Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Foodshed Vancouver : envisioning a sustainable foodshed for Greater Vancouver 2010

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2010_fall_richardson_james.pdf
ubc_2010_fall_richardson_james.pdf [ 4.53MB ]
ubc_2010_fall_richardson_james.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058472.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058472+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058472.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058472+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058472+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058472+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0058472.ris

Full Text

Foodshed Vancouver: Envisioning a Sustainable Foodshed for Greater Vancouver by JAMES M. RICHARDSON B.Ed, Queen’s University, 2002 B.Sc, McMaster University, 2001 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2010 © James M. Richardson, 2010 Abstract This study explored assessment methods for sustainable foodshed design.  A sustainable foodshed was defi ned as a regional form that meets local food needs, is energeti cally producti ve, and is ecologically and socially resilient.  Food system energy inputs were measured through a life-cycle assessment of produc- ti on, distributi on, processing, and nutrient cycling inputs to determine the food system energy balance for Greater Vancouver’s hypotheti cal foodshed.  The model accounted for embedded variables such as dietary habits, circulati on allotments and distributi on chains, ulti mately requiring the integrati on of qualitati ve and quanti tati ve indicators at a regional, municipal and farm scale. Findings suggest that Canadians purchase roughly 710 kg of food per year, demanding 0.68ha of farmland per capita.  If all proximal Agricultural Land Reserve areas were fully uti lized to support Greater Vancouver’s 2006 populati on, it would require 3.5 joules of energy to produce, distribute, prepare and cycle nutrients for every joule of energy contained in the food Vancouverites eat.  It may require a radical transformati on of dietary habits and processing methods, and a renewed dependency on human-powered agriculture to sustainably feed the populati on of Greater Vancouver. ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents  ............................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................viii 1 Introducti on  ..................................................................................................................................... 1  Objecti ves of a Sustainable Foodshed ............................................................................................. 1  A Tale of Two Foodsheds ................................................................................................................. 1  Measuring the Footprint of Food .................................................................................................... 3  Reading the Menu ........................................................................................................................... 5 2 Dietary Habits .......................................................................................................................................... 9  Food Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 9  What the World Eats ..................................................................................................................... 10  Modelling Food Consumpti on ....................................................................................................... 10  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 Circulati on & Wildlands ......................................................................................................................... 15  Wildlands and Foodlands .............................................................................................................. 15  Ecological Importance of Wildlands .............................................................................................. 15  Informing Circulati on & Wildland Allotments ............................................................................... 16  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 18 4 Producti on .............................................................................................................................................. 20  Early Live-powered Producti on...................................................................................................... 20  Considerati ons for Organic, Conventi onal and Greenhouse-based Agriculture ............................ 21  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 24 5 Distributi on ............................................................................................................................................ 29  Energy Quality ............................................................................................................................... 30  Moving Food .................................................................................................................................. 30  Moving Groceries .......................................................................................................................... 33  Moving Farmers ............................................................................................................................. 34  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 35  iii Table of Contents  iv 6 Processing  ............................................................................................................................................. 38  Food Processing and Preparati on .................................................................................................. 38  Spati alizing Processing Energy Inputs ............................................................................................ 38  Packaging ....................................................................................................................................... 39  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 39 7 Nutrient Cycling ..................................................................................................................................... 42  Global & Regional Nutrient Cycling ............................................................................................... 42  Agricultural Nutrient Cycles ........................................................................................................... 44  Nutrientshed Vancouver ................................................................................................................ 47  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 48 8 Modelling Foodshed Vancouver ............................................................................................................ 56  Business as Usual 2006 .................................................................................................................. 56  Business as Usual 2050 .................................................................................................................. 58  Energy Effi  cient 2050 ..................................................................................................................... 59  Lactovegetarian 2050 .................................................................................................................... 60  Almost Sustainable 2050 ............................................................................................................... 62  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 63 9 Placing Foodlands  ................................................................................................................................. 67  Placing Urban Foodlands ............................................................................................................... 68  Placing Regional Foodlands ........................................................................................................... 69  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 70 10 Shaping Sustainable Foodlands ........................................................................................................... 73  Opti mal Regional Size .................................................................................................................... 74  Opti mal Regional Shape ................................................................................................................ 76  The Shape of Living Systems .......................................................................................................... 78  Shaping Wildlands ......................................................................................................................... 80  Shaping Foodlands ........................................................................................................................ 82  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 91 11 Regional Applicati ons .......................................................................................................................... 95  Design Guidelines for a Resilient Foodshed................................................................................... 95  Southlands Farm, Tsawwassen ...................................................................................................... 97  Cott onwood Community Gardens, Strathcona ............................................................................ 100  Organivanico, UBC Farm .............................................................................................................. 103  Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 106  v 12 Transiti ons .......................................................................................................................................... 108  Measuring the Footprint of Food ................................................................................................ 108  Methods for Sustainable Foodshed Design ................................................................................. 109  The Shape of a Sustainable Foodshed ......................................................................................... 111  Transiti ons ................................................................................................................................... 111 13 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 114 14 Appendix A - Modelling Assumpti ons ............................................................................................... 133 Food Consumpti on ......................................................................................................................... 134 Food Producti on Energy Intensity .................................................................................................. 135 Producti on Energy Input Comparison: Conventi onal vs Organic ................................................... 136 Processing Energy Intensity ........................................................................................................... 137 Nutrient Cycling  ............................................................................................................................ 138 Financial Return ............................................................................................................................. 139 15 Appendix B - Form Summaries and Typological Comparisons ......................................................... 141 Comparing Farm Size, Shape and Functi on .................................................................................... 142 Comparison of Food System Energy Balance Scenarios - 2050. ..................................................... 145 Summary of Foodprint Typologies in North America   ................................................................... 146 16 Appendix C - Supporti ng Documents ................................................................................................ 147 Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................... 148 Common Unit Conversions ............................................................................................................ 152  vi 2.1  What Canadians Eat ............................................................................................................................ 10 4.1  Animal Producti on Intensity ............................................................................................................... 28 6.1  Processing Energy Intensity ................................................................................................................ 38 7.1  Net Plant Available Nitrogen for Selected Feedstocks ........................................................................ 46 7.2  Net Plant Available Nitrogen Demand from Selected Food Groups ................................................... 49 7.3  Nutrient Energy Summary  ................................................................................................................. 50 8.1  Food Energy Summary for Foodshed Vancouver, 2006 ...................................................................... 57 List of Tables  vii 1.1 Rural Urban Populati on Split in BC, 1851 to 2001 ................................................................................. 2 1.2 Defi ning a Foodprint and Foodshed ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Food System Life-Cycle Accounti ng ....................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Three Imperati ves of a Sustainable Foodshed ....................................................................................... 5 1.5 Regional Foodshed Energy Assessment - System boundaries ............................................................... 8 2.1 Crop Specifi c Food Energy Consumpti on ............................................................................................. 10 2.2 Food Energy Consumpti on of Selected Countries 2003 - 2005 ........................................................... 11 2.3 Annual Food Energy Purchased and Consumed .................................................................................. 14 3.1 Ecological Services of Farmlands ......................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Community Garden and Large farm Land use Intensity ...................................................................... 17 3.3 Compositi on of BC Farmland ............................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Provincial Parks in BC........................................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Macro Circulati on Easements  ............................................................................................................. 19 4.1 Early Urban Agriculture in Paris ........................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Evoluti on of the Food Producti on Energy Balance .............................................................................. 21 4.3 Organic and Conventi onal Farm Producti vity ...................................................................................... 22 4.4 Energy Balance for Greenhouse and Field-Based Tomato Producti on ................................................ 23 4.5 Producti on Energy Effi  ciency of Selected Foods .................................................................................. 24 4.6 Direct Foodprint .................................................................................................................................. 25 5.1 Directi ons for Sustainability ................................................................................................................. 30 5.2 Freight Energy Intensity by Mode in Canada, 2007 ............................................................................. 30 5.3 Comparing Proximity Indicators .......................................................................................................... 32 5.4 Grocery Shed ....................................................................................................................................... 33 5.5 Connecti ng the Network ..................................................................................................................... 36 7.1 Canadian Cereal Yield and Ferti lizer Use Intensity .............................................................................. 43 7.2 Simplifi ed Nitrogen Cycle .................................................................................................................... 44 7.3 Conceptual Nitrogen Demand for Terrestrial Agricultural Systems ..................................................... 45 7.4 Plant Available Nitrogen relati ve the Mass of Compost ...................................................................... 46 7.5 Conceptual Plant Available Nitrogen from Compost Feedstocks ........................................................ 47 7.6  Life-cycle Foodprint ............................................................................................................................ 52 List of Figures 7.7  Nitrogen Losses in Manure Storage and Applicati on Methods .......................................................... 55 8.1 Modelling the Energeti cs of Foodshed Vancouver .............................................................................. 59 8.2 Foodshed Vancouver 2006 .................................................................................................................. 57 8.3 Foodshed Vancouver 2050 - Business as Usual ................................................................................... 58 8.4 One-hundred Mile Diet ....................................................................................................................... 59 8.5 Designated Rail Freight Stati ons and 50km Buff er Zones .................................................................... 59 8.6 Foodshed Vancouver 2050 - Energy Effi  cient ...................................................................................... 60 8.7 Foodshed Vancouver 2050 - Lactovegetarian Diet .............................................................................. 61 8.8  Foodshed Vancouver 2050 - (Almost) Sustainable ............................................................................. 62 8.9  Foodprint Comparison  ....................................................................................................................... 63 9.1 Suitability Factors in Urban and Regional Agricultural Planning .......................................................... 67 9.2 Designing for Accessibility ................................................................................................................... 68 9.3 Placing Urban Agriculture .................................................................................................................... 69 9.4 Composite Regional Suitability Analysis .............................................................................................. 70 9.5 Climati c Available Moisture Use Index ................................................................................................ 72 10.1 Garden City ........................................................................................................................................ 73 10.2 City Foodprint Comparison ................................................................................................................ 74 10.3 Conceptual Gross Foodprint for Local Communiti es ......................................................................... 76 10.4 Feeding the Region ............................................................................................................................ 76 10.5 Comparing Urban Forms ................................................................................................................... 77 10.6 Agricultural Regionalism .................................................................................................................... 79 10.7 Energy Dynamics of Simple and Living Systems ................................................................................ 79 10.8 The Shape of Wild ............................................................................................................................. 80 10.9 Space and Time in Living Systems ..................................................................................................... 81 10.10 Wildland Taxonomies ...................................................................................................................... 82 10.11 Relati ve Size and Timing of Mixed Farm Units ................................................................................. 83 10.12 Relati ve Income Schedule for Selected Farm Systems..................................................................... 83 10.13 The Time of Space ........................................................................................................................... 84 10.14 Applicati on of Agricultural Form to Landuse Patt erns ..................................................................... 84 10.15 The Shape of Farming ...................................................................................................................... 85 10.16 The Shape of Foodlands .................................................................................................................. 85 10.17 Vegetable Field Units ....................................................................................................................... 86 10.18 Orchard Field Units .......................................................................................................................... 87 10.19 Animal Field Units ........................................................................................................................... 88 10.20 Grain Field Units .............................................................................................................................. 89 10.21 Permaculture Food Forest Units  ..................................................................................................... 92 10.22 Radial Foodland Indicators  ............................................................................................................. 92 10.23 Measuring Parcel Coverage  ............................................................................................................ 93  viii 11.1 Where Does Urban Agriculture Fit in the Food system? ................................................................... 96 11.2 Southlands Farm Summary ............................................................................................................... 98 11.3 Southlands Farm ................................................................................................................................ 99 11.4 Cott onwood  Community Garden Extension Summary .................................................................... 101 11.5 Cott onwood Community Garden Extension  ................................................................................... 102 11.6 Organivanico Summary ................................................................................................................... 104 11.7 Organivanico  ................................................................................................................................... 105 11.8 Multi -scale Approach to Sustainable Foodshed Design  .................................................................. 106 12.1 Footprinti ng the Energeti cs of Foodshed Vancouver Scenarios  ..................................................... 108 12.2 Defi ning a Sustainable Foodshed .................................................................................................... 110  ix I would like to extend my deepest grati tude to my professors and colleagues Ronald Kellet, Duncan Cavens, Daniel Roehr and Mark Bomford for their mentorship and fl exibility, to my family for their pati ence, to my wife Emily, for her loving kindness,  and to the Earth, my greatest teacher, for everything else. Acknowledgements  x 1Foodshed design is a problem of both size and shape.  Size describes the amount of land and energy re- quired to support a food system, while shape is defi ned by the relati ve placement of farmlands and people at a provincial, regional and neighbourhood scale.  This study explored both qualiti es and will propose methods to envision a sustainable foodshed for Greater Vancouver. In 1974, Briti sh Columbia enacted legislati on to protect some of the provinces richest agricultural land. Since then various studies have reported on the degree to which Vancouver can meet its food needs within the region but none have proposed objecti ve methods for appropriately placing foodshed bound- aries.  Accordingly,  though the total area of land protected remains roughly the same (at 4.7 million ha), the locati on and quality of Briti sh Columbia’s Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR) land has shift ed responding to development pressure from Briti sh Columbia’s major urban centres (Smart Growth BC, 2004).  ALR land in Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley has been reduced by 9% and 6% respecti vely since 1974 (ALC, 2009) and will likely conti nue to erode without objecti ve justi fi cati on for its protecti on. Objecti ves of a Sustainable Foodshed The United Nati ons defi nes food security as a conditi on when “all people, at all ti mes, have physical, social and economic access to suffi  cient, safe and nutriti ous food”  (UN FAO, 2009).  From a biophysical perspecti ve, this requires all members of the populati on to have access at least the minimum energy requirements of 1,800kcal day-1. (Ibid).  Food sovereignty is an iterati on of food security with a focus on providing communiti es the capacity to meet their own food needs (Forum for Food Sovereignty, 2007).  As it is impossible to design food security and guarantee access to food, this study focused on the biophysi- cal qualiti es of a foodshed that has the capacity to meet the food needs of Greater Vancouver.  Meeti ng food needs is the fi rst imperati ve of a sustainable foodshed.  This should go with out saying, though too oft en foodshed planning seems able to compromise by meeti ng some food needs - implying that parts of the populati on will go without.  Robins (2006, p1) for example suggested that Briti sh Columbia is roughly 48% food self-suffi  cient - a fi nding that should be met with great concern and an outpouring of research to identi fy the other 52%.  Complete foodshed planning will undoubtedly force planners and designers to expand system boundaries to a nati onal and even global scale, however it is the only opti on if this work is to be done in a moral and comprehensive way. A Tale of Two Foodsheds Early hunter-gatherer societi es were small, usually less than 500 people, and spent much of their energy securing food or building shelter (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996, p2).  