The word green—formally a noun, now typically an adjective—is applied to just about anything possible (green dog food!).  Opinion polls and the American tradition of the focus group both have found the populace expressing more concern for the environment, hence a deluge of green labeled products in the last few years, including alcoholic drinks—most notably beer and wine.   If one wishes to indulge but doesn’t wish to have the guilt of wrecking the environment added to the inevitable stupid-crap-people-do-when-drinking, what should you look for?

Organic drunkenness versus conventional

A drink that uses organic ingredients is a good for the planet right? Suprisingly there really isn’t a lot of hard research (read published, peer reviewed studies in scientific journals) on this subject.  It’s probably most accurate to say under certain circumstances, it may be less bad on a short time scale or better on a longer time scale.   Which is better for the planet, conventional versus organic agriculture is—all advertising by the organic industry aside—extremely complicated.  “Better for the planet” for the purposes of this article means less polluting, less non-renewable energy consumption, less damaging to the soil, less production of greenhouse gases, and less negative impact on biodiversity.

Growing hops without pesticides is very difficult to do on a commercial scale

Pollution

Organic agriculture is easier on the environment than traditional production methods in a some ways.  Organic methods eschew the use of chemical fertilizers, using animal or plant based products for this purpose instead.  This has several benefits but also some drawbacks.  Manure based fertilizers maintain or even improve soil fertility with much less pollution—chemical fertilizers, because of their chemical composition, easily leach into groundwater, lakes, or rivers which can cause oxygen sucking algal blooms that kill everything.   Organic agriculture certainly comes out on top in the pollution department.

Energy Use

The creation of chemical fertilizers involves the use of a non-renewable ingredient—natural gas.  However, animal and plant based fertilizers can also use quite a bit of energy—for transportation—and can produce the greenhouse gas methane during their composting and cow fart stage.  Manure fertilizers also contain less nutrients by weight than chemical fertilizers. Also added to the what-is-greener equation: organic fields can produce less crop per area than traditional methods, meaning more land is needed to get the same yield.  Depending on the location, methods, and crop in production, organic versus traditional agriculture may come close to similar levels of energy use but this is obviously, highly variable.  In a 22 year study assessing the differences in energy use between conventional agriculture, organic animal manure agriculture and organic plant manure (legume) agriculture, researchers found the organic systems used 28 and 32% less energy than the conventional system (Pimentel et al.  Bioscience 2005 55:7).

Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gas production in both types of agriculture comes from the combustion of fossil fuels required to run all the equipment needed (including transportation), fertilizer production (including the production of animal and plant based organic fertilizer), and soil processes that occur during production.  Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4).  Organic production generally involves increased tillage or tractor usage which is damaging to the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere.  However, using manure as fertilizer replenishes soil carbon and can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  Like I said, complicated.  Which presumably explains why I had such a hard time finding scientific studies that compare the net greenhouse gas emissions of organic versus traditional agriculture.  Since I could not find such a study after quite some time looking, I’m going to hazard a guess.  Since organic agriculture can use less energy than traditional, I’m going to say overall it probably also produces less greenhouse gases—but that’s not a given.  A qualified maybe here.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity is the number of different species (plant, animal, bacteria, fungi, you name it) in a specific area or habitat.  Higher numbers are assumed to be good,  but there is significant debate in the science of ecology—as opposed to “environmentalism” which is something else—whether this is the case.  In general parlance and most certainly in marketing materials for organic products however, the more creepy crawlies = good, less = bad is the dominant thinking.  Organic agriculture wins hands down in this category.  A metastudy (a study of many different, related studies) published in 2005 (Biological Conservation 113), found land under organic agriculture had significantly higher biodiversity than conventional agriculture in most cases.  The difference was attributed to more animal friendly cultivation methods such as the non use of pesticides and herbicides in organic agriculture.

Although there isn’t really enough scientific evidence to satisfy me (meaning multiple studies done with a variety of crops in a variety of places in both organic and conventional paired plots for several years), it does seem safe to say choosing beer or wine with organic ingredients is probably more green than the same products made with conventionally grown ingredients.  And if you like bugs, organic is definitely better.  However, because it’s a complicated calculation, consuming alcohol made from organic ingredients most likely isn’t as green as people think it is.  If you choose a beer or wine that is organic but shipped from a long distance instead of locally, the pollution and greenhouse gas production from the transportation alone may negate the environmental benefits of organic growing methods.

Local Drinking

There’s been a big upsurge in interest in local eating and by extension, drinking.  Eating and drinking local means exactly what it sounds like—going out of your way to purchase and consume locally made products.  The idea here is to reduce transportation effects on the environment.  Now living in the Front Range of Colorado makes this easy—there are many local craft breweries and quite a number of wineries in the state on the Western Slope.  However, if you live somewhere that’s not too hot for growing either grain or grapes, drinking locally will be significantly more difficult.  However, anytime you can reduce transportation required for the creation, distribution, and sale of an item, the more green it will be.  AND, walk to the liquor store/pub instead of drive, that will also increase the green quotient.

