Of gribbles and fish oil: plants and future security

By Lindsey Atkinson (@LJA_1)

In the week that the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was issued (31.03.2014) with its emphasis on risks and the importance of adaptation, the UK Plant Sciences Federation  (UKPSF) held their 2014 conference ‘Plant Science – Sustaining Life on Earth’ at the University of York.  This conference brings together a wide range of plant scientists from ecologists to molecular biologists and gives them the opportunity to share their knowledge across disciplines.

A key theme of the conference was food security¹ and how plant science may help to meet some of the challenges we face.  The conference was opened with a keynote lecture from Prof Tim Benton (University of Leeds) on ‘Feed, food and fuel: plants and future security’ where he gave us an overview of some of these challenges.  Drivers of change include the growth in global demand for food, globalization and the changing climate.  Combine this with soil degradation and these things add up to make future food supplies look very uncertain!  On the other side of the coin, it’s not just about food supplies, but also about waste.   Some of these themes were echoed in Prof Peter Gregory’s (East Malling Research/University of Reading) talk in which he looked at the importance of sustainable agriculture and reducing waste and loss. 

Some of the headline figures from the recently published UKPSF report Status of UK Plant Science: Current Status and Future Challenges include:

•  ‘There will be 2.4bn extra people to feed by 2050’
•    ‘Global food production must increase by 60-110% to meet this demand’
•    ‘Up to 40% of global crop yields are lost to plant pests and diseases each year’
•    ‘Agriculture accounts for 70% of the world’s fresh water use’
• ‘By 2030, global energy demand is predicted to rise by 40%’

At one level these challenges need to be tackled through politics and economics but plant scientists are using their knowledge and creativity to contribute too, which brings us back to gribbles and fish oil…

Gribbles are small, marine, wood-boring crustaceans and wouldn’t normally make an appearance at a plant science conference.  However, understanding and using their digestive enzymes may increase the efficiency with which we can break down woody materials to produce biofuels (read more). 

We also learned that fish oil isn’t made by fish – yes, you guessed it – it is made by plants (in this case marine algae) and accumulated by the fish.   Using fish as a source of these fish oils for fish farming is not sustainable but using transgenic crops could be… (read more).  

There were many more examples of how plant scientists are working to improve crop yield and yield stability, water and nutrient use in agriculture and the nutritional value of crops.  There is also a lot of current research on using plants as factories to produce additional nutrients and biofuels.  You can find more details of all the topics covered at the conference at http://plantsci2014.org.uk/programme/

The future for plant scientists in the UK was the topic for a debate chaired by Dr Sandy Knapp of the Natural History Museum.  Although great strengths were recognized in the plant science research community, it was noted that it has an ageing population and skills shortages are predicted.  The importance of inspiring students from an early age was emphasized with calls for greater inclusion of plant science in the curriculum at both school and in higher education.  The next challenge is once inspired, providing the opportunities to keep scientists in this area.

The panel (from L to R): Sarah Gurr (University of Exeter), Jim Beynon (University of Warwick),  Sandy Knapp (Natural History Museum, London),  Mark Chase (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Mike Bushell (Syngenta) and Dale Sanders (John Innes Centre).

The conference closed with a final talk from Prof Jackie Hunter, Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), who gave her view of a 21^st Century Vision for Plant Science to tackle challenges in sustainable crop production.

¹Food Security was defined at the World Food Summit of 1996 as occurring “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life” (http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/).  

Localised Food Systems – What Role does Place Play?

by Kirstie O'Neill

(@KirstieJONeill)

My PhD research focused on what policy makers could do to help support localised food systems (LFS).  Although LFS are difficult to define, the number of LFS has grown over the last 15 years as producers and consumers seek alternatives from mainstream, globalised food systems.  A widely used definition is:

“rooted in particular places, [LFSs] aim to be economically viable for farmers and consumers, use ecologically sound production and distribution practises, and enhance social equity and democracy for all members of the community” (Feenstra 1997)

Local food is frequently seen as playing a role in rural development, as a way to overcome farming crises, revive lagging rural economies and restore consumer confidence.  Examples include farmers’ markets, farm shops, box schemes, community supported agriculture, community gardens and organic production.  LFS are often based on characteristics such as direct contact between consumers and producers, increased trust, and greater proximity. 