The introducti on of agriculture en- abled societi es to dedicate more ti me to non-food gathering acti viti es such as security and leadership (Ibid, p4) a movement of specializati on which eventually supported the modern city.  In Briti sh Columbia, 1 Introducti on 2urban populati ons did not even register on the census unti l the 1860s, but soon reached par with their rural counterparts in 1901 (Stati sti cs Canada, 2006).  Since then, rural popula- ti ons have rapidly declined and now represent only 15% of the total populati on of BC (Ibid) (fi gure 1.1).  The last decade has seen an increase in the average farm size and decrease in the number of people engaged in agriculture in a rapid departure from the traditi onal family farm.  In 2006, farms in BC averaged 353 acres in size, 23% larger than in  1996 (Sta- ti sti cs Canada, 2008).  During this same ti me, the populati on of farm operators decreased 10%  while the populati on of BC increased by 11%. (Ibid) The modern city is made possible by technological advances that enable the culti vati on and harvest  of large areas with litt le labour inputs, availability of cheap energy, and access to producti ve food plant culti vars (Davis, 1955).  Slave labour facilitated large urban populati ons in ancient Egypt (Pimen- tel, 1996, Cott rell, 1955) while cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels drives the current industrial agricultural model and modern mega-city.  The availability of cheap energy to- day contributes to the undervaluing of food and the farm- land that produces it.  Aft er the United States, Hong Kong and Barbados, Canadians spend less of their expendable in- come on food than any other country in the world (USDA, 1996)1.1.  Those that have culti vated a small patch of Earth to produce a head of lett uce will agree that there is simply no way to produce food for the prices charged in grocery stores. Profi t margins are so small for some foods that it is diffi  cult to grow food without losing money.  Several of the foods sold at conventi onal market prices will only yield a negati ve contributi on margin.  That is, the more the farmers grow, the more money they lose.  Small-scale beef, for example, costs more to produce and process than can be earned in sales assuming average yields and pricing (BCMAL, 2008).  The only way to produce within this framework is to induce hidden costs, endured by future generati ons, or by people in “other places”.  Without regulatory protecti on, the steady state of landscapes that are “valued” in this way is for use in housing.  The rise in applicati ons to remove prime agricultural land from the ALR for urban development (Smart Growth BC, 2004) suggests that even this external regulatory body is insuffi  cient to counter economic pressure.   The system that att ributes value to land is broken and must be rebuilt in order to properly preserve agricultural land and the food it produces. Rural 1851 1871 1891 1911 1931 1951 1971 1991 Urban Figure (1.1).  Rural Urban Populati on Split in BC, 1851 - 2001 3Measuring the Footprint of Food A foodprint or foodshed is a spati al manifestati on of the ecological footprint concept developed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996).  For the purpose of this study, a foodprint is defi ned as the absolute area required by a community to meet its food needs (fi gure 1.2a).  When constrained to land available for agriculture a city’s foodprint is contextual- ized as a foodshed (fi gure 1.2b).  This area may be local or at some distance from where the food is consumed, and is more oft en the latt er in the Canadian context.  The amount of land required depends on the dietary habits of the pop- ulati on where a vegetarian diet demands a much smaller land foodprint than a meat-based diet.  Whether a commu- nity’s foodshed is local or global, the concept alone can help planners and consumers acti vely discuss the impact of their choices, and ulti mately take responsibility for land use and dietary decisions. Peters et al. (2009) developed methodology to map a hypo- theti cal foodshed for New York State based on agricultural capability and nutriti onal food needs.  While his proposed generic diet met nutriti onal needs, it failed to respond to actual food choices thus has limited applicati on in model- ling a realisti c foodshed.  Further, his version of a foodshed uti lized Euclidian distance (as the crow fl ies), targeti ng local foods independent of route complexiti es or modal intensi- ti es (rail, truck, air).  Peters (2005) applied a similar model to Rochester NY, evaluati ng the minimum distance within which the caloric food needs of Rochester could be met.  In this approach he used corn grain as a yield and food energy proxy to simplify the model.  While grains make up the vast majority of the direct (rice, bread, pasta, etc) or indirect (though animal feed) food choices (FAO STAT, 2009), they fail to represent the weighted infl uence of high input livestock operati ons on the food system.  Producing one 1kg of meat protein requires eleven ti mes more energy than produc- ing the same quanti ty of plant protein (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003, p661S).  A more comprehensive food palett e and routi ng methodology is needed for meaningful foodshed mapping. Figure (1.2).  Defi ning a Foodprint (a), and Foodshed (b). (b) (a) City Foodprint 4In nature, a predator must on average expend no more energy in pursuit of prey than it expects to derive from the food itself.  This is predicated on the fi rst law of thermodynamics which suggests that energy can- not be created nor destroyed but can only be changed in form or transferred from one object to another. Since predators have no source of chemical energy save for prey, they must consume more energy than they expend in order to grow and develop.  While not a cognizant decision, it seems that this approach to food acquisiti on makes common sense and should be applied to human systems as well.  That is, a sustain- able food system should produce more energy than it consumes, accounti ng for the full life-cycle of food and considerate of healthy dietary habits and circulati on & wildland set-asides (fi gure 1.3).  Food system energy balance is defi ned as the energy contained in the food purchased divided by the energy invested in its producti on, distributi on, processing and nutrient cycling or food energy output divided by food system energy inputs shown in the following equati on: Stanhill (1977) applied a similar algorithm in his evaluati on of allotment garden systems of early Paris, and Leach (1975), Carlsson-Kanyama (2003) and the Pimentels (1980, 1996, 2008) are famous for detailed case studies examining energy inputs and outputs of conventi onal and organic food systems around the world. However, these studies struggle with setti  ng system boundaries that respond to the complete life-cycle of food, and  oft en use methods absent of detailed contextual data that can’t inform meaningful policy change.  The two problems are connected when it comes to the distributi on and nutrient cycling stage of the food life-cycle which depend on local route complexiti es.  One must consider regional form, popula- ti on density, distributi on opti ons, relati ve locati on of farm and city lands, and nutrient producti on capacity to meaningfully apply area and energy footprints to the landscape.  This study builds on past research by applying the food energy balance algorithm to the context of BC  in an assessment of the energeti cs of Greater Vancouver’s Foodshed fork to fork (fi gure 1.3).1.2. ࡲࡿࡱሺ࢔ࢋ࢚ሻ ൌ ࡼࡱ ൅ࡰࡱ ൅ ࡼ࢘ࡱ ൅ ࡺࡱ  ࡲ࡮ࡱ ൌ ࡲࡱሺ࢔ࢋ࢚ሻ ࡲࡿࡱሺ࢔ࢋ࢚ሻ  ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ ܨܵாሺ݊݁ݐሻ ൌ ܨ݋݋݀ݏݕݏݐ݁݉݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݅݊݌ݑݐݏሺܩܬሻ ாܲ ൌ ܲݎ݋݀ݑܿݐ݅݋݊݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݅݊݌ݑݐݏሺܩܬሻ ܦா ൌ ܦ݅ݏݐݎܾ݅ݑݐ݅݋݊݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݅݊݌ݑݐݏሺܩܬሻ ܲݎா ൌ ܲݎ݋ܿ݁ݏݏ݅݊݃݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݅݊݌ݑݐݏሺܩܬሻ ாܰ ൌ ܰݑݐݎ݅݁݊ݐܿݕ݈ܿ݅݊݃݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݅݊݌ݑݐݏሺܩܬሻ ܨܤா ൌ ܨ݋݋݀ݏݕݏݐ݁݉݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕܾ݈ܽܽ݊ܿ݁ሺ݊݋ݑ݊݅ݐሻ ܨாሺ݊݁ݐሻ ൌ ܨ݋݋݀݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݂݋ݎ݈݈݂ܽ݋݋݀݃ݎ݋ݑ݌ݏሺܩܬሻ 5Tellarini and Caporali (2000) explored several economic and energeti c indicators they described as Agro- ecosystem Performance Indicators (API), and stressed the need to integrate qualitati ve and quanti tati ve indicators to more comprehensively inform sustainable land use decisions.  Accordingly, defi ning a food- shed enti rely by its capacity to meet food needs in an energeti cally producti ve way is insuffi  cient to pre- serve or promote sustainable foodshed design.  Food lands must also be ecologically and socially resilient (fi gure 1.4).  This last indicator is much more diffi  cult to quanti fy and demands att enti on to the shape of food lands at multi ple levels of scale, functi onally integrati ng planning decisions at the provincial, regional, urban and community garden scale.  All three imperati ves must be met to sati sfy these sustainability requirements. Reading the Menu This study seeks to answer one fundamental questi on in the context of Greater Vancouver:  What is the size and shape of a sustainable foodshed? Secti ons two and three set the table, exploring the impact of di- etary habits and wildland and circulati on allotments on the ap- propriate size of a foodprint.  Secti ons four through seven iden- ti fy the energeti c and area implicati ons of the four stages of the food system, and secti on eight applies these parameters to fi ve scenarios, testi ng the impact of changing criti cal variables on the performance of Vancouver’s hypotheti cal foodshed.  Sec- Figure (1.3).  Food System Lifecycle Accounti ng. Producti on Distributi on Nutrient Cycling Processing Diet Food Energy OutputFood System Energy Inputs meet food needs energetically productive ecologically & socially resilient Sustainable Foodshed Figure (1.4).  Three Imperati ves of a Sustain- able Foodshed. 6ti ons nine and ten help digest some qualitati ve shape-based indicators which infl uence the ecological and social resilience of foodsheds, and secti on eleven applies indicators discussed throughout the report to the design of three local farms. Throughout the meal designers and consumers should focus on the implicati ons of behavioural and land use change on a provincial, regional and farm scale, each of which is criti cal for a sustainable food system. The foodshed boundaries or specifi c forms identi fi ed throughout the study are much less important than the means taken to draw them. The true objecti ve of this  study is to explore methodologies to assess and design sustainable foodsheds and marks the beginning of this conversati on rather than the end. 7Endnotes 1.1 Cheap food While Canadians spend less of their expendable income on food than most countries in the world, this doesn’t imply low absolute food prices.  Food prices in Canada are high, but so are average incomes.  This translates to food inse- curity for the working poor or jobless who might have greater access to food in countries where the absolute price of food is low.  (USDA, 2010) 1.2  Data assumpti ons The 2006 populati on census data is used to model “current” foodshed boundaries. (Stati sti cs Canada, 2006) Stati sti cs Canada and Cansim have developed populati on projecti ons to 2031 for each province and territory, and to 2056 for Canada.  They’ve generated 13 scenarios which account for various rates of immigrati on, migrati on, births, and other demographic variables.  When applied to Vancouver and extended to 2050 (the later 19yrs generated from the 1930-1931 growth rate), these scenarios predict a wide range of outcomes suggesti ng 2050 populati ons for the GVRD from 2.5 million to nearly 4 million, or 120% to 190% of the 2006 populati on.  This model assumes a growth rate of 150% over the 2006 census populati on suggesti ng a populati on of 3.1 million in 2050.  This rate is likely low given the recent boost in Metro Vancouver’s status as a world desti nati on, not to menti on under-reporti ng issues inherent with Stati sti cs Canada census collecti on.  BC Stats predicts a that Vancouver CMA will reach 3,316,626 by 2036 (BC Stats, 2010). Food Consumpti on patt erns were identi fi ed by Stati sti cs Canada, 2002 and food producti on patt erns were observed by the Briti sh Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL, 1996 - 2008), supplemented by Mullinix et al (2009); and modal intensiti es were measured by the Offi  ce of Energy Effi  ciency, Natural Resources Canada (NRC) in 2006 and published in 2009. (NRC, 2009). These non-spati al parameters will be placed within the regional form and modal networks available via the following spati al data sets:  The nati onal road network compiled by ESRI Canada (DMTI Spati al, 2006, 2008); and available ALR lands compiled by the Agricultural Land Commission, 2009b. It should be noted that a considerable amount of land is agriculturally producti ve but not in the ALR.  While these lands are an important part of the food system, they do not represent an intenti onal dedicati on of land for agricul- tural functi on, thus are not included in this study.  There is also a lot of ALR land which is available but not producing food.  Although there are 4.7 million hectares of land in Briti sh Columbia’s agricultural land reserve, only 2.8 million ha of land was uti lized for agriculture in 2006 (Stati sti cs Canada, 2008).  This thesis models food capacity, rather than land uti lizati on thus all ALR lands were assumed available for agriculture.  8The system boundaries for the regional foodshed energy assessment are indicated in fi gure (1.5) below. Producti on Distributi on Processing, Cooking & StorageNutrient Cycling Establishment; machinery maintenance; diesel, nitro- gen, irrigati on, transporta- ti on (machinery, seed, fuel); seed.  Feed transport. Transport of compost feed- stocks to farmlands; Distributi ng nutrients from processor to farms; Phosphate, Potassium or micro-nutrient cycling; Distributi on of com- post materials from consumer to processor. Pre-consumer processing inputs (thrashing, juicing, grinding, drying, etc.); Rest- eraunt processing (storage, cooking, sanitati on); Con- sumer processing (storage, cooking, sanitati on) Wholesaler or retailer energy inputs Distributi on farm to city- centre via opti mal (most energeti cally effi  cient) mode and route. Distributi on from retailer to consumer’s home. 1.3 Feed producti on energy in- puts (though feed lands are accounted for) included excluded Figure (1.5) Regional Foodshed Energy Assessment - System Boundaries.  Inside the dashed line are processes that are accounted for in the regional foodshed model.   No metabolic energy inputs were included in the model beyond that required during the producti on stage of the food cycle.  While distributi on of food from retailer to households is discussed in secti on (5), it is not included in the regional model. 9Researchers oft en model the space food requires by fi rst identi fying a proxy which energeti cally represents a standard diet.  Peters (2005), for example, used corn energy yield as a proxy for generati ng a foodshed model in New York State and Penning de Vries et al. (1995) suggest the use of a “wheat equivalent diet” for evaluati ng an individual or community’s annual diet, with higher consumpti on values att ributed to  higher levels of affl  uence.  In these two examples, foodshed planning could be based on yield predicti ons and assumed consumpti on where the net foodshed size is simply populati on consumpti on divided by target yields.  This simplifi cati on risks missing the many aspects of food that appear in small quanti ti es, or cannot be measured at all.  When dietary decisions refl ect sociocultural patt erns that extend beyond a corn diet, these models have litt le applicati on in designing realisti c foodsheds.  This study assumes that the average Canadian diet meets the nutriti onal and cultural needs of society.  This method lends itself to bett er refl ect true dietary needs, and can model the implicati ons of dietary shift s that will be discussed in secti on (8). This secti on will compare the Canadian diet with consumpti on patt erns around the globe. Food Energy Food can be coarsely evaluated by the relati ve content of proteins, fats and carbohydrates.  Each of these dietary components provides food energy, oft en evaluated in terms of calories, or more accurately ki- localories.  Humans consume between 1,500 to 3,800 kcal in dietary energy per day (FaoStat, 2009).  A nutriti ous diet contains balanced quanti ti es of proteins, fats and carbohydrates, in additi on to vitamins and minerals present in more dilute quanti ti es.  Food energy is the metric used to parameterize the food system energy balance equati on introduced in secti on (1).  It is defi ned as the energy contained in each individual food type multi plied by the mass of food consumed and summed to represent an individuals net food energy intake as per the following equati on: 2.1 2 Dietary Habits ࡲࡱሺ࢔ࢋ࢚ሻ ൌ෍ሺࡲࡱ ൈ ࡲࡼ࢓ሻ  ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ ܨாሺ݊݁ݐሻ ൌ ܨ݋݋݀݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݂݋ݎ݈݈݂ܽ݋݋݀݃ݎ݋ݑ݌ݏሺ݇ܬሻ ܨா ൌ ܨ݋݋݀݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ ൬ ݇ܬ ݇݃൰ ܨ ௠ܲ ൌ ܯܽݏݏ݋݂ܨ݋݋݀ܲݑݎ݄ܿܽݏ݁݀ሺ݇݃ሻ  10 What the World Eats Dietary habits diff er signifi cantly around the world both in quanti ty and quality.  Over one billion people in the world live with chronic hunger (UN FAO, 2009), consuming less than the minimum caloric intake of 1800 kcal day-1.   That one sixth of the worlds populati on is starving to death is unacceptable and the focus of United Nati ons eff orts to end hunger under the millen- nium targets to cut in half the number of people going hungry by 2015 from 1996 levels. (Ibid)  Since this ti me, hunger has increased to its highest levels since the 1970’s  (Ibid, p4).  It is no coincidence that this crisis coincides with rising oil and com- modity prices.   Even nearing the end of 2008 when oil prices receded from a high of $150 per barrel, prices for staple foods remained 17% higher than 2 years earlier (Ibid, p9). The quality of food Canadians eat is heavily weighted to animal products, oils and sugars (fi gure 2.1), representi ng almost 60% of Canadian food intake (table 2.1).  In contrast, grains make up the majority of caloric intake for those in developing countries (fi gure 2.1).  It is important to note that Canadians are indirect- ly dependent on grains through the animal feed that supports the meat industry.  The quanti ty of food energy Canadians (and North Americans) consume is not surprisingly much higher than the world average and the cause of an obesity crisis across the conti nent.  On average, Canadians consume roughly 3,550kcal per day per capita, almost two ti mes the minimum determined by the UN FAO and 11th highest in the world (fi gure 2.2). Modelling Food Consumpti on It is diffi  cult to accurately track food consumpti on with traditi onal survey methods.  To assess Canada’s capacity to meet regional food needs, Stati sti cs Canada  monitor what they call food disappearance 2.1, which is the food produced in Canada added to food imports, less any exports. (Stati sti cs Canada, 2002). While limited, this is a good proxy for what food is purchased on a per capita basis.  They also to esti mated how much food is actually consumed accounti ng for wastage through the food cycle.  However, this study focused on the mass of food purchased, a more reliable indicator than food consumed.  Food energy pur- Cereals 47% Animal Products 17% Fruit, Vegetables, Pulsesand Roots 13% Others 3% OilsandSugars 20% Figure (2.1) Crop Specifi c Food energy consumpti on.  Relati ve caloric value of World (top) and Canadian (bott om) 2003 - 2005.  Data source:  FAO STAT Yearbook, 2009. Cereals 24% Others Animal Products 26% Fruit, Vegetables, Pulsesand Roots 12% 7% OilsandSugars 31% Table (2.1) What Canadians Eat.  (see appendix 14.1 for more details.) FOODENERGYSUMMARY FoodEnergyPurchased(kcal/day) Foodenergypurchased(MJ/cap*yr) Grains 851.03  1,300 Vegetables 341.25  521 Fruit 186.99  286 OilsandSugars 1,043.66  1,594 AnimalProducts 1,087.38  1,661 Sum: 3,510.31  5,361 11 chased was modelled for each food type using esti mated nutriti onal values calculated by USDA (2000), and supplemented with data from nutriti ondata.com2.2.  Only foods that could be grown in BC were selected and the mass of each food type was increased to compensate for foods that are typically imported.  For example, rice cannot be grown in Briti sh Columbia, so every grain source that could be grown in BC was increased so the total mass of grains consumed remained the same.  While grains required litt le adjust- ment, the fruit palett e shift ed signifi cantly to compensate for the tremendous amount of citrus fruits Canadians consume.  Refl ecti ng on the data, BC can only grow 40 % of the fruit that is regularly consumed by Canadians2.3.  Fish, soft  drinks and other food groups that cannot be grown directly were excluded.  This assumpti on has ramifi cati ons on the total modelled energy consumpti on which equals 2,421 kcal cap- 1day-1, almost 30 % less than the 3,557kcal cap-1day-1 esti mated by the FAO (UN FAO 2009)2.4.  Aft er these considerati ons, the model predicted that Canadians purchase 3,510 kcal yr-1 of food, slightly less than FAO consumpti on esti mates2.1. Conclusion The modelled daily energy consumpti on values are well within the range of a healthy diet and food energy purchased is very similar to FAO esti mates.  Food energy purchased (or food energy output) at  3,510 kcal cap-1day-1 or 5.36 GJ cap-1 year-1 is the benchmark against which the food system energy inputs were as- sessed.  A central thesis of this report is that a sustainable foodshed should yield more energy through food energy output than is invested in its producti on, distributi on, processing and nutrient cycling.  Pre- industrial Chinese peasant societi es achieved a food energy balance of 41 joules of energy for every joule invested (Leach, 1975, p 64).  As a tool to measure positi ve change, the chosen benchmark is less impor- 1,835 2,037 2,425 2,591 2,768 2,860 3,005 3,235 3,557 3,826 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 ly E ne rg y Co ns um ed (k ca l/ ca p) 1,500 0 500 1,000 1,500 Congo Haiti Zimbabwe Nepal Honduras World Average Malaysia Fiji New Zealand Canada USA A ve ra ge D ai Figure (2.2).  Energy Consumpti on for Selected Countries 2003 - 2005.  Of 172 countries, Canada consumes the 11th greatest number of calories cap-1.  (Source:  FAO STAT - 2008) 12 tant than the methods used to evaluate progress.  That is, in a post-industrial society where energy is avail- able from many sources, it is diffi  cult to argue for one target over another.  However, the act of setti  ng a target and observing which factors make the most diff erence will undoubtedly inform positi ve change. 13 Endnotes 2.1  Food disappearance From 1988 through 2002, Stati sti cs Canada evaluated food purchased through a proxy they call food disappearance, calculated on an annual basis according to the following equati on: ࡲࡼ࢓ ൌ ሺࡼ࢓ ൅ ࡵ࢓ െ ࡱ࢓ሻȀ࢖  ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ ܨ ௠ܲ ൌ ܯܽݏݏ݋݂ܨ݋݋݀ܲݑݎ݄ܿܽݏ݁݀ሺ݇݃Ȁܿܽ݌ሻ ௠ܲ ൌ ܰܽݐ݅݋݈݊ܽ݌ݎ݋݀ݑܿݐ݅݋݊ሺ݇݃ሻ ܫ௠ ൌ ܰܽݐ݅݋݈݊ܽ݅݉݌݋ݎݐݏሺ݇݃ሻ ܧ௠ ൌ ܰܽݐ݅݋݈݊ܽ݁ݔ݌݋ݎݐݏሺ݇݃ሻ ݌ ൌ ܲ݋݌ݑ݈ܽݐ݅݋݊݋݂ܥܽ݊ܽ݀ܽ (Stati sti cs Canada, 2002) Only food consumed and purchased for the 2001 calender year was assessed as it represented the most complete and up to date data set available, though more recent surveys have been completed.  It is assumed that the food which “disappears” is purchased.  However, not all food purchased is consumed as seen in appendix (14.1).  By their own admission, food consumpti on esti mates are experimental, speaking to the challenge of obtaining reliable data on what people actually eat.  Needless to say, if 30% of the food energy purchased is not consumed, the food system could stand to benefi t from more research and politi cal acti on to improve consumpti on effi  ciency. 2.2  Food energy Energy and moisture content of all foods were evaluated according to data from and the USDA (2000) and  supple- mented with Nutriti ondata.com (2010).  Food energy represents the energy contained in the food itself.  It was cal- culated by dividing the energy contained in a set serving (kcal), by the serving size (usually in grams).  For example, a kilogram of lett uce contains roughly 540 kJ, in comparison with a kilogram of pork which contains 10,000kJ.  For this reason, energeti cally speaking, lett uce is less appropriate than other food groups with higher food energy intensiti es, thus makes up a lesser porti on of the energy diet as seen below.  This, of course, does not account for criti cal micro- nutrients contained in vegetables, thus people would be wise to keep eati ng them.  The mass of food purchased was used as the driver for agricultural planning decisions. 14 1,300 1,594 1,661 947 1,173 1,124 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 En er gy (M J/ ca p) 521 286294 159 Ͳ 200 400 600 Grains Vegetables Fruit OilsandSugars AnimalProducts Foodenergypurchased(MJ/cap*yr) Foodenergyconsumed(MJ/cap*yr) Fo od  Figure (2.3). Annual Food Energy Purchased and Consumed (esti mated) (MJ/cap) Based on reported consumpti on and purchasing values stated by Stati sti cs Canada, 2002 and food energy values modelled in this report. 2.3  Fruit consumpti on shift Bananas, pineapples, avocados, coconuts, oranges and papayas were excluded.  Several fruits have growing potenti al in BC but were not modelled including: mangoes cranberries, dates, fi gs, nectarines, and quince.  Fruit consumpti on included the “fresh equivalent” weight required for juices but not alcohol, both of which represented a signifi cant consumpti on stati sti c.  Future modelling should incorporate alcoholic beverages.  Source: Stati sti cs Canada, 2002. 2.4 Modelling error The diff erence between FAO esti mates and the modelling assumpti ons of this report are likely due to a combina- ti on of factors including:  variability in assessing nutriti onal value of the food groups menti oned;   ignoring highly processed high energy food groups such as chocolate bars; errors in esti mati ng wastage by Stati sti cs Canada; over esti mati ng food consumpti on by FAOStat; and the misuse of proxies such as canola oil for all vegetable oils or sugar beet for all sugar consumpti on misrepresenti ng the actual energy value of consumed foods. 15 A dedicati on of lands for ecological processes and general circulati on is necessary for an ecologically resil- ient and accessible foodsystem.  There is roughly 4.6 million ha of land in Briti sh Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve (Agricultural land commission, 2009 p7).  Only 2.8 million ha of farmland were declared in the 2006 Agricultural Census, and lesser sti ll is actually producing food (Stati sti cs Canada, 2006).  The ALR land does not account for macro-circulati on3.1 (highways and streets), micro circulati on (tractor ways, pathways, fi eld margins), service buildings (barns, sheds or homes), wildlands (woodlands, buff er strips or hedges) or waterways (ditches, riparian areas, or  streams), all of which support the functi on of a farming system.  