reasons, fishmeal and oil are gradually being replaced by plant proteins in feed that is used in fish farms. Plant proteins can be less costly and they are free of potential contaminants like dioxin, PCB or mercury.

However, fishmeal is an important ingredient in fish feed and can only to a limited extent be replaced by vegetable proteins without reducing feed efficiency and growth. After all, carnivorous or ‘piscivorous fish naturally feed on other fish. The fatty acid composition in the flesh from farmed fish will also reflect the feed composition and inclusion of vegetable oil will reduce the level of omega-3 fatty acids.

Although the introduction of plant protein into the feed can be seen as a way of reducing the sectors dependence on fish meal and fish oil, some have questioned the trend because:

• carnivorous fish do not naturally feed on plants;
• plant proteins may have anti-nutritional effects on fish;
• there is a maximum level of replacement, after which the texture and eating quality
• of the fish is compromised;
• some plant proteins could be derived from GMOs.
  

Generally speaking, though, marine plants have enormous potential to act as fish feed ingredients. Initial research has confirmed this potential and our knowledge in this area is starting to build.

Decontamination of fish meal and fish oil
Fishmeal and fish oil are produced from fish that may contain contaminants. Various research projects are ongoing to look into the feasibility of de-contaminating fish meal and fish oil. One such project is carried out at the Fiskeriforskning Institute in Norway.

Fish stocks of concern in the northern European industry are sprat and herring from the Baltic Sea, and herring, sprat, sand eel and blue whiting in the North Sea. The differences in dioxin and PCB levels reflect the general pollution levels in the respective fishing areas and will disfavour the North European fishmeal and oil producers in the world market. This is already the case in aquaculture, where most fishmeal is sourced from the southern hemisphere.

The main objective of the project is to develop a new oil extraction process to reduce the persistent organic pollutants level in fishmeal. The research will aim to identity optimal processing conditions with respect to both decontamination efficiency and preservation of fishmeal and oil quality. The new oil extraction process is expected to have several advantages compared to a standard hexane extraction process. This will include the possibility of easy integration in an existing fishmeal processing line, use of a safe and non-flammable extraction medium and lower investment and operation costs.

Do farmed fish contain artificial colouring?

The natural red/orange colour of salmon results from carotenoid pigments, largely astaxanthin in the flesh. Astaxanthin is a potent antioxidant that stimulates the development of healthy fish nervous systems and that enhances the fishs fertility and growth rate. Wild salmon get these carotenoids from feeding on small crustaceans, such as prawns and shrimp. Astaxanthin does not naturally occur in fish feeds and thus must be added. The astaxanthin which is added to feed is identical to the natural pigment.

Food miles

In recent years, there has been increasing emphasis on energy resources needed to ship in food from afar. Although the relationship between transport and overall sustainability can be complex, it can be said that where food supply chains are otherwise identical, reducing food transport improves sustainability.

Therefore, generally speaking, European aquaculture production could be seen as more efficient in terms of "food miles" than imports of the same species from countries far away.

 However, there is a food mile issue with the use of fish meal and fish oil produced in the southern hemisphere and used in Europe, although this is itself a trade-off of not using fish meal produced in Europe due to issues of species in recovery (e.g. sandeel and capelin) and contamination of fish meal and oil (e.g. Baltic herring).

However, as stated before, comparisons can be complex, involving differences between food supply systems that often involve trade-offs between a diverse variety of environmental, social and economic factors. The impact of food transport can be offset to some extent if food imported to an area has been produced more sustainably than the food available locally. For example, a case study showed that it can be more sustainable (at least in energy efficiency terms) to import tomatoes from Spain than to produce them in heated greenhouses in the UK outside the summer months.

In the case of fishmeal and fish oil, the worlds largest producers of fishmeal and fish oil are in South America. There, fishmeal and fish oil are mass-produced very efficiently and shipped overseas (already with a reduced water content in the case of fishmeal) to Europe to be used as feed in aquaculture. Surely, this has to compare favourably to using airplanes to import fresh fish from Asia or South America.

Read More..