Olive grove in Anversa degli Abruzzi, Abruzzo
(Photo: Kirstie O'Neill)

My PhD research with policy makers, local food businesses and consumers in East Yorkshire (UK - an area usually seen as industrial farming) and the Abruzzo (Italy - the Abruzzo is often seen as marginal farming) explores how local food is contingent on specific localised spaces.  Using evidence from two contrasting types of region, one so-called industrial agricultural region and the other a more marginal region, helps to probe why some regions develop strong LFS while others do not. 

Rapeseed field, East Yorkshire (Photo: Kirstie O'Neill)

Relating to food production, regions are frequently characterised as ‘marginal’ or ‘industrial’, but food production can be more complex.  Eastern England is often viewed as being devoid of LFS, as a homogeneous intensive agricultural region or a ‘placeless foodscape’ (Morgan et al., 2006).  Regions that have been marginal to the post World War II productivist agricultural regime are typically viewed as the stronghold for LFS, in the UK, for example, linked to areas like Devon, Cumbria and Wales.  Countries such as Italy and France are often viewed as favourable for LFS as a result of cultural attachment to local food (Montanari 1994).  Such stereotyped views may inhibit opportunities and developments in regions like East Yorkshire as well as in countries like Italy, by glossing over more detailed local variations. 

Such stereotypes of ‘conventional’ or ‘peripheral’ are problematic as these opposite ends of a spectrum are not clear-cut, with a more nuanced picture emerging.  Policy support is essential for the success of LFS, yet how policy makers interpret and understand local food varies by regional context.  ‘Local food’ means different things in specific contexts.

Contingent Local Food Systems and Regions

East Yorkshire (UK) and the Abruzzo (Italy) were my case study regions for investigating LFS (see Figure 1).  Although they are diverse in many respects, similarities include the ways in which space affects the actions and thinking of core actors involved in local food and rural development.  East Yorkshire is an intensive agricultural region embedded into global commodity networks yet with an emerging local food sector, whereas the Abruzzo is the type of area frequently associated with strong LFS.  Italy per se is associated with a strong food culture, assumed to have high levels of commitment to local food (‘prodotti tipici’) (Helstosky 2004; Montanari 1994). 

Figure 1. Map showing East Yorkshire (left) and Abruzzo (right) (Source: Wikimedia commons).

In East Yorkshire, people frequently linked areas like national parks with local food.  Many referred to places like the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales (both national parks) as places where it would be ‘easier’ to run a local food business.  East Yorkshire was described as ‘flat and boring’ in contrast.  One respondent thought that in contrast to East Yorkshire ‘it’s good to go to a farmers’ market in Devon and Cornwall’.  While one policy maker suggested that ‘local food has the perception of being produced in the Dales or the hills, where you can see the animals’. 

In contrast, the Abruzzo region has one third of its land mass designated as protected land.  Despite this many people saw the region of Tuscany as better suited to local food.  Tuscany is a popular tourist destination, but is also firmly embedded in the Italian psyche – ‘non è la Toscana’ (‘well, this isn’t Tuscany’) was a common response.  This suggests that both areas, despite their differences, encounter similar problems in being recognised as a local foodscape. 

Can industrial foodscapes accommodate LFS?

East Yorkshire business selling locally landed
shellfish to local markets
(courtesy of www.what-a-catch.co.uk)

This idea of local food as being quite separate from places of intensive food production influences how policy makers think about local food in the context of East Yorkshire and the policies they subsequently develop.  Recent attempts to stimulate a LFS include a number of food festivals in the area, a Local Food Directory (here, including businesses like the one left here), dedicated local food workers and a not-for-profit company promoting local food.  All of these actions have challenged common perceptions of industrial farming regions, as one policy maker said ‘to everybody’s astonishment it was amazing just what is made in East Yorkshire, and is overlooked because the image and everybody’s thought process goes straight to North Yorkshire’.  Increasing the visibility of foods produced in the region has contrasted with previous perceptions; as one tourism business said ‘15 years ago I would have said “well we’re just corn barons really,” you know there wasn’t a lot of diversity’. 

However, for some the image of East Yorkshire as industrial foodscape is enduring and represents a potential barrier for developing LFS in the region.  Although there is increasing diversity of local foods in places like East Yorkshire, many still associate such regions with intensive agriculture, as emphasised by a policy maker:

‘...it’s easy to see how you would promote lamb from the North Yorkshire Moors isn’t it?  Promoting wheat from Holderness is…just doesn’t work in the same way...[it’s] not...something that’s sold directly to the end consumer’.