This secti on will describe the importance of wildlands, discuss the spati al implicati ons of size and shape, and identi fy an allotment for circulati on and wildlands. Wildlands and Foodlands Wackernagel et al. (2002, p 9268) esti mated that agriculture has an equivalent ecological footprint of 0.63ha per capita, over six ti mes the land footprint of infrastructure, and the dominant cause of anthropo- genic land use change.    Tillman et. al., (2001) noted how an 18% increase in agricultural land forecasted for 2050 from 2001 levels would represent a loss of wilderness larger than the United States highlighti ng the implicati ons of “business as usual” agricultural scenarios (Tillman, et al., 2001 p283). Some have pointed out that technological advances (geneti cally modifi ed foods, chemical ferti lizers), and the subsequent intensifi cati on practi ses have saved wildlands by feeding more people with less land, sav- ing the rest “for nature”.  Waggoner (1996) pointed out how a grain yields consistent with those in arid Africa of 1ton ha-1 may feed 10 billion people but would save litt le or no space for nature.  In contrast, if world yields were increased to American corn standards, 10 billion people could be fed on half of the available cropland in 1996  (Ibid).   Waggoner suggested that the green revoluti on saved 44 million ha of wildlands in India due to the increases in producti vity, lessening the land necessary to feed the populati on. This “model” failed to account for the long-term environmental consequences of high intensity fossil-fuel dependent agriculture.  This false dichotomy between food or wildlands prevents real dialogue on the matt er, forcing people to accept either one positi on or the other.  Wildlands are integral to the preserva- ti on of functi oning agricultural systems.  Maintenance and enhancement of wildlands within organic food systems is an imperati ve of a sustainable food system. Ecological Importance of Wildlands The importance of wildlands, large or small, cannot be overstated.  Animals are responsible for assisti ng the pollinati on of 35% of the world’s crops (Klein et al., 2007).  On a sunny day in July , bees will pollinate over 6,000,000 million blossoms of fruit and vegetables alone in New York state (Pimentel, et. al, 1997). Humanity simply does not have the technology to replace this free biological service.  Wild and managed 3 Circulati on & Wildlands 16 Figure (3.1) Ecological Services of Farmlands.  Adapted from IUCN, 2004.  Darker tones indicate greater intensity. Cultivated cropland Forest(natural) Forest(woodlot& rangeland) Riparian Hedgerow/Buffer Waterfiltrationandcycling Foodproduction Timber,fuel&fiber Supportedgespecies Supportsenstivespecies NutrientCycling Airqualityandclimatebuffering Naturalhazardregulation(flood) Culturalandamenity agricultural land are integral to a multi tude of ecological services including: water fi ltrati on and cycling, habitat, nutrient cycling, air quality control and to manage fl ood waters, to name a few (fi gure 3.1), (IUCN, 2004, Pimentel et al, 1997).  Beyond the biophysical services they provide, wildlands also off er inspirati on on how to shape and size agricultural lands in an ecologically and socially producti ve way, qualiti es that will be discussed further in secti on ten. Informing Circulati on & Wildland Allotments There is no consensus on how much land should be preserved for nature at a provincial scale.  The inter- play of local, regional and global context is simply too complex.  Therefore a review of wildland and circula- ti on patt erns on existi ng small and large scale farms will informed the wildland & circulati on designati ons for this study. Micro-circulati on: The functi on of the farm (educati onal or producti on oriented) and scale of producti on dictate to a large degree the amount of land dedicated to micro-circulati on (pathways, tractor lanes, etc.) and to wildlands. Operati ons with an emphasis on community educati on necessitate a degree of accessibility not found in landscapes focused on food producti on alone.  These community gardens or urban farms feature raised beds and wide pathways to support way-fi nding, simply indicati ng to pedestrians where they should walk, and limiti ng the amount of crop or soil damage that can be done by farmers in training.  Legibility is a necessary component of this type of landscape.  Farms intending to demonstrate agro-ecological linkages generally dedicate more space for nature. Scale appeared to have an important infl uence seen in fi gures.  Small farms or community plots that are limited to the use of hand tools and oft en have not enough space for a tool shed, limiti ng the functi onality of the space.  As the farm size increased, external functi ons were accommodated onto the farm or com- munity garden property.  From a systems theory perspecti ve, these new functi ons are known as emergent properti es (Corning, 2002).  Tea Swamp Community Garden, for example,  is limited to a 0.03ha corner of a neighbourhood park and has just enough space for 19 garden beds3.1.  Fraser St. Garden, a 0.1 ha sec- ti on has 50 planti ng beds and one large shade tree, taking up valuable planti ng space but off ering a shade functi on not available in the smaller garden.  Cott onwood Community Gardens is roughly 1ha in size but has only 7% of the land area under intensive culti vati on.  The remaining land is used for circulati on, meet- ing spaces, community beds and wildlands.  Strathcona community gardens of 1.6 ha has 24% of the land area under culti vati on but supports an extensive espalier fruit orchard and adjacent wild space.  Of the 17 60% 40% 50% 30%n te ns it y 20%an d us e In 10% La 0% Ͳ 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Area(ha) Figure (3.2a) Community Garden Land use Intensity. The land use intensity fi t is purely conceptual.  As the graph demonstrates there is a tremendous amount of diversity with regards to land use intensity.  As garden size increases, more forms become possible including meeti ng places, tool sheds, and wildlands. 100% 80% y 60% In te ns it y 40% La nd u se  20% L 0% Ͳ 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 Area(ha) Figure (3.2b) Large Farm Land use Intensity.  Once again insuffi  cient data is available to properly quanti fy land use intensity on medium to large scale farm plots, in additi on, the type of food produced (grains, etc.), negates the need for micro-circulati on needed in community garden plots. However, it is qualitati vely safe to say that larger farms can dedicate more space directly to culti vated, food producing land. 11 community gardens with available data a weak polynomial relati onship emerged with an initi ally decreasing culti vated land use intensity in relati on to garden size, followed by an increase when the garden size exceeded 1.5 ha (fi gure 3.2a).  This land-use uti lizati on trend conti nued to increase approaching 80-90% as farm size approached 200ha (fi gure 3.2b). Macro-circulati on: This study assumed a set back of 10m from rail centre lines, 40m for highways and 10m for roads adapted from Harris and Dines (1998, p 342-3), reducing available ALR land from 4,647,522 to 4,543,080 ha. Circulati on and Wildlands in Briti sh Columbia: Of Briti sh Columbia’s farmland, roughly 82% is under crop producti on or pasture, leaving 18% percent for wildlands, fallow and circulati on (Sta- ti sti cs Canada, 2006) (fi gure 3.3). It is notable that 53% of lands were assessed as natural land for pasture, highlighti ng the importance of range- lands in Briti sh Columbia, and the intercourse that agriculture can play with wildlands, albeit in a controlled fashion.  Though unmanaged wood- lots, rangeland and fallow lands do not perform the same ecological functi ons as old growth for- ests, they are viable interventi ons that can opti - mize the ecological, economic and social services provided by agricultural lands.  BC currently pro- tects just over 14% of the provincial land area (BC Parks, 2010) though much of it is in the north or central part of the province (fi gure 3.4).  Without policy to protect or improve wildlands at a region- al or site scale, they will conti nued to be threatened by development in highly contested lands in the south.  As such, provincial conservati on targets of 10 to 12% may be a good start,  but do not account for site-specifi c details or species-specifi c habitat needs (Wiersma and Nudds, 2006, p 4555) which can only be assessed at a local scale. 18 Conclusion Given current land use patt erns, this study as- sumed 30% of remaining farm lands (discount- ing macro-circulati on) were dedicated to circula- ti on and wildlands.  Given the average farm size in Briti sh Columbia is 143 ha (Stati sti cs Canada 2006), producti on from medium to large-scale farms will conti nue to dominate the food scene for the foreseeable future, negati ng effi  ciency losses found in small farms3.3.  This study did not att empt to quanti fy how much land should be set aside for wildlife and circulati on, though the complexiti es of this questi on will be discussed in secti on (10). Crops, 586,238ha,21% Tameorseeded pasture,245,793 ha,9% Woodland, christmastree, riparian,358,007 ha,12% Summerfallow, 25,581ha,1% Otherland, 120,276ha,4% NaturalLandfor pasture,1,499,563 ha,53% Figure (3.3).  Compositi on of BC Farmland.  17% is current- ly excluded from pasture or culti vati on.  (Stats Can, 2006) Figure (3.4).  Provincial Parks in BC.  Regional habitat sytems greatly infl uence the functi oning of site based wild- land reserves. 19 Endnotes 3.1.  Community Garden Assessment Several community gardens in Vancouver were assessed using aerial imagery and Google Planinometer.  A summary of methods and the functi on and circulati on patt ern for small (0.1ha) through large farms (200ha) can be seen in appendix (15.1). 3.2  Macro circulati on allotment Area required for macro-circulati on (highways, roads and rail routes) was removed from existi ng and proposed Agriculture land (see im- age left ).  Highway easements were assumed to be 80m wide, while roads and rail assumed buff ers of 20m wide (adapted from Harris and Dines 1998, p 342-3).  The area required for macro-circulati on represents 2% (104,000ha) of existi ng ALR land. Area calculati ons were based on NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10 projecti ons which esti mates areas slightly larger (+0.02%) than the NAD 1983 BC Environment Albers projecti on method used by the Agricultural land commission. 3.3 Micro-circulati on Micro circulati on (foot paths, tool sheds, meeti ng spots) tend to decrease culti vati on intensity (area dedicated for producti on only) of small scale gardens making BCMAL projecti ons somewhat inap- propriate, which use producti on esti mates based on large-scale food producti on systems (10 ac+) For example, a standard raised bed of 4’ by 10’ with a 3’ pathway has a total footprint of 91sf (7’ by 13’ accounti ng for 1/2 of the path area) of which 40sf is actually culti vated.  The net culti vati on intensity is therefore 44% on this micro-scale, not accounti ng for other circulati on allotments.  In comparison a 100’  by 4’ row with 1’ pathways and has a total footprint of 505sf (101’ by 5’ accounti ng for 1/2  of adjacent path areas) achieving a culti vati on intensity of 80%. Figure (3.5).  Macro-circulati on Easements 20 Primiti ve societi es obtained 14 units of food energy for every unit of energy expended in its producti on (Rappaport, 1971), a food-energy rati o that has been declining ever since.  In 1963, over 6 units of en- ergy were required for every unit of energy produced (Kaltsas et al., 2007).  Meat based diets typical of North Americans today require 25 units of energy for every unit of food energy produced (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003, p661S).  The  driving force of this increase is the use of large fossil fuel inputs in culti vati on practi ce and the producti on of nitrogen ferti lizers (Kaltsas et al, 2007), aggravated by a meat-based diet.  In 1996, producti on energy inputs accounted for 18 – 28 % of the food energy budget (Heller and Keoleian, 2000 and Faist et al, 2001) and likely represent more today with an increase in larger scale, higher intensity farming systems. This secti on will determine the energy inputs from organic food producti on methods based on Canadian dietary habits and compare fi eld based organic producti on with conventi onal and greenhouse systems. Early Live-powered Producti on Pimentel (2009, p55) esti mated early hunter-gatherer societi es obtained a yield of 4 units of energy for every unit of energy expended, requiring a massive search range in order to secure food.  Swidden agricul- ture proved a more effi  cient way of securing food without considerable energy inputs, achieving an energy balance of 15.4 energy output to 1 joule of energy input (Rappaport, 1971).  In Rappaport’s analysis of New Guinea Swidden Agriculture, 45% of the communiti es’ crops were fed to pigs reducing the land ef- fi ciency from  13 people ha-1 to 5.5 people ha-1, but guaranteeing access to food in poor producti on years (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2009, & Rappaport, 1971).  In the mid 1800s, Paris boasted nearly 1600ha of urban allotment gardens, engaging between 5,000 and 9,000 people (Stanhill, 1977 p 271).  Using human and horse power, people would harvest a signifi cant quanti ty of food with the help of biointensive meth- ods and glasshouses, expending 4 joules of energy for every joule of energy produced. In preliminary data comparing biointensive, market garden and small farm systems, Bomford (2009) no- ti ced decreasing producti on effi  ciency in grams of food per kJ of energy input, but increasing labour inputs in minutes per gram of food produced with increasing use of machinery.  That is, biointensive systems that use only hand tools require more human labour input (as expected), but signifi cantly less total energy input without fossil fuel inputs.  This does not necessarily imply that small garden plots are bett er than large farms for meeti ng regional food needs.  Indeed, on his plot in sunny Kentucky Bomford was able to produced roughly 50g of food per minute of labour input with biointensive methods.  To produce only the vegetables, grains, oil and sugar crops and fruit for a family of four based on Canadian producti on standards and dietary habits would require 630 hrs of work or 18 weeks of labour input assuming 35 hrs of work per week4.1.  This model is the norm for many “developing” communiti es across the globe, but 4 Producti on 21 Figure (4.1). Early Urban Agriculture, Paris  1844 through 1887.  For this period of ti me, from 4 to 5 people would work each 1ha plot.  Stanhill (1977) p 271. 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 4000 6000 8000 10000 A verageSizeofholdingho ld in gs a nd p eo pl e en ga ge d 0 0.2 0 2000 1844 1856 1865 1887 g(ha) N um be ro fh Numberofholdings Peopleengaged AverageSizeofholding Chinese peasants; 41 100 on   10 t/ in pu tͲ UKWheat;3.4 UKAllotment Garden;1.3e (o ut pu t al e) UKMilk;0.37 1 gy B al an ce lo g1 0 sc a Australia Shrimp;0.060.1 at e En er g Fa rm g a 0.01 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Figure (4.2). Evoluti on of Food Producti on Energy Balance, 1930s to 1974.  Post farmgate energy inputs are not included.  Data points without labels represent total agriculture from USA, Holland and the United Kingdom.  Source:  Leach (1975), p 64 may be inaccessible to busy city-bound folk in urban Briti sh Columbia.  However, if fossil energy inputs become depleted as expected, this human-powered model of producti on may become necessary. Human-powered agriculture was a central part of Parisian society through a network of almost 2,000 small holdings (<1ha) through the 1800’s(fi gure 4.1) With litt le more than human labour as energy inputs, this form of agriculture is energeti cally producti ve in comparison to modern day agriculture (fi gure 4.2) Metabolic energy inputs (from humans or animals) become more important in fossil-fuel independent agri-food systems but are inherently diffi  cult to quan- ti fy as they depend on the intensity of the work and system boundaries of the model.  Bomford (2009) assumed inputs between 0.75MJ hr-1 and 2.4MJ hr-1 but excluded metabolic energy spent on non-work tasks (sleeping, cooking, eati ng, etc.).  Schroll (1994) assumed an agricultural labourer works 300 days year-1 at 8hrs day-1 consuming 13MJ of energy per day.  This equates to 0.5 MJ hr-1 excluding energy required for non-work tasks.  Given energy expend- ed during non-work hours (eati ng sleeping, etc.) is necessary to support a human during their working hours, this study assumed an expenditure of 12.5MJ day -1(3000kcal day-1) for 2000 working hrs yr-1.  The resulti ng eff ecti ve hourly energy intensity account- ing for non-work energy expenditure is 2.29MJ hr-1. Under biointensive methods, Bomford’s preliminary data show farmers could produce roughly 50g min-1 or 3kg hour-1.  This would require approximately 134 hrs of work or 307 MJ to produce the 5,350 MJ of food that makes up an individual’s retail diet 2.1.  This labour input represents only 6% of the food energy output but is a litt le inaccurate given the embodied labour inputs necessary for producing feed for animal products. Considerati ons for Organic, Conventi onal and Greenhouse-based Agriculture The Internati onal Federati on of Organic Agriculture Movement (2001) defi nes organic agriculture as “a producti on system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people.”   While there is debate as to whether current practi se meets this standard of sustainability, the conceptual design of the system is what should concern planners and designers fi rst, followed by att enti on to professional practi se and progress. 22 Given the fi nite nature of fossil fuels, known and unknown impacts of conventi onal agriculture on human health, and the relati ve energeti c perfor- mance improvements of organic producti on over conventi onal farming 4.4, organic agriculture is a social and environmental imperati ve for a sus- tainable foodshed. In Briti sh Columbia, farmers have increased no- ti ll methods and conservati on ti llage methods to nearly half of all land prepared for seeding in 2006 (up 10% from 2001 levels (Stati sti cs Cana- da, 2007).  Of the 19,844 farms in BC, over 16% reported producing organic products (Ibid).  Not only is a transiti on towards energeti cally and ecologically sound agriculture possible, it is in process. Most studies suggest a subtle yield decrease with organic agriculture  (Thomassen, 2008, BCMAL).  Seen in fi gure (4.3), this is highly dependent on the crop type and varies according to management styles, soil conditi ons, and many other factors.  Over many years, decades or centuries, under opti mal management conditi ons, organic producti on could likely out-produce conventi onal methods. Greenhouse producti on is catching on as a local alternati ve for fresh vegetables in the cold winter months, having grown in Briti sh Columbia by nearly 15% from 2001 to 2006 (Stati sti cs Canada, 2008). For ecological and energeti c reasons, greenhouse producti on was excluded from the study.  Ecologically, greenhouses represent a movement away from soil-based crop producti on, providing few if any of the regional ecological services noted in secti on (3).  Further, they require high nutrient and pesti cide inputs which can result in local and regional contaminati on (Ozkan, 2004 p89).  In a study of BC hydroponic to- mato operati ons, greenhouse producti on had an ecological footprint 14  – 21 ti mes the size of mechanized open fi eld alternati ves accounti ng for increased greenhouse yields (Wada, 1993, p 46) From an energeti c perspecti ve, local and global case studies show a net loss of energy for glasshouse pro- ducti on methods (Ozkan et al, 2004, Wada, 1993).  In Wada’s study of BC hydroponic tomatoes, only fi eld based operati ons showed a net energy gain from tomato producti on, and only when operati onal expenses were not considered.  In this case, operati onal energy inputs include fuel inputs, heati ng requirements, nutrient applicati ons, and other energy inputs associated with the day to day operati on of the farm.  Em- bodied energy inputs refer to the energy required for manufacturing machinery, and direct farming related structures (greenhouses).  When both the operati onal and embodied inputs were considered, the produc- ti on of tomatoes in every scenario demanded more energy than was contained in the tomatoes before they left  the farm gate (fi gure 4.4).  This is a functi on of the energy value of tomatoes and the intensity Apples,95% Potatoes,73% Spelt,50% Dairy,82% 40% 60% 80% 100% du ct iv it y vs C on ve nt io na l Vegetables;Oats100% 0% 20% Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Re la ti ve P ro d Figure (4.3).  Organic and Conventi onal Farming Pro- ducti vity.  Farmers oft en experience intermediate losses transiti oning to organic farming, but can achieve similar yields to conventi onal farms.  Source:  BCMAL Conventi onal OrganicTransiti onal 23 of greenhouse operati ons.  Whether or not local greenhouse producti on competes en- ergeti cally with transconti nental food pro- ducti on is a story for another thesis.  I be- lieve that seasonally appropriate diets and preservati on techniques can adequately meet regional dietary needs. The previous case study on tomato produc- ti on begins to  questi on what crops farm- ers should grow from an energeti c point of view.  Building on the equati ons developed in secti on (1) through (3) food energy in- tensity is defi ned as the energy contained in food multi plied by expected yields.  Fig- ure (4.5) compares the producti on energy effi  ciency of several food types accounti ng for yield, energy content and producti on energy inputs as described in the following equati ons: As can be expected, high cereal producti on effi  ciency combined with resilient storage qualiti es makes them the food group that literally feeds the world.  Recent studies of winter wheat producti on in the lower mainland have shown yields of up to 12 tonnes ha-1 (Temple, 2009), enough to meet the wheat needs of 150,000 people (based on wheat consumpti on of 80kg cap-1).  Contemporary wheat yields are closer to 3 to 4 tonnes ha-1 see 4.2.  In contrast, the low energy content of cucumbers, coupled with poor storage characteristi cs (unless pickled), makes them poor candidates  despite their high yields.  Cereal products dry to between 10% and 40% moisture content, but most fruit and vegetables contain well over 80% mois- ture.2.2.  That is, many foods are mostly water, a quality which impacts how well they store, their transport effi  ciency and energy content.  In 2007, of the nearly 4.9 billion ha of global agricultural land only 26% of it is used for crops, the rest is in some form of permanent pasture.  That the majority of this arable land is dedicated to cereals (57%) demonstrates the importance of grains to the global food supply (FAO STAT, 2009).  Accordingly, the vast majority of the global caloric intake is directly or indirectly ti ed to cereal pro- ducti on (maize, wheat, rice). Figure (4.4). Energy balance (food energy output/input) for greenhouse and fi eld-based Tomato Producti on.  Values less than one represent a net loss of energy.  Transportati on energy inputs are not considered.  Data sourced from Wada, 1993 p 80-87. 4.36 4.78 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 0.01 0.02 0.65 0.870.85 0.63 0.00 1.00 GreenhouseA GreenhouseB (Otsuki Greenhouses) Farm1(Horsting Farm) Farm2(HillTop Gardens) output/input output/input(embodiedenergyonly) Fo od  s ys te m  e ne rg y ba la nc e (o ut pu t /  in pu t) ࡼࡱ ൌ ࡲࡵࡱࡼࡵࡱ  ܹ ݄ ݁ݎ݁ǣ ܲܧ ൌ ܲݎ݋݀ݑܿݐ݅݋݊݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕܧ݂݂݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿݕሺ݊݋ݑ݊݅ݐሻ ܲܫா ൌ ܲݎ݋݀ݑܿݐ݅݋݊݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕܫ݊ݐ݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺ ݇ܬ ݄ܽሻ ܨܫா ൌ ܨ݋݋݀݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕܫ݊ݐ݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺ ݇ܬ ݄ܽሻ  ࡲࡵࡱ ൌ ࡲࡱ ൈ ࢅ  ܹ ݄ ݁ݎ݁ǣ ܨܫா ൌ ܨ݋݋݀݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕܫ݊ݐ݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺ ݇ܬ ݄ܽሻ ܨா ൌ ܨ݋݋݀݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕሺ ݇ܬ ݇݃ሻ ܻ ൌ ܥݎ݋݌ܻ݈݅݁݀ሺ݇݃  ݄ ܽሻ  24 Conclusion Producti on energy inputs were based on Pimentel (1980), accounti ng for effi  ciency gains from organic producti on4.5.  Based on these conditi ons, producti on inputs sum to 8.11GJ per capita per year or 1.5X the energy contained in the food Canadians consume4.4 . The area required to meet Canadian dietary habits is the mass of food purchased divided by target yields shown in the equati on below: Figure (4.5). Producti on Energy Effi  ciency of Selected Foods (food energy output/producti on energy input). Values in Blue indicate an effi  ciency greater than one.  Note that many food types (in red) incur an energy loss (effi  - ciency<1.0).  Producti on includes human metabolic labour inputs and accounts for organic farming effi  ciency gains. (see appendix 14.2 for greater detail) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 Pe ac h Tu rk ey Ch ic ke ns (b ro ile r) Po rk (H og s) Br oc co li Co w (B ee f) Ch ic ke ns (l ay er s) Co w (f lu id m ilk p ro du ct s) Le tt uc e Ca no la (o il) To m at o Br us se ls S pr ou ts Pe ar s Cu cu m be rs M el on Rh ub ar b Sp in ac h A pp le s Be an s G ar lic Be et s Pe as W in te rS qu as h Po ta to es O ni on s Su ga rB ee ts (S ug ar ) Co rn fl ou ra nd m ea l Sp ri ng w he at W in te rw he at Ry e flo ur Sp ri ng b ar le y                    Fo od  s ys te m  e ne rg y ba la nc e (o ut pu t /  in pu t) ࡭ ൌ ࡯ ൈ ࡲࡼ࢓ࢅ   ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ ܣ ൌ ܣ݃ݎ݅ܿݑ݈ݐݑݎ݈ܽܣݎ݁ܽሺ݄ܽሻ ܥ ൌ ܹ݈݈݅݀ܽ݊݀ܿ݅ݎܿݑ݈ܽݐ݅݋݂݊ܽܿݐ݋ݎሺͳǤͶ͵ሻ ܨ ௠ܲ ൌ ܯܽݏݏ݋݂ܨ݋݋݀ܲݑݎ݄ܿܽݏ݁݀ ሺ݇݃ሻ ܻ ൌ ܥݎ݋݌ܻ݈݅݁݀ሺ݇݃  ݄ ܽሻ  25 Anti cipated rangeland and feedsheds were incorporated into the areas required for animal products.  This model accounted for Canadian 2001 dietary habits, and considers 30% of non-producti ve lands dedicated to wildlands or circulati on.  Accordingly, Vancouverites need 0.53ha cap-1 (fi gure 4.6) to meet modelled di- etary needs, ignoring land required for nutrient cycling (see secti on 7.0).4.5    Future crop selecti ons should elevate the importance of energy rich foods important for meeti ng food needs. 0.53 ha/cap Figure (4.6).  Direct Foodprint. 0.53 ha of land is required to meet an individual’s food needs based on Canadi- an dietary habits and Organic BC producti on patt erns.  This value includes the land needed to grow animal feed and an allotment for circulati on and wildlands amounti ng to just over one acre per person.  Additi onal land required to meet nutrient needs will be discussed in secti on (7).  