A Bridge Too Far

There is no doubt that the Garden Bridge is causing a lot of discussion across all the social media channels and in the press and that there are a lot of people who believe either that it is a wonderfull thing and equally many who disagree.
When I first heard about it I was thrilled too. Mooted as Londons equivalent of New Yorks High Line it sounded like a really innovative and exciting project that could change the way green space is used in London and be an example to other cities both in the UK and worldwide.
Cities are booming, and by 2050 its estimated that 70% of the UK population will live in an urban area. All around the country cities are addressing how they will manage their green spaces. Visiting Sheffield recently I was lucky enough to visit 2 extraordinarily inspiring projects, The Green Estate and Heeley Park, both of which made me really think about how good design and support for areas that historically have struggled in various ways, is vital in the way we tranform inner city green spaces. These are projects that have changed lives and seen areas with historic problems change themselves through enterprise brought about through good use of the land. I myself am currently working on an inner city project in Bristols Bearpit roundabout, which is a sunken space in the centre of the city that historically has problems with anti social behaviour, to green the space in a way that will bring an oasis of tranquility to an area that will also be a central hub with food businesses  and a vibrant market as well as lots of thought provoking urban art, bringing an unloved and fairly frightening place back into a space that encourages it to be used by all.
These examples, and there are many more, of cutting edge design mixed with the importance of social outcomes are vital if we are to see our cities prosper and the citizens living in them lead healthy lives. Green space is vital for all and it is those that are most vulnerable and for whom getting out into anything that is at all nature like, who often find accessing it the most difficult. For horticulture within cities to be taken seriously, and city councils to see the importance of this in areas of socio economic deprivation and indeed invest in it, any project taking place in the public sphere must have some need for a good social outcome, and for it to effect positive change within the community it is being placed.
At this point I also think its worth talking a little about New Yorks High Line, which began as a project that came about through a group of people, now The Friends of the High Line, coming together and finding the space, getting the necessary permissions and bringing the project to fruition. The friends of the High Line are still very much involved in the project and its worth looking at their website to seee the story of the project as well as the history of the space itself. Their website can be found at www.thehighline.org.
There is no doubt that cities and the way urban greening is being addressed is changing and so I really thought the idea of a new bridge that could be accessed by all and was green in all conotations of the word was wonderful, until I started to hear concerns. The construction of the bridge will mean an area of green space along with 30 mature trees will be lost, at a time when the tree canopy of cities is being looked at and all cities are being encouraged to increase them. Mature trees support a diverse cross section of wildlife and planting new trees nearly doesnt mean that wildlife will remain in the area. The area of planting is apparently only going to be the size of half a football pitch, which makes me wonder what the rest will be used for, and it wont be open to all, 24/7, but be on a timed ticket as it is expected to be so oversubscribed. Apparently this ticket will be free but I wonder who will pay the admin cost? And it is questionable that cyclists will have access to it, or that it will even be used as a bridge in the sense that it will enable people to cross the water from one side to the other as quickly as if the river wasnt there. It will also be closed one day per month for private functions.
However my biggest problem is the fact that £60 million of public money is set to be used for this and it appears that public consultation has been at a minimum. Effectively this is a vanity project, being put into a space where already there are questions over its suitability, that is not there for the people of London or the local area, but for tourists to visit. This is nothing to do with good urban planning or biodiversity, but all about bringing in the tourist dollar. And we are spending public money to do this whilst we have people regularly accessing food banks, more children accessing free school meals than ever before and are still set to see further cuts in public funding going into the future.
With some of Londons inner city boroughs being the most deprived areas of the UK, I question how this is acceptable. Half of the money is from Transport for London and I am quite convinced that £30million could go towards greening stations if it is money allocated to that, making them safer, kinder spaces.
So here is my main question. What are this projects social outcomes? How is it commited to the community in which it will sit? Where is the public consultation that we should all be able to access?
If in Bristol, when we embark on a new project we have to knock on neighbouring doors, ensure we have a questionnaire that is acceptable for that area and be positive that we can answer any questions with a positive spin, as well as then going through a thorough council assessment with their environmental/allotment/park and gardens departments, what has been the relevant consultation undertaken for this?
At this point I would like to say its not too late to change all these things. The building of the bridge and the planting and landscaping could be undertaken by local people, giving them new skills, introducing them to horticulture and construction and giving them a sense of ownership. It would still be a beautifully designed space, but one that had given local people a helping hand. It can be maintained by volunteers from the local community who would talk about it with visitors as only someone can who is deeply and emotionally at one with a garden project. It could become inclusive.
I finish with a horrifying statistic. The projected cost of the bridge, in all, is approx £175million. If each of Londons 32 boroughs were to share that money between them it would equate to the possibilty of there being 53 community projects in each borough, each with £100,000 to spend.
Now that would have seriously good social outcomes.....

 Both of these photos are of Sheffields Green Estate where they have taken parkland and unloved green spaces and encouraged community enterprise through learning. This place goes beyond the extraordinary and should be held up as an example of what cutting edge urban greening and design can do to change communities.

Read More..

CCRES promotes Elken Spirulina

Best Food for The Future – Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Spirulina contains nutrition not found in other food sources and is able to fulfill nutrition deficiency as well as neutralize our body’s acidic condition. Spirulina has been consumed by the Japanese for decades and has been proven to increase health and promote longevity.

To maintain healthy body, we need nutritious food which consists of 80% alkaline food, and 20% acidic food. Alkaline food presents only in vegetables, fruits, cheese, egg white and algae. Others are all acidic in nature. To make matter worse, modern food tends to be high in carbohydrates, calorie, glucose, fat and cholesterol, and at the same time, low in vitamin, minerals and proteins which are what our cells need the most. These conditions create nutrition-deficiency and acidic body condition.

Our body cells require 46 different types of nutrition in well balanced amount. These vitamins and minerals cannot be produced by our body and is used up daily. Therefore, we need to have them in our diets. Since the various types of nutrition may have dependencies among themselves, a lack in one element might cause another to be wasted.

Unbalanced nutrition may cause semi-healthy states, such as fatigue, susceptible to illness, lack of concentration, allergic, gastric and others.

Spirulina contains complete and balanced set of nutrition that is easily available to our cells for faster absorption and to strengthen our body’s immune system.

How to preserve health? Our body needs food in the following proportion to remain healthy: 80% alkaline food and 20% acidic food. Modern lifestyles and diets consist of mostly acidic food such as meat, seafood, grains and others. The choice of alkaline food is very limited and consist only of vegetables, fruits, algae, cheese and egg white. Spirulina is the best out of alkaline food as it is 100% alkaline and is very nutritious.

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

special thanks to

Hakim Hauston from Indonesia

Read More..

Israel Bio Fuel from Algae

Israeli scientists grow microalgae strains from the Red Sea in bioreactor fields in the desert near Jordan, for astaxanthin used to create cosmetics, colorants and food supplements…

CCRES AQUAPONICS
Project of NGO
Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

Read More..