Thus, industrial farming regions are still viewed by some as agriculturally homogeneous, leaving little room for the diverse range of products made in East Yorkshire, including goats’ cheeses, organic salads, smoked fish as well as lamb.  Many of the views I encountered during my research can be understood in the context of large-scale and financially profitable agriculture being seen as the norm locally.  This frames how other farming activities are understood and perceived, so that practices not fitting into this image of ‘proper’ farming are devalued. 

Contrasting evidence from the Abruzzo region

Despite the Abruzzo being geographically different to East Yorkshire, and arguably a region with an ‘attractive’ landscape, many businesses and policy-makers reported similar issues.  Many respondents stated that Tuscany represented a better, stronger LFS; popular images of Tuscany were how local food producing regions were imagined.  Interviewees suggested that although the remote and wild landscapes of the Abruzzo region offered similar potential, they were not (yet) able to compete with places like Tuscany.  Italy is a varied country and respondents illustrated the difficulties that they faced in Abruzzo, such as a low external profile, relative geographical remoteness and a lack of potential customers.  For instance, one regional policy maker stated that ‘no-one knows where the Abruzzo region is, not even in Italy’.

Mountain scene, Gran Sasso National Park
(Photo: Kirstie O'Neill)

Organic agriculture was more common in Abruzzo, as the mountainous parts of the region were not suitable for industrialised agriculture.  This ‘unspoilt’ aspect of agriculture was seen as strengthening local food production, for many ‘l’agricoltura industriale non è pensabile’ (industrial agriculture would be unimaginable here).  Organic production was accepted as a ‘good thing’ in Abruzzo, whereas in East Yorkshire organic food was viewed with suspicion, as being for ‘hippies’ and critical of conventional agriculture.

The Italian producers were aware of their fragile position in a remote part of Italy which is not the Italy that most people imagine.  Policy makers in the region referred to an increasing distance between consumers and producers, despite the vision of Italy as a nation of food lovers.  Paradoxically, despite bemoaning the increasing distance between producers and consumers, LFS businesses in Abruzzo actively promote their produce to people outside the region, for example by targeting tourists or selling to buying groups (‘gruppi di acquisto sociale’) within Italy, or international sales using the Internet.

Conclusions

In depth discussions in both places revealed geographically-specific interpretations of what local food is, dependent upon local contexts.  Previous conceptualisations of LFS rarely take industrial agricultural regions into account.  However, East Yorkshire is one such region successfully developing local food, thus challenging common perceptions of such places.  Similarly, regions like Abruzzo, which are generalised as having the ‘right’ conditions for successful LFS, also require support and determination to take advantage of the opportunities presented by LFS.  Despite such regions being associated with strong LFS, they do not automatically establish them, particularly as they are often sparsely populated and may be distant from consumer demand. 

My research suggest that policy makers need to address the future role of such places in food production – the development of local food in both locations is something that has to be worked at and in both cases this has been achieved through policy makers trying to create a local food network/culture.  It cannot be assumed that certain regions will develop LFS while others will not – the success of LFS are not tied to particular characteristics, but can succeed with the appropriate support, promotion and determination.

A longer version of this paper has been accepted for Regional Studies, Regional Science, forthcoming.

Cooking up an App

By Deborah Butler

Creating and testing digital tools such as apps is one of the research objectives of what we refer to as the DE:FT project or, to use its title in full, ‘Creating trust through digital traceability: sustainable food chains and new ways to connect producers and consumers’, funded by the RCUK’s Digital Economy Theme ( see http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/xrcprogrammes/Digital/pages/home.aspx).

Whilst we are not in the business of creating anything commercial, one of the aims of the inter-disciplinary project we are involved in, (see www.deftproject.org.uk) is to test the effectiveness of digital technologies for enhancing sustainability in the food and farming sectors, reconnection, information exchange and for reconnecting food consumers and producers. Hence we are creating digital tools that we can trial in the field with lots of different potential user groups so we can observe how the tools are used in practice, using in-depth, qualitative social science techniques to engage users and secure their input through live testing ‘in the wild’ (online, on-farm, in-shop). Hopefully from the digital tools we develop we can explore their potential to support sustainability in agriculture, rural development and food consumption.