Image:  Google Earth, 2010 Province of BC. Reference area 1/8th acre lot 5309 m2 La nd Wildlands Circulati onAnimal ProductsOils & SugarsFruitVegetablesGrains 831 m2 23 2 m 2 10 8 m 2 11 4 m 2 1593 m22432 m2 26 Endnotes 4.1 Labour esti mates Modern working year is assumed to be 2000hr in this study, thus 16 hrs a day at 300 days a year is 4800hr or 2.8 ti mes the “traditi onal” working year. Under Bomford’s labour esti mate of 50g min-1 or 3 kg hr-1, to produce 473 kg of food (cumulati ve grains, fruit, veg- etables, sugars and oilcrops), would necessitate 631 hours of work which when divided by the 35 hour work week totals 18 weeks - a modern part ti me job. (Stanhill, 1977) noted how human input amounted to 16hrs day-1, 300 days yr-1 exceeding the modern working year by 140%. 4.2  Food Producti on Intensiti es Producti on Intensiti es (kg ha-1) were derived from the Briti sh Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) Planning for Profi t worksheets and are typical of target organic yields or approximated from conventi onal yields. Data was supplemented with direct farmer consultati ons completed by Mullinix et al (2009).  This study identi fi ed yield intensiti es that are within the range expected by the industry, but by no means represent an exhausti ve descrip- ti on of what yields are possible. Data for esti mati ng grain yields was based on an average yields from over 150 conventi onal wheat trials across BC and Alberta (ABCGAC, 2009).  At 4.04 t ha-1, this is sti ll low in comparison with recent research on wheat potenti al in the lower mainland achieving yields of up to 12.1 t ha-1 in Delta, BC.  (Temple, 2009)  Due to these extreme yields, the low moisture content of grains, and their high caloric contents, civilizati ons have truly been built on this crop.  At a yield of 12 tonnes or 12,000kg ha-1, 150,000 people could be fed  assuming the per capti a consumpti on rate is 80kg cap-1(yield divided by retail consumpti on). Canola was chosen as a proxy for evaluati ng vegetable oil producti on where 40% of the 964kg/ha is oil, the reminder of which is canola meal which can be used as a ferti lizer or animal feed. (Based on conventi onal esti mates from the Peace region, Canola Council of Canada, 2003).  Sugar producti on was based on  conventi onal sugar beet with yields of 50 tonnes ha-1 of which in Ontario and Alberta of which 19% (6 tonnes) is sugar (Morrison, 2008). It was assumed that producti on intensiti es represent opti mal crop rotati ons specifi c to each crop and that a winter cover crop followed the main producti on cycle.  Some crops (garlic, winter wheat, etc.) were assumed to be followed by a summer cover crop. 4.3 Animal Pasture Density Animals were rotati onally grazed where the actual land occupied is less than the total area depending on the pad- dock layout.  For example, one hundred goats rotati onally grazed on 10 ha in a 5 paddock layout only occupy 2 ha at any one point in ti me.  Area per animal is based on total grazing area, not paddock area.  Bee hives require negligible additi onal space and are placed at a density of two hives per acre or 9 hives for every two hectares. Some animals only  graze for a porti on of a year before being sent for processing.  For example, four to fi ve sets 27 of poultry can be raised for meat, each set needing only 3 months for fatt ening up.  This means the eff ecti ve area needed per bird is 1/4 that required for a bird at any point in ti me.  Each animal also required land to produce feed. This study assessed wheat, barley and hay demands for each animal to determine representati ve “feedsheds” for each animal (3rd column in table 4.1).  The net animal lands required is the sum of the rangeland, feedshed and nutrient shed associated with that animal.  Each feedshed crop was followed by a winter cover crop with the same contributi on as for vegetable crops. The animal yield also accounted for cull animals which noted a loss of 0 to 8% for each animal type according the BCMAL worksheets.  That is, to meet 100% of the need, a farmer must plan for between 100 and 108% of the fi nal carcass weights needed.  For example, to meet an individual’s chicken needs requires almost 12 broiler chickens each with a gross yield of  2.7 kg, demanding  0.0026 ha or 26 square meters for rangeland and 261 square metres for feed producti on.  For every 2.7 kg of meat, 9kg of grain is required necessitati ng a feedshed (P1 Feedshed) area, a full order of magnitude larger than the rangeland  (P1) required by the bird alone. With this in mind, the area required for animal products is calculated according to the following equati ons: 4.4  Producti on Energy Inputs Producti on energy inputs were derived from conventi onal energy inputs esti mated from Pimentel (1980) (see ap- pendix 14.2) and reduced according to organic energy intensity proxies listed in appendix (14.3).  In his work, Pimen- tel (1980) assessed the embodied and direct energy inputs from machinery, diesel, gasoline, ferti lizer inputs, lime, seeds, pesti cides, electricity and transportati on (of ferti lizer, machinery, seed, etc).  In this study, ferti lizer transport is quanti fi ed in nutrient cycling and should be excluded on the producti on side.  However, the proporti on of mass dedicated to moving nitrogen ferti lizers is low (3% for Strawberry Harvest in Indiana, Pimentel, 1980, p305), 1% for apple producti on, Eastern US, Pimentel, 1980 p 243).  This energy input represents 1% to 3% of transportati on which itself only represents from 1% to 3% (sugar beet or apple producti on) of total producti on energy inputs. Pimentel (1980) does include costs for pesti cides, and fossil-fuel based ferti lizers but the “organic-producti on coef- ࢇ ൌ ࡲࡼ࢓ ൈ ࢅࢇ  ࡭ࢇ ൌ ࢇ ൈ ሺࡱࡾࢇ ൅࡯ࢌȀࢅࢌሻ  ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ ܽ ൌ ܰݑܾ݉݁ݎ݋݂݈ܽ݊݅݉ܽݏ ܨ ௠ܲ ൌ ܯܽݏݏ݋݂ܨ݋݋݀ܲݑݎ݄ܿܽݏ݁݀ሺ݇݃ሻ ௔ܻ ൌ ܣ݈ܻ݈݊݅݉ܽ݅݁݀ሺ ௞௚௔௡௜௠௔௟ሻ ܣ௔ ൌ ܣ݈݊݅݉ܽܣݎ݁ܽሺ݄ܽሻ ܧܴ௔ ൌ ܧ݂݂݁ܿݐ݅ݒ݁ݎ݈ܽ݊݃݁ܽ݊݀ሺ ௛௔௔௡௜௠௔௟ሻ ܥ௙ ൌ ܨ݁݁݀ܥ݋݊ݏݑ݉݌ݐ݅݋݊ሺ ݇݃ ݈ܽ݊݅݉ܽሻ ௙ܻ ൌ ܨܻ݈݁݁݀݅݁݀ሺ ݇݃  ݄ ܽሻ 28 fi cient” eff ecti vely nullifi es these energeti c inputs.  Pimentel’s valuati on of metabolic energy inputs were excluded. However, metabolic (human) energy inputs were esti mated based on an eff ecti ve human energy intensity of 2.29 MJ hr-1 multi plied by labour inputs (in hours) esti mated by BCMAL planning for profi t worksheets on a crop by crop basis.   Fossil fuel-based and metabolic producti on energy inputs were calibrated based on energy input per unit area (GJ ha-1) for all crops and for beef, but calibrated based on the number of animals required (GJ animal-1) for all other animal products. Producti on energy inputs for feed producti on were not included but likely should have been considered.  If, for exam- ple, winter wheat were used as a proxy for all feed, requiring roughly 6 GJ ha-1, it would require 0.78GJ of additi onal energy inputs, almost 15 % of the food energy output. Further research to quanti fy organic yields, and energy inputs is necessary to more accurately determine foodshed boundaries and sustainability guidelines. 4.5 Nutrient Considerati ons Food is obviously more than just calories, and considerati on of micro nutrients, protein, storage potenti al and a host of other qualitati ve variables should be considered to properly choose a food palett e.  Energy is an objecti ve and criti - cal proxy for evaluati ng hunger, thus the focus of this study, but is insuffi  cient to fully defi ne a sustainable foodshed. AnimalProducts P1(ha) P1Feedshed(ha) P1#Animals Cullrate(%loss): GrossYield(kgor l/animal) Pork(Hogs) 0.00213 0.01877 0.349  5% 87.17 Cow(Beef) 0.08064 0.02155 0.100  3% 317.80 Chickens(layers) 0.00140 0.00720 0.693  5% 16.34 Chickens(broiler) 0.00264 0.02617 11.747  5% 2.72 Turkey 0.00022 0.00192 0.851  8% 5.35 Cow(fluidmilkproducts) 0.01466 0.03589 0.029  5% 3153.03 Cow(cheese) 0.00200 0.00490 0.004  5% 3153.03 Cow(otherdairy) 0.00426 0.01044 0.008  5% 3153.03 Beehive(honey) 0.00312 0.00000 0.015  0% 45.40 Mutton/Sheep 0.00443 0.00397 0.044  6% 24.97 Table 4.1  Animal Producti on Intensity Summary 29 Unlike producti on inputs, distributi on has a variable energy cost dependent on the size of the foodshed, infl uenced by city size, populati on density and the relati ve locati on of farmland and consumers.  This sec- ti on seeks to identi fy the energy required to move food from farm to consumer and identi fy strategies to minimize this energy input through reconfi guring urban form and farmlands. Are local foods are truly more sustainable than globally sourced foods that have lesser producti on energy inputs?  A recent study showed when most (from farm to consumer) aspects of the food system life cycle are accounted for, it is less energy intensive to produce dairy products (milk solids) in New Zealand and ship them to the UK than to produce dairy products in the UK itself (Saunders et al, 2006).  Shipping from NZ to the UK accounted for only 8.1% of the total energy cost of producing and shipping dairy solids to the UK at 24,942 MJ per tonne milk solid (MS).  In contrast, the energy intensity of producing milk solids in the UK was 48,368 MJ per tonne MS, almost twice the cost associated with producti on AND transport from New Zealand.  A host of climate (favorable rangeland conditi ons) and demographic (relati vely sparse populati on) diff erences likely account for this reality.  This intensity comparison cannot be easily translated to other food types which have much higher moisture contents, or lesser demands for specifi c climati c conditi ons, such as lett uce or other perishable foods. For locavores (local food consumers) there is likely something that feels intuiti vely wrong about Saunders’ fi ndings.  Where these type of studies fail, is their inability to account for nutrient cycling or the social costs of a globalized food system.  Current availability of mined phosphates, potassium and the support of fossil fuel-enabled nitrogen fi xati on subsidizes a global food system and hides environmental and social costs at- tributed to exploitati ve agriculture.  The use of pesti cides or herbicides are oft en forbidden in the country where goods are consumed but frequently used where goods are produced (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1997). The current rising price of oil has ironically spawned a whole movement of farming biofuels for export, replacing food producing lands in developing countries, driving food prices higher (Rosegrant, 2008). With this in mind it may well be more energeti cally effi  cient to produce and distribute  food from afar, but this type of system does not sati sfy the other requirements for sustainability.  Distal food producti on is unable to guarantee a steady nutrient cycle independent of fossil fuel inputs and induces hidden social costs against those who produce the food.  Thus, local food is a necessity for a sustainable food system. The following commentary will qualify what local really means. 5 Distributi on 30 Energy Quality While distributi on energy inputs may repre- sent a small porti on of the total energy inputs to the food system (Saunders et al, 2006), it is important to consider the quality of energy re- quired to move food.  Fossil fuels are relati vely safe, transportable, globally available (cur- rently), and an energy rich resource that are the central to the regional and global distri- buti on systems.  Hydrogen, while energy rich, is not as easily transported or stored as oils, and electricity is fundamentally dependent on a storage medium making it an inappropriate currency for long-distance transport.  While choosing more energy effi  cient modes of freight transport is a step in a bett er directi on, it may be a diff erent trajectory than a step in the directi on of fossil fuel independence, where the quality of available energy sources dictate appropriate food choice, urban form and distributi on modaliti es (fi gure 5.1). Moving Food Seen in fi gure (5.2), there are considerable diff erences in energy intensiti es between the mode of transport.  That is, the energy re- quired to move food depends on the means by which it is moved.  Light trucks perform the worst at 7.64 MJ tonne-1 km-1 and rail freight performs the best, almost 34 ti mes more ef- fi cient at 0.23 MJ tonne-1 km-1.  It is interesti ng to note that air freight performs much bett er than medium or light truck at 3.20 MJ tonne-1 km-1, despite popular belief to the contrary.  The distributi on energy input for an individual’s food supply is equal to the modal intensity multi plied by the distance of each food must travel multi plied by the mass of food transported.  In this way, a food group may have a high distributi on energy input if it is sourced far from the desti nati on locati on OR required to be transported via ineffi  cient means (eg. light truck).  This method accounts for food sourced at varying distances via diff erent modes and is consistent with work done by Carlsson-Kanyama (1997) and Peters (2009). 7.64 6.66 3.20 3 00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 nt en si ty (M J/ to nn e* km ) 2.40 0.43 0.23 Ͳ 1.00 2.00 .  Light truck Medium truck Air Heavy truck Marine Rail En er gy I Figure (5.2).  Freight Energy Intensity by Mode in Canada, 2007.  Source:    Natural Resources Canada (2009).  Offi  ce of Energy Effi  ciency, Energy Effi  ciency Trends Analysis Tables (Transportati on tables)  Accessed Nov, 2009. Energy Effi  cient Energy Effi  cient & Fossil Fuel In- dependent Figure (5.1).  Directi ons for Sustainability.  Pathways to an en- ergy effi  cient food system may take diff erent trajectories pend- ing the quality of available energy sources. 31 The net distributi on energy input is the sum of distributi on inputs from all food types from all source loca- ti ons at route-specifi ed modal intensiti es, illustrated in the equati on below: The net distributi on energy input feeds directly into the equati on proposed in secti on (1). The actual weighted energy intensity of trucking freight is 3.21MJ tonne-1km-1 aft er the trucking tonnage for each mode is considered (of total freight transported by truck in 2007, 83% was by heavy trucks, 9% by medium truck and 8% by light truck).  The weighted average modal intensity for total freight transport in 2007 was 2.22 MJ tonne-1km-1 (NRC, 2009), accounti ng for the large contributi on rail makes to Canadian freight transport (40%). ࡰࡱሺ࢔ࢋ࢚ሻ ൌ ෍ሺࡵ ൈ ࡰ ൈ࢓ሻ  ܹ ݄ ݁ݎ݁ǣ ܦா ൌ ܦ݅ݏݐݎܾ݅ݑݐ݅݋݊݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݅݊݌ݑݐሺܩܬሻ ܫ ൌ ܯ݋݈݀ܽܫ݊ݐ݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺܩܬݐ݋݊݊݁ିଵ݇݉ିଵሻ ܦ ൌ ܦ݅ݏݐܽ݊ܿ݁ሺ݇݉ሻ ݉ ൌ ܯܽݏݏ݋݂݂݋݋݀ሺݐ݋݊݊݁ሻ ܦாሺ݊݁ݐሻ ൌ ܯݑ݈ݐ݅݉݋݈݀ܽܦ݅ݏݐݎܾ݅ݑݐ݅݋݊݁݊݁ݎ݃ݕ݅݊݌ݑݐሺܩܬሻ 32 Figure (5.3)  Comparing Proximity Indicators.  (a). Line of Site Proxim- ity (km):  Euclidian distance independent of routes or local topogra- phy; (b) Route Proximity (km):  The distance via the shortest route; (c). Energeti c Proximity (MJ tonne-1):  The Energy per unit mass via the shortest modal energy inputs. Past studies have focused on Euclidian or line of site proximity to model the energy inputs from distributi on (Peters, 2009) (fi g- ure 5.3a).  Since roads are inherently winding, modelling distance based on opti mal actual routes is more appropriate (fi gure 5.3b). In additi on, given the modal intensiti es previously discussed, en- ergeti c proximity (fi gure 5.3c) is a bett er currency to describe dis- tributi on than route proximity alone. Using 25km by 35km grid cells across BC and Alberta cells as a proxy for the energeti c proximity of ALR lands within each cell, this study uti lizes ArcGIS “Network Analysis” to account for the energy needed to transport food from the centre of each cell to the rail yard  on Terminal Avenue, in Vancouver.  Each route origin is at the centre of the rectangular grid cells (with the excepti on of a few discussed in limitati on #3).  The energy input in MJ tonne-1 was the impedance variable that drove route logisti cs.  That is, ArcGIS automati cally chose the most energy effi  cient multi -mod- al route via marine, road or rail.  As can be seen in 5.3(c), grid cells in close proximity to or located on rail lines were selected (lighter colour) over those that may be closer to Vancouver, but were en- ergeti cally more distant.5.1 In the United States, Pimentel et al. (2008) esti mated the aver- age food product travels roughly  2,400km to get to consumer’s tables, consuming  1.4 X the energy contained in the food itself. Hypotheti cally, moving 0.7 tonnes of food this distance at weight- ed freight intensiti es of 2.22MJ tonne-1 km-1 would consume 69% of the food energy modelled in this report.5.2 At a current populati on of 2.1 million, the energy required to move 1.5 million tonnes of food from existi ng ALR land to the centre of Vancouver amounts to  0.74GJ cap-1 or 14% of the food energy output.  That is, for every 7 joules of food energy produced, only one joule of energy is required to move the food from its origin on designated farmlands across BC to the city centre.  Distribu- ti on and nutrient cycling energy inputs together represent only (a) (b) x (c) low high Energeti c proximity (MJ tonne-1) near far Proximity (km) 33 seven percent of all food system energy inputs (see secti on 8.0).  This model assumes a best case scenario of full producti on on all available ALR lands dedicated exclusively to the Vancouver food market, thus the distributi on inputs are much less than those modelled under Pimentel’s food miles approximati on.  Dis- tributi on energy inputs are inti mately connected with regional form, a variable which is much slower to change than producti on energy inputs and hard to reverse aft er farmland has been annexed for develop- ment.  Though it represents only a small part of the modelled energy inputs in this report, these inputs would increase dramati cally if food needs outside greater Vancouver were considered or if populati ons were to increase. Moving Groceries As the transport from farmland to city is only part of the journey it is important to consider how urban form facilitates effi  cient intra-urban transportati on.  Commute modal intensiti es are similar to freight, again highlighti ng the relati ve ineffi  ciency of automobile transport relati ve to rail.  The weighted average transit and passenger vehicle modal intensiti es are 1.00MJ Pkm-1 and 2.17 MJ Pkm-1 respecti vely (NRC, 2009). How people shop for their food is a functi on of relati ve proximity to local ameniti es.  It is a commonly held belief in urban planning that people will choose to walk to shopping outlets ameniti es when the route is less than 400 m.  The placement of transit stop or local ameniti es within a 5 minute walk can serve to encourage sustainable transportati on.  Figure (5.4) shows 400 m catchment zones surrounding grocery outlets superimposed on 6.25 by 6.25 km blocks of Vancouver, Richmond and Langley.  The image inte- grates populati on stati sti cs baed on Stati sti cs Canada 2006 Census in order to understand what percent- Grocery Vancouver Grocery Richmond Grocery Langley Figure (5.4)  Grocery Shed.  Areas of Vancouver, Richmond and Langley that are serviced (within 400m) by grocery stores.  Darker shades of orange represent higher populati on densiti es.  Populati on densiti es derived from Stati sti cs Canada, 2006. 34 age of these populati ons are under-serviced (darker regions represent denser populati ons).  As one might imagine, the density of Vancouver lends itself as a walkable city with 43% of people in the sample living within 400 m of a grocery store.  Richmond serves 24 % of people, while Langley supports only 14 % of people within the sample (86% of the populati on lives outside catchment zones).  This cursory method is not without fl aws.  Grocery stores were sampled using Google Earth which has display setti  ngs which are scale dependent (several smaller grocery stores were likely excluded).  It is unclear if the scale dependency is related to the size of the grocer or Google’s adverti sing revenue scheme. Another way of looking at this questi on is to test the implicati on of driving to get groceries when compared with the energy embodied in the food itself.  Specifi cally, how far must one drive a vehicle to pick up gro- ceries before the energy required to move the vehicle exceeds the potenti al energy of the food itself?  As- suming a household of 2.2 people who are served by weekly grocery or restaurant trips, one might pick up roughly 30kg of food (the aggregate weekly food purchased multi plied by 2.2).  This food has an embodied food energy of 227 MJ.  The energy reportedly used per passenger kilometer for the average Canadian passenger vehicle was 2.17MJ Pkm-1 in 2007.  This energy intensity may be a litt le less than the energy use per vehicle kilometer travelled as the former assumes some ride sharing.  At these rates of energy use, one could drive 52km to a food outlet before total energy expenditure would negate the energy contained in the food itself (105km round trip distance), excluding energy inputs from producti on, processing and nutrient cycling. Foodshed design must consider acti viti es at a provincial, regional and neighbourhood scale that contrib- ute to the sustainability of the whole.  Due to the number of behavioral assumpti ons needed to properly assess the energy inputs of grocery trips, this step was left  out of the regional energy model but should be qualitati vely considered at a neighbourhood scale. Moving Farmers Regional form also has a huge impact on how employees commute to their workplace.  Assuming an aver- age commute of  20,000 km yr-1 at a modal intensity of 2.17 MJ Pkm-1 (NRC, 2009) would necessitate 43GJ cap-1 yr-1.  This equates to 8 ti mes the annual food energy purchased5.3.  If the energy embodied in food itself is indeed a limiti ng variable in the spati al layout of a food system, and if the system requires people to move about in order to farm, we must consider moving farmers to their place of work.  Though labour inputs represent 1.58% of the 2006 working labour force (Stati sti cs Canada, 2010), this variable becomes more important in anti cipati on of a transiti on towards a live-powered approach to food producti on.  That is, to sati sfy the resiliency dimension of sustainability, farming populati ons should be placed within close proximity to their workplace.  If the populati on of farmers were to increase, dramati c shift s in regional form would be necessary to support appropriate commute distances.  Again the complexity of commuti ng prohibits its inclusion in a regional energy analysis. 35 Conclusion Freight distributi on represents a relati vely small but criti cal porti on of the food system where the mode of transport is just as important as the distance travelled.  Distributi on energy inputs required to move food from shopping outlets to consumer are equally important to sustainable design on a neighbourhood scale and considerati on of farm-worker commutes may become important if more farmers are required to sup- port the region’s food system. 36 Endnotes 5.1 Assumpti ons and limitati ons Using large data sets is inherently cumbersome and forced several major assumpti ons. (1) The model did not account for additi onal energy inputs typical of transport through mountainous terrain and refl ects only generic Ca- nadian modal intensiti es observed by the offi  ce of energy effi  ciency in 2007 (NRC, 2009) (2) Route connecti vity assumpti ons were made by intersecti ng road and rail networks proximal to rail stati ons.  LRT rail and subway rail stati ons were excluded as they likely cannot service the rail freight. (3) Several secti ons of the nati onal road database were disconnected from the network making large secti ons unreachable.  In some in- stances, this refl ects the vast wilderness of Briti sh Columbia.  In oth- er circumstances, the nati onal road database is likely incomplete.  In either case, the origin maker within the grid cell to connect it to the rest of the network if possible.  Several secti ons of the nati onal road database were disconnected from the network making large secti ons unreachable (seen as beige grid cells - fi gure 5.5).  In some instances, this refl ects the vast wilderness of Briti sh Columbia.  In other circum- stances, the nati onal road database is likely incomplete.  In either case, I took the liberty to move the origin maker within the grid cell to connect it to the rest of the network.  For example, the adjacent grid cell clearly has roads that connect to the rest of the network. However, ArcGIS automati cally connects each origin to the closest roadway which in this case is NOT connected to the network, making this patch “unreachable”.  Where appropriate, the origin marker (blue) was moved around the polygon to bett er connect grid cell to the rest of the network.  Network data fi les were based on ArcCanada Canmap Data compiled by ESRI (DMTI Spati al, 2006, 2008) (4) Global distributi on networks incorporate many more steps than modelled here, including transport to distribu- tors, processors, packagers, warehouses, wholesalers, large supermarkets, small supermarkets and fi nally to the consumer.  This model represents only the distributi on from farm to city along the best possible route. (5)  Each grid cell acts as a proxy for the energy required to move food from that cell to Vancouver.  As each cell is 25km by 35km, there are minor impacts of the placement of ALR land within the cell  and major ramifi cati ons of local topology which might make part of the cell accessible to the network and leave the remainder inaccessible to road access.  A fi ner resoluti on analysis is required to more accurately represent these local variati ons. (6)  It deserves discussion that some food lands should be unavailable for Vancouver’s use.  This study assumed no Original Origin Disconnected road segment New Origin Figure (5.5). Connecti ng the Network 37 access to the American food market for politi cal reasons, but have granted access to the remainder of BC and Alberta to simplify the model and highlight the implicati ons of urban form and relati ve locati on on the energeti cs of food. 5.2 Moving food Actual freight distances of 2,400 km suggested by Pimentel et al., (2008) require 3.7GJ of energy (2.22MJ tonne-1 km-1 multi plied by a 0.7 tonnes, the mass of food shipped, multi plied by 2,400km).  This represents 69% of total food energy (distributi on energy (3.7GJ cap-1) divided by food energy output (5.36GJ cap-1). Modelled food transport currently includes only shipment from farm to city, excluding transport to and from distribu- tors, a step that likely takes a considerable amount of energy.  Future work should consider this step to inform the appropriate placement of processing plants, distributors and other necessary components of the food system. 5.3  Moving farmers Modal intensiti es are based on average weighted commute energy intensiti es observed by the offi  ce of energy ef- fi ciency, Natural Resources Canada (NRC), observed from 2003 through 2007 and published in 2009.  The average passenger modal energy intensity is 2.0MJ Pkm-1 (including transit), and the average auto based modal energy in- tensity is 2.17MJ Pkm-1 accounti ng for only cars, trucks and motorcycles.   Food energy output is roughly 5.36GJ cap-1.  Commute energy input is equal to distance travelled ti mes modal energy intensity at 43GJ cap-1 yr-1, thus the conceptual commute energy input is eight ti mes that of the food energy output (commute energy input divided by food energy output). 38 To produce a loaf of bread requires harvesti ng, thrashing (removing grain seed from the stalk), winnowing (removing hull from the seed), grinding (preparing fl our), mixing & kneading, and cooking in a series of steps demanding tremendous energy inputs.  In a life cycle analysis of a hamburger in Sweden, Carlsson- Kanyama and Faist (2000, p8, 9) found that  processing inputs consume up to 96% (for hamburger buns) of the total food energy inputs thought but can be as low as 28% for hamburger meat6.1.  In this study, the processing, preparati on, storage, and heati ng of food consumed 51% of the total modelled energy input. This secti on will quanti tati vely identi fy processing inputs for various food groups and make qualitati ve rec- ommendati ons for how changes in food choice and household form can radically reduce energy inputs. Food Processing and Preparati on Processing can be roughly classed as pre-consumer processing, restaurant processing and consumer pro- cessing.6.2  The former includes the thrashing, grinding, juicing, packaging and storing required to get food- stuff s to the shelves in the supermarket.  As is seen in table 6.1, pre-consumer processing inputs are sig- nifi cant, consuming 4.8 GJ per capita or 84% of the energy contained in all food purchased6.3.  Restaurants contribute another 1.56 GJ per capita for the refrigerati on, sanitati on, and heati ng of foods processed in commercial restaurants in Vancouver 6.4.  When added to the energy required to refrigerate and cook foods in households in Vancouver, net processing energy inputs exceed food energy outputs by 80%.  That is, for every joule of energy purchased, 1.8 joules of energy are required to process, store, heat and ready that food item for consumpti on 6.5.  This model accounts for food purchased only and declines when compared against food actually consumed. Spati alizing Processing Energy Inputs While on the surface these inputs are non-spati al and diffi  cult to infl uence from a planning and design perspecti ve, there are spati al forms that can promote consumpti on of raw local vegetables which in turn require less refrigerati on or preparati on inputs than other food groups.  This is the niche that community gardens and urban agriculture can fulfi l.  While urban agriculture will never directly meet the growing de- mand for local food, it has a meaningful and criti cal role to play in inspiring a local food culture. 6 Processing FoodEnergySummary FoodEnergyPurchased (GJ/cap*yr) PreconsumerProcessing (GJ/cap) RestaurantandConsumer processing(GJ/cap) Grains 1.30  0.88  Ͳ Vegetables 0.52  0.08  Ͳ Fruit 0.29  0.11  Ͳ OilsandSugars 1.59  2.69  Ͳ AnimalProducts 1.66  0.72  Ͳ Sum: 5.36  4.48  5.17 Table (6.1) Processing Energy Intensity 39 Packaging Packaging is clearly a criti cal component of food safety and preservati on though is diffi  cult to quanti fy at a regional scale.  Packaging will not be considered in the regional analysis, though arguably makes up a large component of the food system energy input. Conclusion In additi on to urban forms that encourage local eati ng, Michael Pollen’s suggesti on for sustainable food culture: “Eat food, mostly vegetables, not too much.” (Pollen, 2008) resonates with this report where sus- tainable dietary habits are key to sustainable food systems.  It is also important to consider what factors would improve processing and storage effi  ciency.  While reducing consumpti on of products that neces- sitate long storage ti mes or heati ng will help, this will not alleviate the energy input from refrigerators and freezers.  These are acti ve no matt er how they are used and together represent over half of the post-pur- chase processing inputs.  Given 24% of respondents have more than one refrigerator, and 14% have more than one freezer (NRC, 2009), decreasing appliance density might be a good place to start.  Secti on (8) will explore the impact of shift ing dietary and appliance habits on the energy balance of the food cycle. 40 Endnotes 6.1  Food processing inputs Hamburger meat consumed only 28% of food energy inputs for processing and crop drying is included in the produc- ti on stage of the food cycle rather than processing.  Carlsson-Kanyama and Faist (2000) included shopping, transport (from shop to consumer) related energy inputs not included in this report. 6.2 Net processing Net processing includes pre-consumer processing, restaurant processing and consumer processing.  For each, sanita- ti on, refrigerati on and cooking are considered.  General heati ng, lighti ng, etc. are excluded.  Retail processing (super- markets, etc.) are not included in the model. 6.3 Pre-consumer processing Processing was calculated on a product by product basis, using proxies where needed (the processing inputs for spring wheat, for example, represented inputs for all grain products, and sugar beet for canola oil)  These assump- ti ons clearly deserve further research. Pre-consumer processing of meat products is based on carcass weights rather than retail weights.  For example it requires a carcass weight of 29 kg of pork to provide Canadians with the 22kg of pork purchased in stores of which only 12.5 kg (esti mated by Stati sti cs Canada, 2002) of pork is actually consumed.  Much of the carcass is non-edible (bones, etc.) The pre-consumer processing input of animal products is based on carcass weight rather than fi nal weight.  Recall that food energy output is 5.36 GJ cap-1yr-1 thus pre-consumer processing at 4.48 GJ cap-1yr-1, repre- sent 84% of food energy outputs (processing inputs divided by food energy output). 6.4 Restaurant processing Restaurant processing is based on area dedicated to this service rather than the amount of food processed.  In 2000 there were just over 2 million square meters of restaurant fl oor space in BC (NRC, 2000).  For the populati on of the day, that represented 0.51 square metres per capita (BC Stats, 2009).  Natural Resources Canada assumed a total average energeti c intensity of 6 GJ per square meter of restaurant fl oor space (NRC, 2003).  Fift y one percent of this is assumed directly required for sanitati on (dishwasher), refrigerati on and heati ng, the remainder of which was re- quired for indirect inputs (HVac, lighti ng, etc.), (Ibid, p16).  This equates to 1.56 GJ per capita. 6.5 Consumer processing 41 In Greater Vancouver, energy dedicated to cooking, freezing, refrigerati on or dish washing summed to 8.75 GJ house- hold-1yr-1 or 3.6 GJ cap-1yr-1.  These fi ndings account for the number of appliances per household and the relati ve effi  ciency of each with regards to their age.  Older models are less effi  cient, thus processing effi  ciency is assumed to improve as these appliances are phased out.  Data was derived from provincial survey data collected from NRC (2009b, 2009c) and applied to Greater Vancouver’s populati on in 2006 (Stati sti cs Canada, 2006) according to the fol- lowing equati ons: Since older models are generally less effi  cient, a weighted appliance intensity was calculated for each appliance based on its age  and the average energy intensity during that ti me period, based on 5 year brackets from 1984 to 2007.  The  cooking and storage energy intensity per household was found by multi plying the number of appliances by the weighted appliance effi  ciency.  See appendix (14.4) for a more detailed descripti on of processing inputs. ࡵࡱࢃ ൌ ෍ ሺࡵࡱ ൈ ࢖࢘ሻ ૚ૢૡ૝ି૛૙૙ૠ  ࡯ࡿࡱ ൌ ෍ ሺࡵࡱ ൈ ࢛ሻ ࢇ࢒࢒ࢇ࢖࢖࢒࢏ࢇ࢔ࢉࢋ࢙  ࡯ࡿࡱࢉ ൌ ࡯ࡿࡱȀࢊ   ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ ܫாௐ ൌ ܹ݄݁݅݃ݐ݁݀ܣ݌݌݈݅ܽ݊ܿ݁ܧ݊݁ݎ݃ݕܫ݊ݐ݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺ ݇ܬ ݑ݊݅ݐሻ ܫா ൌ ܣ݌݌݈݅ܽ݊ܿ݁ܧ݊݁ݎ݃ݕܫ݊ݐ݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺ ݇ܬ ݑ݊݅ݐሻ ݌ݎ ൌ ݌ݎ݋݌݋ݎݐ݅݋݊݋݂ܽ݌݌݈݅ܽ݊ܿ݁ݏܾ݅݊ܽ݃݁ݎܽܿ݇݁ݐሺΨሻ ܥܵா ൌ ܥ݋݋݇݅݊݃ܽ݊݀ܵݐ݋ݎܽ݃݁ܫ݊ݐ݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺ ݇ܬ ݄݋ݑݏ݄݁݋݈݀ሻ ݑ ൌ ܽ݌݌݈݅ܽ݊ܿ݁݀݁݊ݏ݅ݐݕሺ ݑ݊݅ݐݏ݄݋ݑݏ݄݁݋݈݀ሻ 42 The greatest gap in contemporary food systems exists between a consumer’s fork and farms that produce his or her food.  Perhaps a history laden with sanitati on-related illnesses has helped drive a philosophy of waste management schemes that exit waste from urban areas as quickly and quietly as possible.  Given evidence of eutrophicati on of streams and rivers, red ti des and ocean “dead zones”, the linear approach to waste management must change in order to maintain a healthy environment.   Unlike past studies which have focused exclusively on transport of food from farms to urban environments (Carlsson-Kanya- ma, 2002), this secti on will complete the cycle by quanti fying the additi onal energy and land required to transport and grow nutrients required by the food system. Global and Regional Nutrient Cycling Before the industrial revoluti on the global nitrogen cycle was in dynamic equilibrium (Smil, 1999) with equal amounts produced annually by N2 fi xing processes, used by crops, and then immobilized again in de- nitrifi cati on stages of the cycle (Waggoner, 1994). Yields of grain were about 0.5 to 1.0 metric tonnes ha-1, with N supplied primarily from crop rotati ons and manures. An average farmer could support 3-5 people at this level of producti on (Waggoner, 1994) with producti on processes not dissimilar to subsistence farm- ing in developing countries today. The industrial revoluti on and green revoluti on that followed enabled a farmer to feed more than 100 people by increasing producti on of grains to 7 metric tonnes ha-1 through the additi on of nearly 90Tg of N globally in 2000 (Vance, 2001).  From 1960 to 1995, the use of nitrogen ferti lizer-use  increased seven-fold, and is expected to triple again by 2050 (Tilman et al., 2001, 2002, Cassman & Pingali, 1995).  To achieve a grain yield of 5 to 9 metric tonnes ha-1, 200 to 300 kg N ha-1 must be added to the fi elds with an effi  - ciency of N recovery of 50% on average (Socolow, 1999).  The remaining 50% is lost to the environment and contributes to the eutrophicati on of nearby water bodies, or denitrifying processes (Socolow, 1999) with a nutrient loading of up to 20 ti mes that of preindustrial ti mes (Howarth et al, 1996).  Not only is this method of applicati on wasteful, it leads to reduced biodiversity and ecosystem functi oning (Tilman et al, 2001, Carpenter, 1998). Increases in ferti lizer applicati on will unlikely result in the yield increases seen in the 1960s because of diminishing nitrogen use effi  ciency with every increase in nutrient applicati on (Tilman, 2002, Cassman et al., 2002, p135)  (fi gure 7.1).  In this fi gure, nitrogen input and accumulati on in plant ti ssue has less of an eff ect on overall grain yields as producti vity approaches a theoreti cal yield maximum.  This is consistent with the law of diminishing returns, an economic theory which suggests that the incremental gain in pro- ducti vity decreases with every incremental increase in a set input when other inputs are fi xed (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2001).  When applied to an agricultural system which must feed a projected populati on of 7 Nutrient Cycling 43 10 billion people, without radical technological or biological innovati ons, increases in ferti lizer inputs will have negligible eff ects on long-term food security. From an energy perspecti ve, the Haber-Bosch system of fossil-fuel powered nitrogen ferti lizer producti on is responsible for 1.2% of the world’s energy consumpti on and supports nearly 50% of the world’s food supply (IFA, 2009), making it a dominant energy sink of the world’s agricultural system.  A 300% increase in price of nitrogen ferti lizers from 1998 to 2008 has resulted in decreased applicati on highlighti ng a deep connecti on between food producti on ferti lizer applicati on and the price of oil. (Pimentel et al., 2008, Peoples et al., 1995) In Briti sh Columbia, almost a third of farms in the Fraser Valley have residual nitrogen values in the high (100kg ha-1) to very high (>200kg ha-1) range indicati ng applicati ons of ferti lizers that greatly exceed the plant needs (IRES and Environment Canada, 2004).    This trend is most evident in intensive agricultural systems including forage corn, raspberries and blueberries and repeated for phosphorus  and potassium (80% of fi elds reported high to very high concentrati ons of phosphorus while 47% of fi elds had high to very high concentrati ons of potassium) (Ibid) In regions of intensive animal foraging, or poultry operati ons, the manures can be over-applied or stored improperly leading to ground or surface water contaminati on (BC Agriculture Council, 2004).  This is an R²=0.7298 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 1 00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Fertilizerconsum ptionIntensity(tonnes/haC er ea lY ie ld (t on ne s/ ha ) R²=0.9469 0 0.005 0.01 Ͳ 0.50 .  1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 aagriculturalarea) YieldCereals(tonnes/ha) FertilizerIntensity(tonnes/ha) Poly.(YieldCereals(tonnes/ha)) Poly.(FertilizerIntensity(tonnes/ha)) Figure (7.1).  Canadian Cereal Yield and Ferti lizer Use Intensity, 1961 to 2008.  Cereals can act as a proxy for food producti on given their direct and indect contributi on to the Canadian food supply.  Yields appear to be approach- ing a theoreti cal maximum negati ng the value of additi onal ferti lizer input (Tilman, 2002).  Data Source:  FAO STAT 44 issue in the Fraser valley where intensive dairy, poultry and berry producti on has led to a net glut of nutri- ents in the region. (Bomke, 2010) Agricultural Nutrient Cycles The major limiti ng nutrients of agricultural systems are nitrogen (N) phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). Nitrogen is the most common limiti ng factor for most terrestrial agricultural systems, second in impor- tance only to sunlight and water (Smil, 1999), thus was the focal nutrient of this study.  Though it is readily available in inorganic forms in the atmosphere and in organic forms in the soil, it must be present as Am- monia (NH3) or Nitrate (NO4) to be available for plant uptake.  Nitrogen is made available to plant growth through nitrifi cati on or nitrogen fi xati on (fi gure 7.2).  It is then assimilated by plants or immobilized by micro-organisms, binding nitrogen in organic compounds.    Microbial nitrogen is re-integrated into the N pool when micro-organisms die and are broken down. Lastly, nitrogen is denitrifi ed producing nitrogen gas. Figure (7.2) Simplifi ed Nitrogen Cycle.  Most nitrogen must be converted to nitrates before it can be used by plants. Image source:  GoogleEarth: 2010 IMTCAN, 2010 Digital Globe, 2010 Province of BC, 2010 Cnes. fi xati on by lightning or biological means Organic matt er mineralizati on Ammonium (NH4) Nitrates (NO3) voliti zati on & denitrifi cati on Atmospheric Nitrogen nitrifi cati on leaching cycling by plant material & soil microbes Aquati c or deep soil deposits Syntheti c Ferti lizer fi xati on by the Haber-Bosch system using fossil fuels 45 Meeti ng Nutrient Needs: Nitrogen demands depend on how much nitrogen leaves the system through harvested material (as calculated by USDA, 2009), leaching, volati lizati on and how much addi- ti onal nitrogen can be sourced from atmospheric deposi- ti on, cover crops or local manures  (fi gure 7.3) Nitrogen demand can be calculated according to the equati on below adapted from Hansen et al. (2000) 68. Figure (7.3).  Conceptual Nitrogen Demand from Terrestrial Agricultrual Systems.  Note that plant available nitrogen depends on the quality of the feedstock ti ming of applicati on among other variables (climate, etc). Also, some crops contribute nitrogen to  the soil even aft er the crop is removed, thus nitrogen removed is negati ve eg. Pea, bean, etc. atmospheric depositi on (5kg/ha) leaching & voliti zati on (40kg/ha) crop removal (-48 to 92 kg/ha) cover crop PAN depositi on (75 kg/ha) microbial immobilizati on manure contributi on ࡰࡺ ൌ ࡴࡺ ൅ ࡸࡺ ൅ ࢂࡺ െ ሺ࡯࡯ࡺ ൅࡭ࡺ ൅ࡹࡺሻ  ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ  ܦே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ܦ݁݉ܽ݊݀ ܪே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ݎ݁݉݋ݒ݂݁݀ݎ݋݄݉ܽݎݒ݁ݏݐ݁݀݉ܽݐ݁ݎ݈݅ܽ ܮே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ݎ݁݉݋ݒܾ݁݀ݕ݈݄݁ܽܿ݅݊݃ ேܸ ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݈݃݁݊݋ݏݐݐ݋ܽݐ݉݋ݏ݌݄݁ݎ݅ܿݒ݋݈݅ݐ݅ݖܽݐ݅݋݊ ܥܥே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ܽ݀݀݁݀ݐ݄ݎ݋ݑ݄݃ܿ݋ݒ݁ݎܿݎ݋݌ݏ ܣே ൌ ܣݐ݉݋ݏ݌݄݁ݎ݅ܿ݀݁݌݋ݏ݅ݐ݅݋݊ ܯே ൌ ܮ݋݈ܿܽ݉ܽ݊ݑݎ݁ܿ݋݊ݐݎܾ݅ݑݐ݅݋݊ݏ  46 For example, cabbage has a plant available nitrogen demand of 67 kg ha-1 based on the yield per hectare and nitrogen con- tained in the plant material harvested.  When leaching and volati lizati on is considered, this demand is roughly 107kg ha-1 of plant available nitrogen (PAN).  Assuming cover crop and atmospheric depositi on sum to 80kg ha-1, the net demand is 27kg ha-1.  The Canadian Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) nutri- ent management guide recommends additi on of baseline ap- plicati ons of 50 to 300 kgN ha-1yr-1 depending on the crop type: typically, forage grass requires considerably more applied ni- trogen (300kgN ha-1yr-1) than berries, tree fruits and vegeta- bles (50kg N  ha-1yr-1) (Schmidt, 2005).  Mader et al., (2002) show how biodynamic farms and organic farms require less nitrogen applicati on (99kgN ha-1yr-1) than conventi onal farms at 149kgN ha-1yr-1. Plant Available Nitrogen: Nitrogen, which must be converted to ammonia (NH4) or ni- trate for use by most plants (fi gure 7.2).  Plant available nitro- gen (PAN) is a percentage of total nitrogen that is available to the plant for uptake, and varies according to a “decay series” specifi c to each amendment.  Available nitrogen can be ad- sorbed by plants, leached from the system, volati lized into the atmosphere as ammonia, or immobilized by microorganisms. This is why applicati on of a nutrient to a fi eld rarely translates to the uptake by plants with up to 86% of nitrogen lost to am- monia volati lizati on, denitrifi cati on and leaching (Wrisberg et al., 2001).    This report assumes losses of 40kg ha-1, character- isti c of well-managed organic farming systems (Hansen et al., 2000). It takes years, even decades for nitrogen to become liberated from organic ti ssues, and even then, much of the nitrogen is not available for plant use.  The net plant available nitrogen values for some common organic feedstocks are represented in table (7.1).  This is the percentage by mass of original compost that is in a form of nitrogen available for plant use and is only a small fracti on of the total compost mass (fi gure 7.4, 7.5).  This illustrates the value of syntheti c ferti lizers which don’t have nearly the bulk organic ferti lizers do.  However, even aft er the energeti cs of shipping and applicati on are taken into account, the energy intensity of fossil fuel powered nitrogen producti on is so great, use of organic ferti lizers is sti ll more effi  cient (Pimentel et al., 1983). Though syntheti c ferti lizers will likely be the driving force of Briti sh Columbia’s agricultural system for many years to come regional and urban form may need to be redesigned to bett er respond to the sourc- Unavailable Nitrogen 2% PlantAvailable Nitrogen 1% Compost 97% Chicken Manure:    3.75% Fresh Bovine waste:    2.86% Dry Corral manure:  0.79% Canola Meal:    1.80% Kitchen compost:  0.13% Yardtrimmings:   0.10% Biosolids:   2.00% Table (7.1 ) Net PAN for Selected Feed- stocks.  Adapted from Pratt  et al. (1973), Gale, et. al (2006), Cogger et al (ND) and Kempe (2010) where the NET PAN is the cumulati ve nitrogen available aft er 4 years as a percentage of the original mass of compost7.2. Figure (7.4).  Plant available nitrogen  (PAN) relati ve the mass of total compost. 47 Total Feedstock N Compost  N unavailable for plant use (~50%) handling & applicati on (20%) Total Feedstock Net Plant Available Nitrogen  Supply (~ 3%) (~ 80%) (~50%) 1000kg 30kg 24kg 12kg Figure (7.5).  Conceptual Plant Available Nitrogen from Compost Feedstocks.  Of the nutrients supplied in the form of compost, only a porti on of that is available to plants.  For example a feedstock of 1000kg might have a total nitrogen content of 3%.  This would translate to only 30kg of Feedstock N, and 24kg of com- post N aft er losses due to handling and applicati on7.4.  A further 40-70% of that total nitrogen is unavailable for plant use, leaving only 12kg (1%) of the original 1000kg of compost as plant available nitrogen.  Table 7.1 describes Net Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) concentrati ons found in typical compost mixes. ing and distributi on of organic ferti lizers for the future.  For environmental and energeti c reasons, organic ferti lizers are an imperati ve for a sustainable agriculture system. Nutrientshed Vancouver To determine the dimensions of a sustainable foodshed in practi se, farmers and designers should ask: 1. How much additi onal plant available nitrogen is required by the farm system7.1? 2. Where can it be sourced? 3. How much energy and area is required to move and grow it? Nutrient Producti on Capacity: Opti mally, the nutrients supplied from atmospheric depositi on, cover crops and anthropogenic sources should equal nutrient demand, but as menti oned before, is oft en not the case where local conditi ons cause excesses or depleti ons of certain nutrients. 48 Weathering & Atmospheric Depositi on: Nitrogen is applied from atmospheric depositi on at rates dependent on local soil, climate and land use conditi ons.  Landscapes downwind from dairy or poultry operati ons have high atmospheric nitrogen con- tributi ons, due to the volati lity of these manures.  Nonhebel (2002), measured stems of poplar stands with no other external nitrogen inputs, identi fying rates of 24kgN ha-1 yr-1 available through natural sources (Nonhebel, 2002).  This value is consistent with rates assumed by Hansen et al. (2000, p76) in a compari- son of Organic and Conventi onal farm systems.  However, a more conservati ve background rate of 5kg ha-1 was assumed in this model. Manure and crop-residue amendments: Applying manures from farm animals can help sati sfy the nutrient needs of an agricultural system (Shep- herd et al., 1999) which are more easily supported by mixed farm systems where animal wastes are lo- cated close to crops with high nitrogen needs. Composti ng manures or biosolids helps decrease the risk of pathogens and stabilizes the compost mix to ensure it won’t contribute too much nitrogen on applicati on (leading to leaching and eutrophicati on), nor immobilize available nitrogen in the soil needed by plants (Watson et al., 2002).  The mobilizati on / immo- bilizati on dynamic is ti ed to the carbon to nitrogen rati o (C:N) of the feedstock.  Mixes with low C:N rati os (below 30:1) tend to contribute nitrogen to the soil, while mixes with C:N rati os greater than 30 tend to immobilize available nitrogen.  A feedstock specifi c composti ng process where carbon rich material (straw, woodchips, leaf mulch) is mixed with nitrogen rich material (eg. chicken manure) to produce a stabilized compost mix at an opti mal C:N rati o of 30:1 release of nutrients slowly when the plants need it, while minimizing nitrogen loss in the composti ng process (fi gure 7.10).  A considerable amount of nitrogen can be lost in the applicati on and handling (Watson et al., 2002, Sutt on et al., 1985).  With applicati on losses, this study assumes 80% of original total nitrogen remains at the ti me of fi eld applicati on to the fi eld. Crop residues contain signifi cant value as carbon or nutrient sources for the soil.  Cereal straw can contrib- ute 35kgN ha-1 and vegetable residues up to 150kgN ha-1 (Rahn et al. 1992, Jarvis et al. 1996).  These sup- port the slow release of nutrients due to higher C:N than more soluble ferti lizers.  Placing high C:N residue on can immobilize N through the winter season to prevent loss during the rainy season (Jenkinson, 1985). The applicati on of residues just prior a planti ng season will compete with crops for nitrogen and reduce overall yields, thus ti ming is criti cal for eff ecti ve nutrient planning. Cover Cropping: Cover cropping has long been used in agricultural systems as a biological source of carbon and nitrogen. By planti ng crops that associate with nitrogen fi xing bacteria, farmers can meet the nutrient needs of that crop and meet a porti on of the subsequent crop’s nutrient needs (Peoples et al., 1995).  The extent to which a crop contributes to the soil depends if some of the seed or vegetable matt er is removed for sale and the culiti var selected.  For example, nutrients are oft en contained in the root, shoot or seed pending the stage of the plant’s life cycle, and removal of this negates its use as a cover crop. (Peoples et al., 1995). Planti ng cool-season peas, for example, can fi x up to 183kgN  ha-1 but will contribute only 21kgN  ha-1 if the seed is removed  (Peoples et al., 1994). 49 There are several cover crops that are grown for amendment use, including canola meal and alfalfa meal. One hectare of land can produce roughly 580kg of canola meal and 390 kg ha-1 of oil (Canola Council of Canada, 2003).  Assuming no additi onal producti on energy inputs are required given the oil is necessary for human consumpti on, the canola meal could be used for feed or as a ferti lizer.  The cumulati ve canola meal produced from the Vancouver foodshed is a litt le under 100,000 tonnes.  With a total nitrogen value of 3% (USDA, 2010) and PAN of 60% (Gale et al., 2006), 1,800 tonnes of available nitrogen could be sourced from this by product, meeti ng 7% of the additi onal foodshed nitrogen needs ignoring handling losses.7.2,7.4 Biosolids and kitchen organic “wastes”: Current nutrient management systems induce linear fl ows from rural farmlands to citi es and eventually to oceans leading to eutrophicati on of aquati c environments and leaving nutrient defi cits in rural agricultural lands (Socolow, 1999).  In a world of fi nite resources, a linear system of nutrient input and exodus is inher- ently unsustainable. Though not exposed in popular media, biosolids (composted sewage) is routi nely used in forage crops, woodland ferti lizati on, landscaping (Metro Vancouver, 2010).  It is not so much a questi on of whether hu- man waste should be used, but rather a questi on of how they should be used appropriately that is a topic of current discussion.  Large scale humanure (human manure) systems are catching on in practi ce across BC, in municipaliti es such as Kelowna, and now Vancouver.  The pressures are more urgent for inland re- gions with limited capacity to send effl  uent “away”. Though not as nutriti ous as sewage effl  uent, kitchen food scraps have long been used to build soil and reduce inputs to the waste stream.  It has been suggested to add food scraps to the black water stream to assist the break down of food scraps and bulk up the sewage effl  uent (Jenssen and Etnier, 1997). Metro Vancouver produces 50,000 tonnes of biosolids (wet mass) and 3.5 million tonnes of solid wastes annually, the latt er of which 5% represents yard wastes and 13% is food wastes (Metro Vancouver, 2010, Kempe, 2010)    If fully uti lized, they would meet roughly 6% of the remaining nutrient needs of the regions foodshed (table 7.2). LANDSUMMARY: Nutrientsummary(kgPAN) Nutrientdemand(%oftotal) Grains 1.01  8% Vegetables 0.03  0% Fruit 0.16Ͳ  Ͳ1% OilsandSugars 0.90Ͳ  Ͳ8% AnimalProducts 12.03  100% Sum: 12.01  100% Table (7.2).  