Why make an app and what are they anyway?  A good question and one which I shall attempt to explain through the course of this blog.   ‘App’ is an abbreviation for application.  An app is a special type of software. It can run on the Internet, on a computer, or on a phone or other electronic device.  An app typically refers to software used on a smartphone or mobile device such as the Android, iPhone, BlackBerry or iPad, as in ‘mobile app’ or ‘iphone app’. The phrases ‘Web app’ or ‘online app” are also used in a business setting— meaning software that can be accessed and used whilst online, via a browser, instead of software residing on a computer (such as Microsoft Word).

The image above is of an app for on-line virtual grocery shopping! Open up the app on your smartphone, tap on one of the icons and it will take you into a virtual supermarket where you can buy your groceries, check them out and then get them delivered. We won’t be attempting anything quite as sophisticated as this but it is a good example of how much can be done through apps.

So how to start? As social scientists app creation was a completely new experience for us but with help from a very patient computer scientist who is also part of the project, we took up the challenge and began making apps, a process not unlike making a cake – although there’s no washing up and you don’t end up with anything to eat before and after the process has been completed.  What follows is my app making ‘recipe’ and, with apologies to Blue Peter you can view the ‘ones we made earlier’ at Test our Tools on the deft project website. Have a look and leave feedback at the forum site.  There is also a questionnaire survey you can complete the survey on how you think about and buy food, in shops and online.

Ingredients.

Ideas were gathered at a Consultation Panel meeting of project partners who are key players in UK food, farming and rural development.  We initially started out with 12 ideas and by the end of the meeting we had whittled these down to three which were the ones we have developed as prototypes.

You will need:

‘Post it’ notes

Pencils

Coloured paper

Scissors

Crayons

Method (can take a week plus)

1.  Download ‘how to make a paper prototype’ from the internet.  No, really!, this web page and others like it proved invaluable and sets out the ways in which making an app can be approached. See http://www.paperprototyping.com/what.html if you want to start cooking up your own app.

2.  Have a cup of tea and decide who is going to play the computer and who is the user

3.  Practice saying ‘computer says no’ (with apologies to Little Britain).

4.  Each person takes an idea and, using ‘Post-its’ creates a very rough flow diagram of what they think the app should include, such as recipes, links to local food outlets.

5.   Feedback to each other, re-ordering ‘Post – its’, scrapping some, introducing others.

6.  Try them out on each other with one person being the computer.

7. ‘Open up the app’ by removing the ‘Post it’ to reveal the menu underneath then follow one of the options in the menu, seeing if it is viable to do and if it will link to some of the other options.

8.  Build in a ‘home’ button so it is possible to take each ‘Post-it’ back to the ‘home ‘page.

9.  Once this process has been repeated, reviewed and repeated again create a new iteration.

10. Allow your new creation to cool for a while whilst you have a cup of tea and think about where to go next.

11.  Start all over again until each phase in the app has an end outcome which can be related back to the aims of the app.

12.  Turn the ‘Post-its’ into powerpoint slides add in hyperlinks and external links.

13.  This is the stage where it becomes clear which slides do not link to each other or are too complicated.

Results

14.  Discuss with computer scientist and graphics expert to find that the app, whilst all singing and dancing, will need the resources of Apple or Microsoft to build and will take at least 3 years to make.

15.  Review and scale down the paper prototypes.

16.  Re-test power point slides and adjust where needed.

Discussion

Yes, well, there was a lot of that.  Once we had finalised our three prototypes, FoodCloud, Shopstamp and GradeBack, we put them on the website (see above) for further comments which can be left at the forum page.  We also took them to Bishop Burton, to an East Riding of Yorkshire Local Food Network event to test them with other audiences so that we are testing them ‘in the wild’ so we can then create further iterations in response to the feedback. The comments we have had already have been very useful as have the discussions we have had with other retailers and people involved in local food networks.  One of the biggest stumbling blocks we have encountered however is lack of mobile signal, especially in rural areas and until coverage becomes more uniform and accessible this will limit the use of digital tools in certain parts of East Yorkshire.  As one local resident of Pocklington put it, ‘well you’ve heard of these hot spots haven’t you? We’re in a ‘not spot’, so not very useful’.

We are still in the early stages of the research but are looking for new avenues to pursue, such as working with local schools, developing digital tools that will provide a link to where and how food is grown, how it is used and how it might fit into a healthy diet. Hopefully the apps can be developed so they can be integrated into parts of the national curriculum but in a way that they are fun and the children enjoy using them.

Please take a look at the website and leave your comments on our prototype apps. There’s also a link to a short survey on food shopping and the use of digital tools, so please complete that too!