Net Plant Available Nitrogen Demand from Seleted Food Groups (per capita).  Vancouver’s current populati on of 2,293,438 demands roughly 20,400 tonnes of plant available nitrogen.  Note that fruit model a net producti on of nitrogen to the system assuming contributi on of nitrogen through intercropping.  See appendix 14.5 for greater detail. 50 Additi onal Nutrient Needs: Aft er local sources and sinks are accounted for, the Foodshed Vancouver requires an additi onal 12 kg cap-1 or 25,440 tonnes of plant available nitrogen (table 7.2, 7.3), but would likely be much higher if compost moisture contents were accounted for7.2.  To contextualize this mass of nitrogen, assuming kitchen com- post has a total nitrogen value of 2% and PAN% of 7%, it would require over 9 tonnes of compost to sati sfy the 12kg per capita plant available nitrogen requirement. 7.2 Availablecompost (tonnes) TotalN(%) TotalPAN (%) PAN (tonnes) Nutrientneeds met(%) Nutrifor/Biosolids 50,000.00 5% 40% 928 3.5% Yardtrimmingscompost 175,000.00 2% 5% 179 0.7% Kitchencompost 455,000.00 2% 7% 573 2.2% C l l 92 771 677 38 3% 60% 1 670 6 3%ano amea , , . , . Sum: 3,351 12.6% Table (7.3).  Nutrient Energy Summary.  Only 13 % of the 25 thousand tonnes of PAN required can be met with local feedstocks.   Additi onal nutrients must be sourced by growing additi onal cover-crops,  aquati c sources, improving composti ng effi  ciency or radical transformati on of the urban landscape.  This additi onal land in cover-crops sums to another 300,000 ha of land or 15% of the Foodshed Vancouver 2006 agricultural land allotment (see fi gure 7.13). 7.2 To meet this demand, an additi onal 294,000ha or 0.15ha cap-1 (15% of agricultural allotment) of growing space was required for cover crop nitrogen producti on.  This assumes a PAN contributi on of 75kgN ha-1 with negligible leaching, volati lizati on or atmospheric depositi on.  In context, this represents an extra cover crop cycle or the placement of a laneway where a row of vegetables would have previously been to benefi t adjacent plants.  No additi onal direct energy inputs were modelled for this but there are indirect energeti c implicati ons when food must be shipped extra distance on account of a larger foodprint. Management of Sustainable Nutrient Systems: Managing for effi  cient nitrogen usage is just as important as securing resilient supplies of nutrients.  Sus- tainable nutrient management strategies include: 1.  Match the ti ming of nutrient applicati on with crop needs. 2.  Consider low or no-ti ll techniques, and perennial agricultural systems to support mycorrhizae associa- ti ons and nutrient buff ering. 3.  Uti lize Agroforestry for nutrient buff ers and to apply non-food grade nutrients such as sewage sludge and raw manures. 4.  Time irrigati on with nutrient applicati on, as uptake is positi vely infl uenced with appropriate irrigati on regime. 5.  Consider higher plant densiti es and larger bed width for improved nutrient uptake, weed competi ti on and overall producti vity. 6.  Locate consumpti on, waste processing and food producti on in close proximity to opti mize cycling ef- fi ciency. Mixed agricultural farms can support sub-system nutrient cycling. 7.  Leave crop residues on site to maximize residual nutrient uptake, and biomass gain. 8.  Opti mize biogas produced in composti ng processes for heati ng or electricity. 7.5 51 Adapted from Cassman et al.(2002), Jeavons(2006), Hansen et al.(2000), Mollison(1988), Pang and Letey (2000). Morken and Sakshaug (1998), and Mader, (2002). Modelling Considerati ons and Future Research: The work by John Jeavons of Ecology Acti on, California (2006), David Holmgren (2002) and Bill Mollison (1988), founders of the Permaculture concept, Elliot Coleman (1999) author of the Four Season Harvest have inspired this work.  While techniques they suggest can help guide the design of ecologically sound and producti ve food systems, discreti on must be applied when applying yields typical of warm climates to temperate Briti sh Columbia.  Jeavons (2006, p 249) for example, suggests under Biointensive © produc- ti on methods, an individual’s dietary needs can be met on 372 square meters of land in stark contrast with the 6740 square meters required to meet the needs identi fi ed in this report.  While Jeavons accounti ng assumes a purely vegetarian diet, the level of producti vity he achieves on intensively managed land in a warm California are likely not transferable to Briti sh Columbia.  From a nutrient management perspecti ve, Jeavons advocates for up to 19lb 100sf-1 of alfalfa meal @ 2-3% total N (Jeavons, 2006 p 51).  Assuming a total N of 2.5%, this contributi on translates to 231kgN ha-1, much higher than the Environmental Farm plan background recommendati on of 50kgN ha-1 of total manure N for vegetables (BCMAL, 2003, p 2).  Given this level of nutrient loading and intensive planti ng scheme, it is not surprising he is able to achieve yields up to four ti mes that of a conventi onal farmer (Jeavons, 2006 p 17). Ward Teulon of City Farm Boy, Vancouver suggest the applicati on of three to four 32 l bags of sea soil 1000sf-1 (Teulon, 2009), equati ng to 134kgN ha-1 assuming 2.1%N in every 17kg bag-1 (assuming 37lbs bag -1 according to Fawks (2010)).  Given the considerable variability in nutrient mineralizati on and plant uptake and likely absence of vegetated buff ers and permeable surfaces, applying intensive nutrient schemes in urban areas requires considerable planning.  A measured approach to nutrient management is needed to respond to both food and environmental needs. The lower mainland faces its own challenges when applying organic ferti lizers to pasture or forage crops. Market and climate forces have moti vated farmers to specialize in high intensity dairy and poultry farming in the lower fraser valley, leading to gluts of organic manures in  these regions.  The valley has excepti onal levels of phosphorus and potassium largely due to the over applicati on of these manures (Bomke, 2010). As phosphorus and potassium aren’t as volati le as nitrogen, they tend to build up in a system and will leach into local water bodies aft er reaching threshold levels.  Some organic manures while necessary for their nitrogen content will be inappropriate in these regions because of high phosphorus and potassium contents.  That is, by applying nitrogen in the form of manure compost, farmers may exceed environmen- tal phosphorus limits.  A whole systems approach to nutrient cycling is important to adequately meet the nutrient needs of the farm without threatening local ecosystems. Modelling nutrient cycling is extremely sensiti ve to available nitrogen contributi ons which in turn is sensi- ti ve to moisture content7.2, weather, soil texture, soil biology and other variables diffi  cult to model on a regional scale.  In one study Janzen et al. (1990) noted how the total nitrogen contributi on from Lathyrus can range from 76kgN to 110 kgN ha-1, and the available nitrogen depends on a host of variables already 52 menti oned.  For this reason, local soil testi ng and climate considerati ons is important when applying these fi gures in context.  It doesn’t, however, negate the need for modelling  nutrient cycling given its signifi - cance in net foodshed size and energy balance. Conclusion Due to the bulk involved with organic nutrient cycling, the  energy implicati ons of moving  680,000   tonnes of organic matt er are not insignifi cant at 0.54 GJ cap-1 or 10% of the total food energy consumed 7.3.  The net footprint of food, accounti ng for nutrient cycling needs, is 0.68 ha cap-1 (fi gure 7.6).  Additi onal circula- ti on and wildlands has been added to retain 30% of the land base for these functi ons.  This life-cycle food- print requirement will drive the land use allotments for city foodprints and foodsheds for the remainder of the study and is consistent with Robins (2006, p2) who suggested Briti sh Columbians require roughly 0.524 ha cap-1, Wackernagel et al. (2002, p 9268) who identi fi ed a foodprint of 0.63ha cap-1 and Wackernagel and Rees (1994, p95) who assumed a land-based foodprint requirement of 0.71 ha cap-1.  It is signifi cant that this study arrived at a very similar foodland requirements to other reports. N it ro ge n 2032 m22432 m2831 m2 23 2 m 2 10 8 m 2 11 4 m 2 Wildlands Circulati on La nd Added Cover cropsAnimal ProductsOils & SugarsFruitVegetablesGrains 6774 m2 1025 m2 Figure (7.6).  Life-cycle Foodprint.  Land and nutrients required to meet an individual’s food needs based on Cana- dian dietary habits and BC producti on intensiti es.  Currently the fruit, oil and sugar crops model as net producers of available nitrogen (green circle) for use elsewhere in the system.  The nutrient shed (in blue) represents additi onal lands required by the system aft er all available organic nutrients are used (composts, biosolids, canolameal).  Wild- lands and circulati on increased to account for the larger “foodprint”. 53 Endnotes 7.1 Nutrient Cycling Nutrient demand was calculated on a crop by crop basis according to the following equati on: ࡰࡺ ൌ ࡴࡺ ൅ ࡸࡺ ൅ ࢂࡺ െ ሺ࡯࡯ࡺ ൅࡭ࡺ ൅ࡹࡺሻ  ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ  ܦே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ܦ݁݉ܽ݊݀ ܪே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ݎ݁݉݋ݒ݂݁݀ݎ݋݄݉ܽݎݒ݁ݏݐ݁݀݉ܽݐ݁ݎ݈݅ܽ ܮே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ݎ݁݉݋ݒܾ݁݀ݕ݈݄݁ܽܿ݅݊݃ ேܸ ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݈݃݁݊݋ݏݐݐ݋ܽݐ݉݋ݏ݌݄݁ݎ݅ܿݒ݋݈݅ݐ݅ݖܽݐ݅݋݊ ܥܥே ൌ ܰ݅ݐݎ݋݃݁݊ܽ݀݀݁݀ݐ݄ݎ݋ݑ݄݃ܿ݋ݒ݁ݎܿݎ݋݌ݏ ܣே ൌ ܣݐ݉݋ݏ݌݄݁ݎ݅ܿ݀݁݌݋ݏ݅ݐ݅݋݊ ܯே ൌ ܮ݋݈ܿܽ݉ܽ݊ݑݎ݁ܿ݋݊ݐݎܾ݅ݑݐ݅݋݊ݏ This value is the Plant Available Nitrogen demand (PAN), not to be confused with Total Nitrogen demand.  The diff er- ence in this case is that only a fracti on of the total nitrogen contained in manure or compost feedstocks is available for plant uptake. Nutrient demand for animal pasture is equal to 100 kg PAN ha-1 or 250kg manure N ha-1, assuming a manure mineral- izable N of 40%.  (BCMAFF, 2005 table 6.6 and, Andrews et al. 1996)  Excreted Nitrogen was accounted on an animal by animal basis, assuming a 20% handling loss according to Environmental Farm plan guidelines, (BCMAFF, 2005, table 6.7).  Nutrient demand for each animal’s feedshed (the area required to grow feed) is essenti ally the same as above except the crop removed is a grain of some sort, specifi c to each animal’s diet.  Net nutrient demand for animal related products is equal to the pasture requirement added to the feedshed demand. Nutrient demand for fruit accounted for cover crop contributi ons on unplanted laneways.  This was diff erent for each crop according to row spacing suggested by the BCMAL.  Slender spindle apples, for example, are spaced on 12’ rows which supports 10’ lanes with 2’ of managed row into which the apple trees are planted.  The nitrogen contributi on is thus 10/12  (83%) of 75kg ha-1 or 62.5kg ha-1, given not all of the area is planted in a cover crop.  Since laneways are planted perennially through the enti re growing season, this assumpti on is likely a litt le too conservati ve.  See ap- pendix (13.4) for a more detailed assessment of nutrient cycling dynamics. 7.2  Esti mati ng PAN Data from Cogger et al (ND), Kempe (2010), Gale et. al., (2006) and Pratt  et al., (1973) was used to determine what fracti on of compost feedstock translated to plant available nitrogen.  For each case the This value is calculated by multi plying total nitrogen by PAN %.  Thus for a feed stock with 3% nitrogen and 60% PAN, only 2% PAN is available for plant use (much of which is leached from the system). To supply 12 kg of compost requires 9 tonnes of compost from kitchen compost where compost mass required is equal to  PAN requirement / (total N%*PAN%) 54 Nitrogen content is usually calculated by DRY mass, rather than fresh wet mass.  Kempe (2010) esti mated biosolids treated in Matro Vancouver were roughly 70% moisture by weight, thus the actual total nitrogen would be 30% of 2% of the total mass of original biosolids produced, or 0.6% of the original biosolids by weight, much less than the esti mated values above.   The moisture content of yard trimmings and kitchen compost are not available, thus the PAN available through these feedstocks is likely far too liberal.  If the dry content of biosolids, yard trimmings, kitchen compost, and canola meal is assumed to be 30%, 45%, 45% and 87% respecti vely, the total life cycle food- print increases to 0.6841ha cap-1 to compensate for the additi onal nutrient lands necessary to meet the nutrient needs of the region.  Accordingly, Metro Vancouver’s nutrient self-suffi  ciency decreased to 9% when accounti ng for moisture. 7.3 Moving Nutrients City based composts are moved to the most proximal lands, using similar energeti c costs as the shipping of food from country to city.  As city based composts only meet 7% of the nutrient needs of the foodshed, this distributi on cost was relati vely small and the distance quite short.  If the nutrients generated in the city were to meet the nutrient needs of the enti re foodshed, these energeti c costs would be much higher.  This is important when considering other nutrients such as phosphorus and potassium which require cycling and cannot be grown in place in the way nitrogen can.  In other words, if potassium and phosphorus become limiti ng nutrients in the future, cycling them through the system will be mandatory. All available canola meal was assumed shipped 50km at rail freight energy intensity levels.  It is more likely the canola meal would be used as feed. Modelling nutrient demand and supply required many assumpti ons making the model sensiti ve to errors.  Further research is necessary to develop appropriate assumpti ons for regionally-scaled analysis. 55 7.4 Modelling handling loss This report assumes 20% loss of nitrogen from handling and applicati on though as can be seen in fi gure (7.7), losses can be much higher pending the methods used. 7.5 Cogenerati on and Biogas potenti al of Composti ng Biosolids Local and internati onal evidence has shown cogenerati on biogas plants to be a safe and economical means of power or heat generati on, uti lizing methane off -gassed in the composti ng process.  In Briti sh Columbia, it is esti mated that 4 million tonnes of digesti ble manure produced in BC  yr-1, 80% of it in the lower mainland.  The energy producti on potenti al of this source is esti mated at 39MW electrical power, enough energy to heat and electrify 40,000 homes, or to replace 500,000 barrels of crude oil (Rogstrand, 2010). In the treatment of human sewage, roughly 50%  of the energy consumed at Annacis Island, a Vancouver waste treat- ment facility, are met on site. At Iona Island, the plant sources almost 80% of their energy needs from digester gas. This study assumed no additi onal energy requirements for the processing and composti ng of nutrient feedstocks. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N it ro ge n Lo ss (% ) 0 10 20 Dailyscrape andhaul (solids) Openlot (solids) Deeppit (poultrysolids) Anaerobic deeppit (liquid) Eathenstorage pit(liquid) Lagoon(liquid) Broadcast without incorporation (liquid) Broadcastwith incorporation (liquid) Injection (liquid) Storage Application Figure (7.7).  Nitrogen Losses in Manure Storage and Applicati on methods.  From Sutt on et al., (1985)  56 At a regional scale, energy is an appropriate currency to evaluate foodshed performance.  This secti on will integrate the food system energy inputs developed in secti ons three through six and compare it to the food energy output identi fi ed in secti on one (fi gure 8.1).  Further, by changing each variable according to hyptheti cal future conditi ons, the model will uncover which ones matt er most in determining the size and energeti cs of a foodshed for Greater Vancouver in 2050. 8 Modelling Foodshed Vancouver Producti on Distributi on Nutrient Cycling Processing Food System Energy Inputs + + + Figure (8.1) Modelling the Energeti cs of Foodshed Vancouver.  The food system energy balance is equal to the food energy output divided by the food system energy inputs (producti on, distributi on, processing, and nutrient cycling). Food Energy output DietPopulati on x Business as Usual 2006 How much land? Modelled dietary habits demanded approximately 0.68 ha of net food land per person, requiring 1.4 million hectares of farmland for the 2.1 million people living in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).  Using existi ng ALR land this necessitated a foodshed that consumed 32% of Briti sh Columbia’s Net ALR land (fi gure 8.2).  Only 13% of the nutrient needs could be met by available sources.  Small secti ons of Eastern Briti sh Columbia were prioriti zed over closer secti ons due to their connecti vity to the rail system. The whole of Vancouver Island was consumed within Vancouver’s foodprint, largely due to the effi  ciency of marine which is assumed to connect the lower mainland to the island.  These fi ndings highlight the diff erence between Euclidian proximity and energeti c proximity, the latt er of which accounts for modal choice and route availability, and is arguably a bett er indicator for sustainable agricultural planning. How much energy? Under opti mal producti on and distributi on conditi ons, for every joule of energy produced by the food sys- tem, 3.6 joules of energy were invested.  Together, producti on and processing inputs made up 94% of net  57 energy inputs, representi ng over 3 ti mes the energy contained in the food (table 8.1).  These conditi ons made it impossible to complete the food cycle with a net positi ve energy balance, no matt er how Vancou- verites sourced their food.  With more energy expended in the producti on of food before it leaves the farm gate than is contained in the food, radical transformati on of producti on, processing and dietary patt erns must accompany the changes in urban form to make the food system energy positi ve. FoodEnergySummary FoodEnergyPurchased (GJ/cap*yr) Production (GJ/cap) Distribution (GJ/cap) PreconsumerProcessing (GJ/cap) RestaurantandConsumer processing(GJ/cap) NutrientCycling (GJ/cap) TotalFoodsystem Inputs(GJ/cap) Grains 1.30  0.15 Ͳ 0.88 Ͳ Ͳ - Vegetables 0.52  0.36 Ͳ 0.08 Ͳ Ͳ - Fruit 0.29  0.80 Ͳ 0.11 Ͳ Ͳ - OilsandSugars 1.59  2.95 Ͳ 2.69 Ͳ Ͳ - AnimalProducts 1.66  3.86 Ͳ 0.72 Ͳ Ͳ - Sum: 5.36  8.11 0.74 4.48 5.17 0.54 19.03 Percentageoffoodsystem energyinputs 43% 4% 24% 27% 3% 100% Table (8.1) Food Energy Summary for Foodshed Vancouver, 2006.  Distributi on inputs are based on ArcGIS spati al analysis as are Nutrient Cycling Inputs, thus are not specifi ed on a crop by crop basis. Distribution10 15 20 er gy (G Jc ap Ͳ1 yr Ͳ1 ) Production NutrientCycling Processing 0 5 EnergyInputs FoodEnergyOutput En e 3.6     1 Figure (8.2).  Foodshed Vancouver 2006.  Foodshed Vancouver 2006 is 1.4 million ha representi ng 32% of the provinces net ALR land, demanding 0.68 ha per person.  58 Business as Usual 2050 How much land? An increase in Metro Vancouver’s populati on to 3.1 million people demanded 2.1 million ha of land oc- cupying 47% of the provinces ALR land (fi gure 8.3). How much energy? Processing & cooking methods increased in effi  ciency to 2006 standards as old models were replaced. This created a modest energy effi  ciency gain making Foodshed 2050 more effi  cient than Foodshed 2006, despite incurring larger distributi on inputs. Nutrient cycling of all available organic feedstocks  was increased in kitchen compost and biosolid avail- ability by 50% (with populati on increase) over 2006 levels, though there was no assumed increase in yard trimmings availability.  In fact, it is likely that yard trimming availability  would actually decrease with an increasing urbanizati on, decreasing the proporti on of single family homes in the region. It is important to noti ce how litt le nutrient cycling and distributi on actually contributed to food energy inputs (8%), only 1% more than the 2006 scenario.  It is also interesti ng to note the locati on of prioriti zed ALR land allotments.  This model selected pockets of ALR adjacent rail stati ons (fi gure 8.4a, b), minimizing Distribution10 15 20 er gy (G Jc ap Ͳ1 yr Ͳ1 ) Production NutrientCycling Processing 0 5 EnergyInputs FoodEnergyOutput En e 3.4     1 b a Figure (8.3).  Foodshed Vancouver 2050 - Business as Usual.  Foodshed Vancouver 2050 is 2.1 million ha repre- senti ng 47% of the provinces net ALR land.  59 Figure (8.4).  One-hundred Mile Diet.  This target does not account for the modal effi  ciencies or route logisti cs that in turn inform an effi  cient food shed. Without agricultural land reform, in no way will the city of Vancouver ever be able to source its food within the 100 mile limit. the amount of road travel necessary.  Large stretches of ALR land were passed over due to poor accessibil- ity to the rail line.  A small secti on of the Queen Char- lott e Islands was also selected for access to energy effi  cient marine freight.  Intuiti vely, these planning decisions don’t make the most sense highlighti ng the need to start with accurate and detailed data and to weed out computati onal errors.  They do, however, highlight the inadequacy of the hundred mile diet concept which sets arbitrary limits independent of modal effi  ciencies or route logisti cs (fi gure 8.4).  Fur- ther, there is insuffi  cient agricultural land within this 100-mile catchment basin to sati sfy more than 17% of Vancouver’s 2006 populati on, not to menti on a projected populati on of 3.1 million in 2050 8.1. Energy Effi  cient 2050 This scenario assumed a 10% energy savings in pro- ducti on as per Brown and Elliot, 20058.2, and the ad- diti on of rail stati on in Prince George to improve con- necti vity of ALR lands in that area.8.3 Given processing contributes a signifi cant amount to the total energy footprint, secondary stoves, fridges and dishwashers were “removed” to improve house- hold energy effi  ciency.  All household and restaurant appliances are assumed to have improved by 50% from 2006 energy intensiti es.  These improvements are consistent with effi  ciency gains from 1984 to 2007 as per stati sti cs collected by Natural Resources Canada (2009). How much land? The total land footprint remained the same at 2.1 million ha, but the locati on of those lands changed with the additi on of a rail stati on at point (a) in fi gure (8.5).  This slight change to regional form induces a Figure (8.5).  Designated Rail Freight Stati ons and a 50km Catchment Zone.  Additi on of a rail stati on at point a improved distributi on effi  ciency by 1% over the previous scenario. a  60 distributi on effi  ciency gain of only 1% from the previous scenario, but radically altered the shape of Van- couver’s foodshed seen in fi gure (8.6). How much energy? Energy effi  ciency gains in other sectors (processing, producti on) induced a 30% decrease in energy inputs, but was sti ll insuffi  cient to achieve net energy gain. Figure (8.6).  Foodshed Vancouver 2050  - Energy Effi  cient.  An improvement in energy effi  ciency decreased energy inputs of 30% over the BAU 2050 scenario. 10 15 20 er gy (G Jc ap Ͳ1 yr Ͳ1 ) Production NutrientCycling Processing Distribution 0 5 EnergyInputs FoodEnergyOutput En e 2.4     1 Lactovegetarian 2050 To assess the impact of dietary shift  on the food energy balance, a lactovegetarian diet was imposed on food items selected.  The selecti on maintained the total calories purchased at 3,510kcal day-1, but allowed only eggs, milk and honey for animal products.  In additi on, the sugar and oil consumpti on was reduced by 50% for energeti c and nutriti onal reasons.  Other food items were increased in volume to account for lost calories.  Household stove use was decreased by 50% from the previous scenario resulti ng from an assumed increase in raw food consumpti on.  Other energy savings from the energy effi  cient scenario was preserved.  61 How much land? The shift  to a lactovegetarian diet reduced the individual foodprint to 0.45 cap-1 but increased the mass of food necessary to supply this diet to 860 kg, a 22% increase over previous scenarios8.4.  This reducti on in land intensive animal products resulted in a total land area foodshed reducti on of 36% over the 2050 Busi- ness as usual scenario, to 1.4 million hectares, representi ng 31% of the province’s ALR land (fi gure 8.7). How much energy? The total energy footprint of this scenario was  47% less than the BAU case and 25% bett er than the en- ergy effi  cient scenario.  In additi on there was a slight relati ve increase in distributi on energy input, now 9% of the total energy input (versus 5% for the 2050 BAU case), on account of a greater mass of food transported. A shift  to a lactovegetarian diet in additi on to previous energy effi  ciency improvements was insuffi  cient to achieve an energy producing foodshed.  This is consistent with Pimentel and Pimentel (2003, p660S) who noted that a hypotheti cal lactovegetarian diet, while more sustainable than a meat-based diet, sti ll required more energy to produce the food than was contained in the food itself. Figure (8.7).  Foodshed Vancouver 2050 - Lactovegetarian Diet.  Dietary shift s induce a 36% reducti on in foodprint area and 47% decerase of energy inputs over the BAU 2050 scenario. 10 15 20 er gy (G Jc ap Ͳ1 yr Ͳ1 ) Production NutrientCycling Processing Distribution 0 5 EnergyInputs FoodEnergyOutput En e 1.8     1  62 Almost Sustainable 2050 In this scenario, the lactovegetarian diet was preserved and the total caloric purchases were reduced by 1000kcal to 2,510kcal cap-1 day-1.  This implied 582kg cap-1 yr-1 was purchased at an energeti c intake of 3.8 GJ cap-1 yr-1  8.5.  Processing inputs were reduced again from the previous scenario accounti ng for reduced appliance densiti es in Vancouver households.8.6 How much land? The per-capita foodprint was reduced to only 0.31ha cap-1 and Greater Vancouver’s foodshed decreased to just below one million hectares, 54% less than the 2050 BAU scenario, now occupying only 21% of the provinces ALR land (fi gure 8.8).  In additi on, nearly 20% of the nitrogen needs of the foodshed can be met locally, versus 13% in previous scenarios 8.7.  How much energy? Though the absolute energy inputs to this scenario were reduced, the food energy balance (output divided by input) remained roughly the same as the lactovegetarian scenario at 1.79 joules invested for every joule of energy in return.8.8  This shows that without dramati c changes to processing or producti on inputs, it is impossible to achieve an energeti cally producti ve food system. Figure (8.8).  Foodshed Vancouver 2050 - (Almost) Sustainable.  Radical dietary shift s, energy effi  ciency improve- ments and a shift  towards human-scaled agriculture could help achieve an “energeti cally sustainable” foodshed for 2050. 10 15 20 er gy (G Jc ap Ͳ1 yr Ͳ1 ) NutrientCycling Processing Distribution 0 5 EnergyInputs FoodEnergyOutput En e Production 1.8     1  63 In his preliminary analysis on the energeti cs of small farming systems in Kentucky, Bomford (2009) noted a decrease in energy inputs of nearly 30% in systems dominated by hand tools in a biointensive garden- ing system in comparison with small-scale farming where tractors are used.  If producti on and processing energy inputs were reduced by 30%, the food system energy balance would reduce to 1 joule of energy gained for every 1.31 joules of energy invested.  Using Bomford’s (2009) esti mati on of labour input for bio- intensive farming would necessitate 43% of the populati on of Greater Vancouver be engaged in full ti me agriculture, double the  agricultural labour intensity typical of the late 1800s in Briti sh Columbia. 8.9 It would require a 50% reducti on in producti on and processing inputs on top of effi  ciency gains discussed in previous scenarios to achieve a food system where food energy outputs were equal to food system en- ergy inputs.  It clearly require massive transformati ons in behaviour and regional form to facilitate such a food system. Conclusion While changes in diet the distributi on network and producti on and processing techniques achieve a much reduced land foodprint, no scenario was able to achieve a net positi ve energy balance (fi gure 8.10, 8.11). Since the data used to calibrate the model is based on producti on and processing effi  ciencies typical of the 1970’s, there are likely few present-day precedents in the developed world from which to draw energeti - cally sustainable approaches to agriculture. 0.68 ha cap-1 0.45 ha cap-1 0.31 ha cap-1 Figure (8.9). Foodprint Comparison.  Business as Usual (top), lactovegetarian (middle), and Almost Sustainable (bot- tom).  64 Endnotes 8.1  Reconsidering the one hundred mile diet Vancouver has a foodshed of 1.4 million hectares.  The available ALR land within 100 miles of the city centre is 232 thousand hectares sati sfying 17% of Vancouver’s food needs (available foodshed divided by  required foodshed). 8.2 Food producti on energy savings potenti al Brown and Elliot (2005, p ii) predicted an average of 10% potenti al energy savings for the agricultural sector. 8.3  Rail stati on assumpti ons Rail stops were generated from a transportati ons stops shape fi le developed by DMTI spati al, published in 2008.  It contains a data set of Canadian transportati on stops including rail, transit and subway stops.  LRT rail and subway stops were excluded as they likely could not support rail freight. It is highly likely that not all rail stati ons are accounted for in this model, generati ng a selecti on patt ern that does not accurately refl ect reality.  From aerial imagery, there is likely a rail freight stati on in Prince George already, but was noted as a passenger stop by the rail data generated by DMTI Spati al (2006, 2008), thus excluded from the spati al data set.  This highlights the needs for accurate spati al data to direct agricultural planning. 8.4  Food energy compensati on Previous scenarios required 704 kg cap-1 ignoring non-land based food (fi sh and highly processed foods - chocolate bars).  The lactovegetarian diet required a greater mass of food to compensate for the exclusion of energy rich animal products. 8.5 Food mass wastage This food energy intake is sti ll well above the minimum suggested by the UN FAO of 2000kcal cap-1 day-1, but accounts does not account for food wastage which is on average 33% of the mass of food purchased.  Wastage was calcu- lated according to consumpti on and food purchasing stati sti cs provided by Stati sti cs Canada, 2002 where percentage wastage is: food purchased less food consumed divided by food purchased for available foods grown in BC.  Average wastage was calculated for each food group (grains, vegetables, fruit, oil and sugar crops, animal products), and then averaged again for all food groups. 8.6  Appliance density assumpti ons Only one set of appliances were assumed available for every two households. Freezer and dishwashers were not available for this scenario.  This behavioural shift  may seem shocking, but is a standard for “developing countries”. Co-housing systems will also program shared kitchen spaces for energy saving and to facilitate community building. 8.7  Nitrogen demands Recall that nitrogen demand accounts for losses due to crop removal, nutrient handling and leaching and additi ons from cover-crops, manures, atmospheric depositi on.  A change in the food palett e alters both losses and demands, and in the above case, results in a lesser demand that must be supplied by local compost supplies (yard trimmings, biosolids, canola meal, kitchen compost).  While nitrogen can be grown, cycling phosphorus and potassium through compost systems is criti cal for a “sustainable” food system.  65 8.8  Food energy balance considerati ons The total number of output calories was dramati cally reduced switching from the lacto-vegetarian diet to the “almost sustainable” diet, hence the rati o of output to input remained the same. See Appendix 15.2 for a summary of the food energy balance scenarios. 8.9  Labour intensity changes Bomford’s (2009) esti mates labour of inputs of 16-18 min per m2 which equates to 2,800 hr ha-1 or  almost 1.4 mil- lion labourers at 2000 hr year-1 to work the 973,000 ha of Vancouver’s “sustainable” foodshed.  This labour input is consistent with Pimentel (1980. p68) who esti mates a labour intensity of roughly 1,100 hr ha-1 for human-powered corn producti on in Mexico and anecdotal evidence that suggests one labourer can work roughly one hectare of land (Though Stanhill (1977), noted a labour intensity of 5 ppl ha-1 for high intensity urban agriculture plots in Paris). Labour intensity likely increases with crop diversity.  That is, the more diverse the farming system, the more labour required per unit area. Making use of work animals could reduce this labour input but require additi onal  land for feed.  Pimentel and Pi- mentel (1996) suggest that a work horse can increase work output by ten fold, but requires 2.3ha pair-1 of horses for feed (Morrison, 1946).  In this scenario, 973,000 ha of farmland would require an additi onal 224,000 ha of feed land, but need only 4.3% of Greater Vancouver’s total populati on to work the land (assuming 10 fold decrease in human labour for additi on of a pair of horses per 10 ha).  It isn’t surprising that almost half of the land base was required for feed land in early American agriculture (Hassebrook and Hegyes, 1989). 8.10 Mapping considerati ons Generati ng a map requires the projecti on of a 3-dimensional spherical object on to a 2 dimensional sheet of paper (or computer screen).  There are many standards used to project maps in such a way to minimize spati al distorti on (area, length, etc.), but all projecti on standards have some distorti on.  The two images of Briti sh Columbia below are based on a NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10 projecti on of BC and a GCS North American 1927 coordinate system re- specti vely.  This report uses the NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10 projecti on for generati ng all images and area calculati ons. Variability in calculati ng BC ALR land between NAD 1983 BC Environment Albers used by the ALC and the UTM Zone 10 projecti on amounts to 0.02 % diff erence, and is considered negligible by this report. NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10 projecti on; GCS North American 1927 Coordinate System projecti on  66 8.11  Refrigerator Usage Heat produced from refrigerator use isn’t necessarily “waste” heat as it contributes to the household heati ng for a signifi cant porti on of the year. 67 Though distributi on appeared to have an almost negligible input to the food system energy balance, previ- ous secti ons identi fi ed how the local placement of urban agriculture and regional farms contribute to the social connecti vity and resilience of the food system as a whole.  This secti on will identi fy what biophysical and social factors should be considered when placing food lands on an urban, regional and provincial scale with Greater Vancouver as a focal case. Variables which drive the placement of food spaces change with the local context and the primary pro- gram of the farm.  The availability of light, water, soil, labour and fi nancial resources diff er dramati cally between regional farms where expansive fi eld space (usually) permits access to light,  unavailable in urban environments (fi gure 9.1).   Conversely, soil can be readily amended in an urban context with available composts, but is more diffi  cult to amend in rural setti  ngs where the scale of applicati on and poor access to organic matt er prohibit large-scale soil building eff orts. 9 Placing Foodlands RegionalFarm(100ac) UrbanFarm(10ac) CommunityGarden(1ac) Light Water Soil Figure (9.1) Importance of Suitability Factors for Urban and Regional Agricultural Planning.  Though clearly these factors are criti cal at every scale, the infl uence of microclimates and the capacity for the landscape manager to modify the soil has impacts which factor needs most att enti on.         lo w  im po rt an ce     hi gh  im po rt an ce 68 Figure (9.2).  Designing for Accessibility.  Populati on density data were sourced from Stati sti cs Canada 2006 census (Stati sti cs Canada, 2007) and community garden locati ons were identi fi ed from the City of Vancouver’s VanMap (2010) (but do not represent all of Vancouver’s community gardens). Future community garden? Placing Urban Foodlands Realisti cally, a standard 10’ by 4’ plot could meet 1.6 % of a person’s fruit and vegetable needs9.1 and the cumulati ve food producing area of community gardens in the city could meet the fruit, vegetable and grain needs of only 100 people9.2.  However, the functi on of community gardens extend far past food producti on. They provide a place for people to learn about food, parti cipate in community work parti es and indirectly engage those who walk by and simply enjoy the sight of a socially and ecologically producti ve space. Therefore, the shape and placement of community gardens should also respond to social factors.  On an urban scale, planners might consider placing community gardens within walking distance of major popula- ti on centres.  From a cursory evaluati on of known community gardens in the city of Vancouver, fi gure (9.2) explores what proporti on of Vancouverites live within a one kilometer catchment zone of these gardens. In this assessment, 34% of the sample populati on lives within these catchment zones9.3.  Future placement of community gardens should respond to the locati on of large populati on pockets (dashed circle), that might have limited access to food producing opportuniti es. 69 Climate, Light and Soil In an urban environment, light, moisture and to a lesser ex- tent, soil are also important considerati ons.  The fi rst two are infl uenced by adjacent structures or trees creati ng micro cli- mates of sunny, or more oft en, shady conditi ons that prohibit the planti ng of sun-loving plants.  Trees oft en draw up what moisture (and nutrients) are available making it diffi  cult to meet plant needs.  Cott onwoods, for example, are voracious water-loving trees that make it diffi  cult to plant anything close by.  Trees can also provide protecti on, raising the temperature by just enough to protect plants underneath from killing frosts, or shading intolerant leaf crops from the mid-summer sun. Soil becomes important on disturbed sites where soils have been added, removed or polluted from adjacent land uses. Urban soils can be extremely variable in chemical, physical and biological compositi on.  Accumulati on of heavy metals are an issue on sites previously used by industry or in waste disposal (Armstrong, 2000).  Soil issues are dealt with more easily in the urban context than their rural counterparts with relati vely good access to composts and clean fi ll from city projects.  For example, Cott onwood community gardens of Vancouver was able to “cap” a previously contaminated site with a sand layer that prevented possible contaminants from entering their veg- etable plots.  However, these soil conditi oning eff orts have im- plicati ons on drainage characteristi cs.  In the example above, a two-foot sand layer will likely cause adverse drying of veg- etable plots necessitati ng more irrigati on than would normally be necessary during summer months. For this reason, site-specifi c soil assessments can assist choos- ing appropriate sites for new urban agriculture.  Though the City of Vancouver has relati vely detailed soil maps available through VanMap, a micro-scale assessment for contaminants and soil texture is necessary to determine the viability of sites for urban agriculture. Placing Regional Foodlands As most of Briti sh Columbia’s food comes from large-scale farms 40 hectares or more in size (Stati sti cs Canada, 2007b), a regional-scaled suitability analysis is criti cal to account for the contextual factors that aff ect agricultural capability, market suitability, distributi on connecti vity and food needs from a number of municipaliti es. A survey of soils, moisture conditi ons and yield potenti al was completed by Agriculture Canada (2008) to Figure (9.3).  Placing Urban Agriculture. Placing food in an urban context requires greater att enti on to light access and popula- ti on density than in rural contexts.  Image: G. Earth, Province of Briti sh Columbia, 2010. 70 assess the agricultural potenti al across the country.  This as- sessment was done at a scale of 1:5,000,000  based on data col- lected in the 1970s, thus only has applicati ons at a provincial or bioregional scale without the resoluti on necessary for detailed agricultural decisions.  Agriclimate index   (AC, or agricultural capability) coarsely describes the ability of the Canadian land- scape to support agriculture based on predicted forage yields, growing season length, temperature and moisture9.4, 9.5 (see Runka, 1973).  Energeti c proximity represents a second factor which ranks the relati ve energeti c distance from the grid cells discussed in secti on (5) to the centre of Vancouver.  This in- dex was normalized to generate a coeffi  cient between zero and one, where zero implies no connecti vity to Vancouver and 0.99 indicates the grid cell is close to Vancouver, relati vely speaking. A third variable was introduced to prohibit placing agricultural lands on already built landscapes and parkland (PC).  This third index has a value of zero for each polygon.  In combinati on these variables indicate what parts of BC are both energeti cally close to the city AND appropriate for agriculture according to the following equati on: Figure (9.4) shows an early product of this planning tool show- ing how areas proximal to the rail lines and along agricultural valleys are prime for agriculture while areas disconnected from major transportati on corridors are excluded. Conclusion The Land Potenti al Database (LPDB) was uti lized data published in the mid 1970’s at a very coarse scale, and cannot account for recent changes in conditi ons or variati ons within cells.  A site by site analysis is necessary to ascertain local suitability.   In additi on, equal weight was placed on coeffi  cients AC and PE implying equal importance of agricultural capability and energeti c proximity.  A more detailed sensiti vity analysis is necessary to att ribute coeffi  cient weight to both variables and include other coeffi  cients likely excluded from this analysis. Figure (9.4).  Composite Regional Suit- ability Analysis.  This lower image rep- resents the aggregati on of agricultural climate, energeti c proximity and the removal of park and city lands.  Lighter yellow indicates greater suiti ability for agriculture.  Beige cells are excluded. Agricultural Capability Parks and Citi es Energeti c Proximity ࡿ ൌ ࡼࡱ ൈ ࡭࡯ ൈ ࡼ࡯  ܹ݄݁ݎ݁ǣ ܵ ൌ ܣ݃ݎ݅ܿݑ݈ݐݑݎ݈ܽܵݑ݅ݐܾ݈ܽ݅݅ݐݕሺͲ െ ͳሻ ாܲ ൌ ܧ݊݁ݎ݃݁ݐ݅ܿܲݎ݋ݔ݅݉݅ݐݕሺͲ െ ͳሻ ܣܥ ൌ ܣ݃ݎ݅ܿݑ݈ݐݑݎ݈ܽܥܽ݌ܾ݈ܽ݅݅ݐݕሺͲ െ ͳሻ ܲܥ ൌ ܲܽݎ݇ݏܽ݊݀ܥ݅ݐ݅݁ݏሺͲሻ 71 While the vast majority of food is grown in network of regional farms, criti cal instances of urban agricul- ture and peri-urban farms can inform a culture of sustainable food choices.  Appropriate placement of farms with reference to their intended functi on, proximity to distributi on networks or populati on pockets, and in considerati on of soil, moisture and light access can guide sustainable foodshed design.  This multi - scale approach is necessary to shape food lands that meet scale-specifi c functi ons. Endnotes 9.1  Calculati ng individual fruit and vegetables needs 72 Forty square feet is roughly 3 square meters which is 1.6% of the 222 square metres required for producing the fruit and vegetables consumed by one person 9.2  Community Garden Growing Capacity Vancouver boasts 2500 garden beds in the city (City of Vancouver, 2010).  If each were 100sf (high for Vancouver), they could cumula- ti vely meet the fruit and vegetable needs of just over 100 people or 0.02% of  Vancouver’s populati on of 578,041 based on the model developed in this report. 9.3  Community garden access Using ArcGIS and populati on density stati sti cs derived from Stati s- ti cs Canada, 2006, this assessment calculated the number of people living within community garden catchment zones divided by the populati on of the enti re sample area. 9.4  Agriclimate Resource Index (ACRI) The Agriclimate Resource Index (ACRI) provides an approximate method for quanti tati vely comparing quality of the agriclimate for agriculture in diff erent parts of Canada (Williams, 1975, Runka, 1973). It was calculated in considerati on of length of growing sea- son, temperature and moisture as they relate to forage yields. 9.5  Soil climate index This index is part of the land potenti al database and represents the rati o of actual evapotranspirati on to potenti al evapotranspirati on during the growing season., determined by monitoring daily soil moisture in considerati on of precipitati on, evapotranspirati on, soil water holding capacity and runoff .  It indicates areas that are appropriate for agriculture with reference to moisture availability and holding capacity (fi gure 9.5) Note that the source for the LPDB was taken at a coarse scale (1:5,000,000) and misrepresents diff erences in soil texture that occur at local scales.  (Stewart, 1981, Agriculture Canada, 2008, Canada Land Inventory, 1972) Figure (9.5).  Climati c Available Mois- ture Use Index (CAMUI).  Darker shades indicate greater soil moisture availability and holding capacity.  Index based on the Land Potenti al Database (LPDB) 73 As urban populati ons now exceed rural populati ons for the fi rst ti me in human history, the questi on of urban form takes precedent in regional decision making.  Since planning decision today will have implica- ti ons that may outlast contemporary energy systems it is important to understand key drivers for sustain- able urban form. It is implicit throughout this report that urban form should respond to the dynamics of the food system. This secti on will explore this relati onship drawing upon city forms proposed by Ebenezer Howard, Peter Calthorpe and Kevin Lynch.  Large-scale regional forms will be refi ned to farm scale typologies, informing the design of wildlands and foodlands in Briti sh Columbia. An early city planner, Ebenezer Howard (1898) developed the garden city concept, responding to a need for local food self-suffi  ciency through integrati on of food land into the fabric of the region (fi gure 10.1). His early drawings called for citi es to occupy roughly  1000 acres, surrounded by 5000 acres of agricultural land, and hold a populati on of 32,000 (Howard, 1898 in LeGates and Stout (ed) 1996).  This amounts to 0.14 to 0.16 acres (0.064ha) of agricultural land per person, much less than the 1.65  acres 0.67 ha cap-1 assessed by Stati sti cs Canada survey of Agricultural lands in 200610.1 and less than 0.68 ha cap-1 recom- mended in this report.  Arguably Howard was relying upon agricultural land from external sources. Urban form in developing countries can yield important clues into city design that must be energy ef- fi cient out of necessity.  While China has radically changed in the last 20 years, Girardet (1992, p 162) asserted how most of China’s largest citi es have allott ed suffi  cient land (60-80% of the total city area) to make the citi es populati on largely food self-suffi  cient.  This evidence must be taken with a grain of salt since many developing countries are suffi  cient in fruit and vegetables but receive grain donati ons from the World Food program, supported from donors countries such as Canada. China and Cuba, while acti vely engaged in Urban Agriculture, are consistent recipients of cereal do- nati ons (FaoStat, 2009b).  European citi es that de- veloped before the industrial revoluti on provide other insights into sustainable urban form.  Their relati vely autonomous and compact form support 10 Shaping Foodlands Figure (10.1).  Garden City.  Howards vision of a garden city as (Howard (1898) in LeGates and Stout (ed), 1996). 74 City of Vancouver City of Detriot San Francisco County Manhatt an Metro Vancouver City of Duncan rd walkable communiti es balancing the need for transit effi  ciency and urban amenity with access to available foodlands and open space.  Greenbelts that surround communiti es, and a highly effi  cient rail network in the UK refl ect a contemporary evoluti on of this form. Opti mal Regional Size Several large North American citi es have recently questi oned the potenti al of urban agriculture to feed citi es and are worth criti quing.  City radius (rc), Foodprint radius (rf) and Foodprint radial diff erence (rd - the diff erence between city radius and foodprint radius) were be used to compare foodprint dynamics of citi es and regions.  As seen in fi gure (10.2) and appendix (15.3), there is an interesti ng intercourse between city size, populati on and the resulti ng foodprint.  Detroit, for example has a populati on of almost a million, but a large land base resulti ng in a much less radial foodprint diff erence (rd ) in comparison with Manhatt an which shows a rather extreme radial foodprint diff erence10.2.  Metro Vancouver is an interesti ng case which diagrammati cally performs well with a lesser radial foodprint diff erence (rd) than Manhatt an or Detriot, but the city of Duncan on Vancouver Island performs the best with a foodprint radius (rf) one 20th that of Metro Vancouver at 3.2km and a radial foodprint diff erence one fi ft eenth the length of Metro Vancou- ver’s.10.3  Even with liberal land esti mates, the foodprint of citi es assessed far exceeded the land area of the citi es themselves. Figure (10.2). City Foodprint Comparison.  Representati ve areas of various North American citi es (inner circle) and their associated “foodprints” (total circle area) based on a land requirement of 0.68 ha person-1. The foodprint radius is denoted as rf, and the radial foodprint diff erence (foodprint radius less city radius) is denoted as rd. 10.2, 10.3 rf 75 Assuming city lands are not accessible for meaningful ag- riculture, and all land area is available for agriculture im- mediately outside each city or region Courtenay, Duncan and Greater Vancouver have radial foodprint diff erences of 4.8km, 2.5km, and 60km respecti vely 10.3.  This model does not account for macro-circulati on or adjacent land use and thus not a realisti c planning tool, but does bett er highlight the relati onship between populati on density, city size, and local topography.  Radial foodprint diff erence (rd) might become an important indicator if the food system necessitates the human-powered approach to agriculture discussed in secti on (8), scenario #5.  Currently 1.52% of the workforce or 0.82% of the total populati on of BC is engaged in farming (Stati sti cs BC, 2010).  If this proporti on were to return to values characteristi c of pre-industrial la- bour society (48% of the working populati on or 16% of the total populati on in the late 1800’s 10.4, where might these farmers live?  Secti on (5) illustrated the energeti c issues embeded in the daily commute - a practi se society cur- rently takes for granted.  Farmers would be energeti cally limited to short commutes to preserve the food energy balance, ruling out large regional districts like Vancou- ver.10.5  Small citi es such as Courtenay and Duncan allow for more resilient farmer transport with a labour force placed within a reasonable distance of available farm land. In reality, no city, or even region, operates independent- ly from the context of the province or state.  Vancouver shares a foodshed with Victoria, Whistler, Seatt le, and all the municipaliti es that make up the bioregion.  In additi on, unless positi oned in the centre of ripe agricultural land, there is no possibility that a perfectly circular area with no circulati on easements will be available for agricultural use.  A more wholisti c approach is necessary to shape agricultural lands for the region and bioregion. City of Duncan Foodprint: 3,400 ha Gross Density: 25pph rd: 2.5km Figure (10.3) Conceptual Gross Foodprints for Courtnay, Duncan and Vancouver.  Ra- dial diff erences (rd) are measured in ArcGIS. Adapted from images available from ESRI Canada. Courtenay, BC Foodprint: 15,000 ha Gross Density: 8.2pph rd: 4.8km Metro Vancouver Foodprint: 1.43 million ha Gross Density: 7.3pph rd: 60km 76 Opti mal Regional Shape Greater Vancouver’s projected populati on of 3.1 million people in 2050 will need a foodshed roughly 2.1million ha in size to meet 2006 dietary habits.  If every available surface were used to grow food, 17 % of the populati on could be fed, assuming a foodshed of 0.68ha per capita 10.6.  This gross regional retrofi t is unlikely and producti on capacity inadequate to meet food needs.  Urban agricultural retrofi ts will be un- able to meet the food needs of the modern mega city.  A more creati ve approach is required to shape the role of city and country in food producti on Given the growing conditi ons for grains are arguably more appropriate in Eastern BC and the Southern In- terior supports a strong fruit crop, it is important to consider the implicati ons of a foodshed that is shaped according to climate, soil, and proximity factors.  In this regard, if 30% of private and park land area was dedicated to food producti on in the city, it could technically support 18% of its fruit and vegetable needs, ignoring land required for parcel-specifi c circulati on or nutrient cycling 10.7.  Local ALR lands (within Metro Vancouver) could support 35% of the total fruit and vegetable needs of the region leaving producti on of 47% of fruit and vegetable producti on, animal products and grains to the larger bioregion (fi gure 10.4). The fi rst of these assumpti ons is a tremendous ask and unlikely for all but the seasoned urban farmer.  A standard Vancouver lot of 40m by 15m, with a building of 12m by 15m leaves only 60% of the land area 18% fruit and vegetables 47% of fruit and vegetable needs & all grains, oil and sugar crops, and animal products RE G IO N A L A LR M ET RO  A LR CI TY 35% fruit and vegetables Figure (10.4) Feeding the Region.  Regional Food- land shape should be informed by market and agricultural capability, and the potenti al for selected crops to engage the city through urban agricul- ture.  Foodshed analysis based on Stati sti cs Canada (2010) and modelled foodprint requirements. 77 available for such purposes.  With shading eff ects, circula- ti on, and other urban functi ons, it would be nearly impos- sible to retrofi t 30% of private and public land area with urban agriculture. Though citi es cannot on their own meet food needs, there are important qualitati ve forms that can support a culture of sustainable food choices.  Based on city-centric indica- tors, Frey (1999) favoured a distributed regional network of compact citi es (10.5c) over suburban sprawl (10.5a) or core city (10.5b) for its accessibility to open country, support for a sense of place, rati o of populati on to land required, and vi- ability for public transport (Frey, 1999, p 66).  In comparing city typologies, Frey(1999) suggested observing transport distance, length of open land fi ngers, and maximum dis- tance from city to open land (rc).  The core city performed the best for compactness, but did not beat out the decen- tralized regional city in proximity to open land. While immediately criti cized by new urbanists and farmers alike, the suburb (fi gure 10.4a) does have its benefi ts.  The compact city conserves the greatest amount of space for farmland but tends to spati ally disconnect farm from city with litt le growing area in the city itself, whereas the sub- urb provides some opportunity for agriculture in backyard gardens.  The decentralized regional city (10.5c) may be the greatest of the three, maintaining the transport related benefi ts of urban dwelling, but maximizing the edge where farm and city meet.  This form is becoming more preva- lent across Canada and is adopted by regions such as the Greater Toronto Area, Greater Winnipeg and is manifest in Greater Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (2009).  In it they acknowledge of the potenti al synergies among disti nct municipaliti es avoiding simple annexati on of smaller town- ships.  This wholisti c perspecti ve, while riddled with bureaucrati c challenges, can take into account the needs of the country and city, and embrace the regional city models embedded in Howard and Calthorpe’s work.  Relevant components of the regional growth strategy include: (Strategy 1.1) Contain urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary.; (Strategy 1.2) Focus growth in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors; (Strategy 1.3) Protect the region’s rural lands from urban development. (Strategy 2.3)Protect the region’s supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability with an Figure (10.5) Comparing Urban Forms.   (a) Sprawl, (b) Core city and (c) Distributed citi y network.  Adap- ated from Frey (1999) p 28. (a) (b) (c) 78 emphasis on food producti on. (Strategy 3.1)Protect the lands within the Conservati on and Recreati on areas. (Strategy 3.2) Protect and enhance natural features and connecti vity throughout the region. These strategies highlight the importance of planning for homes, jobs and agriculture to achieve a sustainable region and speak to the qualiti es of appropriate regional size and shape.  Operati onally they imply increased density in urban cores and a properly contained urban footprint.  Surrey, for example, is set to experience more growth than Vancou- ver’s metropolitan core over the next thirty years, becom- ing a centre unto itself rather than a bedroom community for Vancouver (Metro Vancouver Board, 2009, p17).  Urban containment boundaries aim to limit growth to currently developed regions and preserve farm and wildlands (Ibid, p27 to 35).  Connecti vity is important for both natural areas and agriculture to support fl ows of wildlife or food through- out the region and into citi es.  This rural-urban interface is parti cularly important for reasons briefl y discussed in sec- ti on (6) to support a culture of sustainable food choices and takes the form of backyard and community gardens, food- producing street trees and regional farms. The transiti on from country to city requires a hardening of the agricultural edge with appropriate buff ers (hedges, raised planters) to increase the community access required for urban agriculture.  Conversely, the city should soft en where entering the countryside to maintain the integrity of the agricultural landscape (fi gure 10.6).  The latt er can be accomplished with pervious surfaces to support water infi ltrati on and to minimize heavy surface fl ows; appropriate buff ers and barriers to manage nutrient discharge to or from agricultural landscapes and to prohibit trespassing where appropriate; and design cues that encourage appropriate community assess. The Shape of Living Systems To shape sustainable citi es and farmlands, it is helpful to observe the shape and rhythm of natural living systems for inspirati on. The way a wound heals, a forest re-grows, or a community comes together when faced with challenge exemplifi es regenerati ve systems.  Living “regenerati ve” systems are resilient to environmental stresses, dynamically responding to change.  Living Systems Theory was developed by James Miller (1978) as a Integrate Agriculture into the City CITYCOUNTRY Figure (10.6) Agricultural Regionalism. Without a vision of the region and the city, agriculture cannot functi on sustainably. Agricultural Regionalism can serve to focus att enti on on the region and its relati onship with the city.  Adapted from HBLanarc’s “Agricultural Urbanism” (HBLanarc, 2009) 79 sub branch of General Systems Theory.  Miller (1973, 1978) identi fi ed eight “nested” hierarchi- cal “levels” following the cell with organ, organ- ism, group, organizati on, community, society, and supranati onal system, each of which have spati al, energeti c and temporal characteristi cs important for each level. While it may appear diffi  cult to apply these qualiti es to regional design, in their paper en- ti tled “Sustainable systems as organisms” , Ho and Ulanowicz (2005) identi fi ed some key en- ergeti c and spati al characteristi cs of living sys- tems that have applicati on in foodshed design. Their capacity to capture, store and effi  ciently cycle energy is a key characteristi c of living sys- tems.  Simple “non-living” systems incur rapid transformati on of energy from high to low quality (10.7a).  In contrast, “living systems” are able to cycle energy, minimizing dissipati on and maximizing system effi  ciency.  In this con- text, high “quality” energy is that which can be readily stored or used for a variety of purposes (10.7b).  In the body, ti ssues store energy in the form of glucose or fat for use when needed in a processes where the glucose is broken down into more simple forms that support nervous system functi oning, muscular contracti ons, di- gesti ve enzyme producti on, and a host of other Figure (10.7).  Energy Dynamics of (a) “Simple” and (b) “Living” Systems.  Simple systems rapidly transform energy from one form to another with limited sub cycles in place to store or recycle energy.  Combusti on is a relati vely simple chemical process yielding water, carbon dioxide and heat energy from the oxidati on of a hydrocarbon.  This simplifed this process is: CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O + heat energy Combusti on is chemically very similar to cellular res- pirati on, but the rate of energy transformati on from a high quality (chemical) to a low quality (heat) is rapid, and spati ally homogeneous, leaving lesser opportunity to catch and store the energy for use.  The spati al & temporal compartmentalizati on of cellular respirati on enables maximum cycling of energy within the system. Adapted from Ho and Ulanowicz (2005) p 43. minimal cycling high quality energy low quality energy high quality energy low quality energy maximum energy cycling essenti al processes characteristi c to life.  Energy is eventually transformed into heat and lost to the envi- ronment, but not before supporti ng many life functi ons in the process.  Despite some literature to the con- trary, living systems do not cheat entropy, they just slow it down, maximizing the amount of useful work energy can do in the process.  Arguably, modern industrial society does a good job of simplifying energy tranformati on processes through the combusti on of fossil fuels which through direct heati ng and indirect contributi ons of greenhouse gases, has led to global climate change. The essenti al spati al forms that characterize living systems is spati al and temporal heterogeneity.  Spa- ti al heterogeneity is the compartmentalizati on of processes so that the product (heat energy, chemical energy, etc.) can be siphoned off  for storage or use elsewhere in the system.  The compartmentalizati on of organelles inside cells inside organs inside organ systems inside organisms provides a system of nested systems designed to effi  ciently capture, store and transform energy, minimizing dissipati on through the process.  On a broader scale, organisms fi t into populati ons inside communiti es inside ecosystems in a 80 system of individuals working together to maximize system effi  ciency. Temporal heterogeneity  infers the juxtapositi on of processes with diff erent “life histories” working  to- gether.  Where life history refers to the rate of energy transformati on, a diversity of nested “life histories” enable capture and storage of energy at a controlled rate.  In living systems larger spati al scales oft en ac- company phenomena with longer life histories (fi gure10.8) (Miller, 1972, 1978). Ho and Ulanowicz (2005) argued that agricultural, economic and social systems that are spati ally and temporally heterogeneous and refl ect the spacio-temporal characteristi cs of living systems are more resilient.  In an agricultural context, this is important for the nested placement of short season food crops, perennial fruit trees, woodlots and wildlands.   With this in mind, both large scale regional farms and ur- ban agriculture have roles in supporti ng a resilient food system.  Large scale farms can take generati ons to build the market relati onships and soil integrity to be viable where small scale agriculture or community garden plots require less investment over a shorter ti me span and for a reduced yield. Together, they occupy a diversity of scales characterized by living system and are required in combinati on to meet the sociocultural and food needs of a region. Shaping Wildlands Wildlife are integral to ecosystem services, discussed briefl y in secti on (3).  The size and shape of wildland set-asides determine what species can cohabit the space according to their habitat needs. Van Burkirk and Willi, (2004) suggested striving for landscape heterogeneity (between farm),  farm heterogeneity (between fi eld) and fi eld heterogeneity (between row) to support greater species diversity in farming ecosystems.  They called for placing a farm within a network of park lands and wild spaces to improve the connecti vity and functi on of wild spaces; using hedgerows (fi gure 10.8), irrigati on ditches, fi eld mar- gins and set asides to improve inter-fi eld wildlife value; and using inter cropping, crop rotati ons introducti on of benefi cial to create a verti cal and horizontal heterogeneity within a fi eld (Ibid). Remnant 7 spp, 6 pairs Recently laid 8 spp, 7 pairs Mechanically cut 10 spp, 8 pairs Trimmed dense 7 spp, 9 pairs Unclipped stock -proof 9 spp, 15 pairs Bushy with outgrowths 19 spp, 34 pairs Figure (10.8).  The Shape of Wild - Hedgerows.  Tree height, age and hedge width support more bird species (in number of bird species).10.8 81 The Rhythm of Wild: There is a hierarchical relati onship between phenomena that occur at small and large scales (fi gure 10.9).  Municipaliti es and even regions are poorly aligned to deal with large scale phenomena that impact the functi oning of small scale ecosystems.  The jurisdicti on of municipal or provincial governments simply don’t account for transconti nental mi- grati on or microbial reproducti on.  Given the maximum four year man- date of most governments, spati ally-oriented failures are refl ected in temporal scales.  While humanity seems to understand processes that occur within yearly life-cycles (migrati on), processes that last shorter (pollinati on) or longer (evoluti on) seem hard to comprehend and even harder to plan for.  To design for sustainable wildlands, designers should plan for the 1 yr, 10 yr, 100 yr and 1000 year cycles inherent in natural systems.  Some parks in New Zealand, for example, have adopted 500 yr growth plans that facilitate healthy succession and evoluti on of the park system. Opti mal Design Strategies: The performance of ecological functi ons depends on the size, shape, regional context of wildlands. Design strategies must therefore respond to re- gional conservati on and ecological goals.  In oth- er words to ascertain opti mal wildland confi gura- ti on,  designers must fi rst ask which species and landscape form is most important to protect. Margules, Pressey (2000) formatt ed a valuable planning tool that prompts designers to consider wildlife spaces that protect species under the greatest threat and have the highest ecological functi on.  While there are surely many other lay- ers to consider, this multi dimensional approach to opti mizing land use functi on is a good start to making choices that benefi t humanity and na- ture. se conds micron Cellular processes ye ars Populati on processes hectares Global Ecosystem processes m ille nia millions of hectares Figure (10.9).  Space and Time in Living Systems. 82 Wildland Taxonomy: Figure (10.10) Illustrate various typologies appropriate for wildland design of forested, wetland, and streams systems. The implementati on of these patt erns should refl ect local context and ecological goals (Margules and Pressy, 2000). For instance, a 30m buff er around drainage ditch in the con- text of a low intensity farming system (grains) is less neces- sary than if that stream were salmon bearing adjacent high input farming.  Fish bearing streams necessitate the micro climate and nutrient cleansing functi ons of a wide riparian buff er.  Using biological means, one can trap nutrients (cat- tails, water milfoil) and manage duckweed (Talapia or Carp), and also serve as food or nutrient sources.  If the desired functi on of the wetland is for storm water management or nutrient cleansing it would benefi t from a greater edge to area rati o typifi ed by wetlands with longitudinal undulati ng patt erns, not circular ones.  From a regional perspecti ve, a network of riparian habitat provided by connected ponds, irrigati on ditches and riparian buff ers is an important eco- system that supports biodiversity of the region.  (Andrews and Rebane, 1994) Hedgerows can act as perennial foraging systems or food forests, providing a diversity of wildlife and food services and creati ng sheltered micro climates for adjacent cropland. The use of diverse hedgerow plants & trees, and aquati c vegetati on can provide fantasti c habitat for avian, terrestri- al and aquati c life.  Maintaining a three to four meter buff er strip of unsprayed vegetati on will support populati ons of benefi cial species including bees, spiders and game birds. Shaping Foodlands The principles of heterogeneity and connecti vity that drive wildland design are just as important for design- ing sustainable foodlands.  Crops with shorter life histories (salad greens or cucumbers) might have lesser areas relati ve long cycle crops such as perennial fruit trees or woodlot products.  Annual crop rotati on cy- cles can nest within larger ecological processes such as soil building.  Areas dedicated to annual crops can be replaced with perennial fruit trees followed with woodlots in a cycle that can meet the food and eco- logical needs of the community (fi gure 10.11).  Traditi onal swidden agriculture and hunter-gather societi es recognized these cycles, leaving signifi cant porti ons of the landscape to regenerate (Pimentel, 1996).  Agri- Figure (10.10).  Wildland typologies. Adapted from Environment Canada, 2004. Forests Corridor 200 ha forest 50 - 100m wide corridoor, < 2km away 75% veg- etated for 1st to 3rd order streams 30 m buff er Streams and Rivers & buff ers Wetlands Criti cal Functi on Zone & Inti or Habitat Protecti on Zone Circular form preserves open water for birds 83 culture in developing countries respond to this patt ern dedi- cati ng the majority of annual cropping area to long-season cereals (FaoStat, 2009).  Re- confi guring dietary habits and regional form to refl ect these cycles through permaculture practi se and investi ng more in perennial crops could improve the effi  ciency and health of the  food system. There are also economic ad- vantages to mixed farming sys- tems which increase resilience against market or yield fl uc- tuati ons, and provide a more consistent income source throughout the year (fi gure 10.12a and b).  Though the ti ming of income diff ers, the total relati ve income for both scenarios is the same at 100%. Diverse cropping and animal systems can oft en meet nu- trient needs on-site, reducing the need for external inputs. This can be applied to the use of manures for ferti lizing soils, but extended to the rotati ng nitrogen fi xers with light feed- ers and heavy nitrogen users 0% 10% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% Figure (10.12). Relati ve Income schedule for sweet corn producti on (a) and Mixed farm (b) systems.  Incomes were adapted from BCMAL planning work- sheets  for a hypotheti cal mixed farm and for Sweet corn, Fraser Valley, 2001. (b)(a) Figure (10.11). Relati ve Size and Timing of Mixed Farm Units. 10 0 y ea rs 10ha 20 ye ars Perennial Fruit Trees 1ha Woodlot and Wildlands 60  days 0.1ha Salad greens July January July January or inter cropping these plant types in adjacent rows.  Relati ve placement of “companion plants” can help att ract pollinators (alfalfa for bees), encourage predatory insects (Dill for ladybugs) or ward of nematodes (marigolds) (USDA, 2008). Before the introducti on of the steam plow, an acre was originally conceived as the area of land one man and two oxen can plow in a day10.9, or the area of grass that one man can scythe in a day (fi gure 10.13). Spati ally, it was defi ned as one furlong (furrow long) in length by four rods in width.  A furrow is the raised secti on of earth made with the pass of a plow and was 220 yards in length.  A rod was equal to 5.5 yards or one chain, and anecdotally may have been the length of an ox goad, a long pole used to urge on reluc- 84 tant oxen.  This is roughly 200 m long by 20 m wide - a long and narrow agricultural secti on that minimized the amount of turning a team of oxen would need to do at the end of the fur- row.  Early defi niti ons of an acre were roughly the same across Europe since the relati onship between humans with the land- scape with support of animal power was roughly the same.  It is likely that Asian societi es had slightly diff erent defi niti ons of space refl ecti ng their rice-based grain diet contrasti ng wheat- based diets of western society. Contemporary land use patt erns refl ect this preindustrial form where typical blocks in Vancouver are almost exactly 660 yards by 88 yards, or 4 acres, and arranged in an east west directi on (fi gure 10.14).  A row of 17 single family houses make up ex- actly two acres.  Who would have guessed that the shape of neighborhoods in the 21st century is informed by the turning radius of a team of oxen.  With this in mind, the size, shape and rhythm of  food spaces should respond to the dimensions of a human being, and the ecology of living farming systems.  The images and precedents which follow will explore this relati on- ship (Figure 10.15 - 10.26) Figure (10.13)  The Time of Space.  Origi- nally an acre of land was defi ned as the amount of land a man can scythe over a day.  Space was defi ned not objecti vely, but in direct reference to the human experience. 220 yards 44  y ar ds 2 acres Figure (10.14).  Applicati on of Agricultural Form to Contemporary Landuse Patt erns.  An acre was traditi onally de- fi ned as 220 yards by 22 yards.  Many of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods refl ect this traditi onal landuse form. Image: Tele Atlas 2010 85 Standard 0.5 ha Farm Plot 50m X 100m Roughly the food- print for 1 individ- ual as per Robins, 2006. Small Greenhouse 8m X 15m Poultry run 40 m X 100m 500 birds 10.10 Micro Dairy Pasture 40 m X 100m 1 cow 10.10 Grain fi eld (enough space to supply the direct grains for nearly 90 people 10.12) 200m X 100m, 2 ha Riparian buf- fer 30m either- side of water way. Field mar- gin 3m wide Tractor lane 8 m wide, Service barn 8m X 15m Forest buff er 40m wide10.13 Hedgerow 3 to 4 m wide Figure (10.16) The Shape of Food lands.  The following are relati ve areas for vegetable, grain, animal and wildland land designati ons.  Areas adapted from Environment Canada (2004), modelled land requirements and personal experience. The shape of food producing spaces must respond to the shape of a human being (fi gure 10.15, 10.16).  A 2’ reach necessitates beds not wider than 4’ so they can be accessed from either side.  Humans stand 5’ tall with reach up to 7 or 8’ tall, requiring ladders for tree crops taller than this height.  Traditi onal Apple trees led to many pruning and harvesti ng related injuries and produce less fruit per unit area, a driving force behind shorter dwarf or espalier orchard trees in contemporary fruit producti on. Figure (10.15) The Shape of Farming 86 Vegetable land Shape: The spati al layout of vegetable plots (fi gure 10.17) depend on the agreed upon functi on of the farm.  As discussed in secti on (3) the rate of producti vity (kg ha-1) conceptually decreases with increasing community access.  One-foot pathways are typical of high intensity vegetable producers and leave litt le room for error when treading through the cucumbers.    Larger two to four foot path or lane ways should be considered for community oriented agriculture.  If pathways are to be planted in grasses, designers should consider the width of a standard mower, planning for two passes of a mower or  fi ve foot pathways. The ulti mate size of the vegetable block should be considerate of inter-farm rotati ons (vegetables -> ani- mals -> grains), and intra-vegetable rotati ons (heavy givers -> heavy feeders -> light feeders).  In this re- gard, the block of heavy givers should be the same size of heavy feeders and light feeders. Figure (10.17). Vegetable Field Units.  Composed of 4’(1.3m) X 100’ (30m) rows (r) with 1’ (0.3m) pathways, sur- rounded by 3m fi eld margin (m) and bounded with 4m hedgerows.(h).  An 8 m tractor lane (t) connects the space to the rest of the farm.  A small greenhouse can assist in vegetable starts.  A vegetable patch of 1/2 ha could con- ceivably meet the vegetable needs of  46 people based on modelled dietary habits and producti on patt erns. (r) (t) (m) (h) (r) 87 Fruit land Shape: Modern orchards favour smaller trees more closely spaced for ease of management, safety and produc- ti vity.  Signifi cantly higher yields can be achieved with high stem densiti es and espalier planti ng.  Smaller trees typically require replacement sooner than larger trees incurring a higher indirect expense with this planti ng schedule.  There are also  implicati ons to soil and wildlife communiti es traditi onally dependent on perennial ecosystems. Farmers may also consider how to inter-plant vegetable crops along lane ways to take advantage of the micro climates generated by short or large canopy trees (fi gure 10.18).  Alternati vely, a cover crop of hairy vetch and clover can contribute a valuable nitrogen supply to adjacent tree roots and maintain accessibil- ity to labourers.  Melon and Watermelon clearly belong in an annual rotati on and typically need larger plant spacing, oft en sprawling well into lane and pathways. (m) (t) (i) Figure (10.18). Orchard Field Units.  Composed of 12 X 30m rows of dwarf to standard orchard trees (o) spaced 3m on centre with 9m between rows allowing for inter cropping or cover cropping strips (i) between the rows of 3.5m each.  This confi gurati on takes advantage of the micro climates of an orchard environment. A 3m fi eld margin (m) and 4m hedgerow (h) buff ers any nutrient discharge and an 8 m tractor lane (t) services the fi eld.  A 0.5 ha fruit patch could meet the fruit needs of 43 people based on modelled producti on and consumpti on patt erns. (h) (o) (i) ( ) 88 Animal land Shape: For both disease management purposes and to increase grazing effi  ciency, it is helpful to rotate animals through a number of paddocks.  Increasing the number of paddocks in a fi eld helps to ensure grasses are grazed eff ecti vely and given suffi  cient ti me for regrowth (fi gure 10.19) (Ekarius, 1999).  For example, 10 animals on one acre of land with only one paddock will more selecti vely graze a pasture leaving weed spe- cies to fl ourish, while those same 10 animals will intensively graze all species on 1/4 acre leaving the other three paddocks to regenerate plant material, recover from soil compacti on, and adsorb nutrients excreted by the animals.  From a disease management perspecti ve, poultry will get parasites if kept in the same shelter, thus require rotati on through paddocks and shelters throughout the year. Rotati ng animals through old berry fruit or vegetable crops can take advantage of the culti vati on that animals will do free of charge following a harvest.  Alfalfa is a common pasture grass that can also be har- vested for hay if excess paddocks are available.  Where multi ple rotati ons of animals cycle through a fi eld, the eff ecti ve pasture requirement is calculated, dividing the pasture requirement per animal by the num- ber of animal cycles in a year.  For example, 4.5 cycles of broiler chickens can be cycled through a farm in a year reducing the pasture requirement per animal from ten square meters per bird to animal to 2.2 square metres per bird.  Gross yields below represents the carcass weight for each animal which is generally signifi cantly higher than the retail or consumed weight.  Wastage and cull losses (animal discards) were factored in to determine gross animal lands required per capita.  Net animal lands incorporated additi onal feed and nutrient cycling lands required to support each animal products.  Land footprints were esti mated from data supplied by the Briti sh Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and lands (see secti on 4 endnote 4.3). (t) (p1) Figure (10.19). Animal Field Units.  Four quarter hectare paddocks (p) could provide pasture for 2 dairy cows, 12 dairy goats, or 500 free range chickens 10.10.  Rotati ng animals through the paddocks supports healthy pasture growth.  The area is serviced by a tractor lane (t), and barn (b), and surrounded by a 3m fi eld margin (m) to help control nutrient discharge.  A 1 ha animal secti on could meet the animal food needs of 4 people based on modelled dietary habits and producti on intensiti es. (p2) (p4) (p3) (b) (m) (p4) 89 Grain land shape: The variability in grain yields make it diffi  cult to model large-scale agricultural systems given the direct (wheat for bread, pasta, etc) and indirect (grains as feed) dependency on cereal crops.  This variability has an impact on land footprints required by animals who depend on grains for feed.  Increasing winter wheat yields to 12t ha-1 (achieved by recent trials in the lower mainland as per Temple, 2010, unpublished) re- duces the direct food only foodprint from 0.372 ha to 0.311 ha cap-1.  If yields are modelled at 2.79 t ha-1, a yield achieved by urban grains in 2009 (Grieshaber, personal communicati on, 2010), the direct food print increases to 0.412 ha. Placement of grainlands must pay careful att enti on to grazing press