Of course, the ultimate local drinking is to grow the ingredients and make the beer or wine yourself.  Grapes are fairly easy to grow in many parts of the U.S., but growing enough of your own barley can be a bit of challenge.  Hops however, are very easy and can even be grown in containers.  Compost the leftovers and you will really be able to feel environmentally smug.

Drinking at local pubs in walking distance reduce transportation effects and drunk driving!

Sustainable Brewers and Wineries

Another option for green drinking is purchasing products from breweries or wineries using sustainable methods or technologies in production. New Belgium brewery in Fort Collins, Colorado is well known for their sustainable, green practices such as their use of wind powered electricity and using more efficient brew kettles.  As far as wineries go, many wineries are switching to organic production or biodynamic production—which is essentially the same as organic with some ridiculous new age mysticism thrown in for good measure.

Greener Drinking Tips

• Walk to the bar/liquor store
• Buy beer or wine made with organic ingredients
• Grow your own ingredients and make your own beer or wine
• Buy from local breweries or wineries
• Buy from brewers or wineries using green technologies
• Compost your vomit

Further Reading

• Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems
• New Belgium Sustainability

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Does organic alcohol reduce hangovers?
2. Biodynamic Wine – Organic’s older, crazy half-brother
3. Draining Europe’s “Wine Lake”

A Fishy Problem

Fish food production for fisheries around the world has been flat in recent years.  Unfortunately aquaculture output (our demand for tasty fish sticks) has climbed at an annual rate of 5%.  This means lots of fish are going to go hungry unless someone does something quick.  Unfortunately feeding the starving fish of the world isn’t Sally Struther’s current focus.  Flipper and Nemo will have to turn to a different savior.

This problem is compounded because most fisheries feed their fish a ground meal which is made of fish.  These food fish are also over harvested, leading to a shortage of fish to feed to the fish.

Luckily Oberon FMR Inc. is looking out for the little guy (with flippers).  The FMR stands for “fish meal replacement”.  Oberon is working with New Belgium Brewery in Fort Collins, Colorado, to develop fish food using the waste water from the brewery.  The company hopes their industrial waste turned fish food will be the answer to feeding the fish around the world.

Beer is the solution

The brewery waste is filled with bacteria and food particles from the brewing process.  The Oberon plan converts this protein rich waste into fish food.  A large brewery can create 20 to 25 tons of waste a day.  Normally large breweries would pay $200 per ton to dispose of the waste.  The Oberon solution solves two problems, because it creates a food for the fish, but it also helps the brewery find an environmentally friendly solution for the waste it produces.

How it works (kind of)

When I first read the article, I thought “oh they are feeding the fish vegemite”.  They are not feeding the fish the yeast cake however.  There might be yeast in the waste water, but the waste water has mostly bacteria.  The proprietary process works by encouraging the bacteria to produce more bacteria.  Since the process is protected, they are light on the details.  Eventually their process creates a thick sludge of biomass.  The biomass is the dried out and pressed into food.

Oberon has tested this food on various fish important to the industry, such as tilapia and other existing food fish.  Their studies show the protein food compares equally or better in some cases to existing fish meal.  They are scheduling more independent feeding tests on a wider range of fish and shrimp.  The best part for Oberon is they are converting the waste they get for free, and selling it for $850 a ton.  This food is cheaper than existing fish meal.

Oberon is testing their process using the waste water from New Belgium brewery, but the process can be applied to most food processing industries.

(Source: Coloradoan)

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. 11 bizarre beers you probably won’t find at your pub!
2. Heineken is coming to your tailgating party!
3. The “Beer Hunter” Michael Jackson dies

2008 was the 15th coldest year or the 10th warmest year depending on which group you get your temperature information from (Univ. of Alabama or NOAA).  I’ll totally side-step the issue and just assume global warming will happen for argument’s sake.  If we take this stance, is our beloved beverage in danger?

Warmer means a longer growing season

Warmer temperatures usually means a longer growing season and more places to grow grain.  An example in history would be Greenland where settlers grew grain until an ice age forced them to retreat back to Europe.  You’d think this would mean more barley which translates to more beer not less.  Canada and Russia are the top two producers of barley, and warmer temperatures could be beneficial for barley cultivation in these countries.

Barley is one of the oldest cultivated crops in human history.  Barley has been gathered or cultivated for thousands of years in the Middle East, Far East, North Africa and east-central Africa (where it presumably gets hot).  The reason barley is so successful is because of its ability to adapt to a very wide range of soil and climate conditions.

Higher temperatures might affect winter barley.  This barley is planted in the fall and requires cold temperatures to properly grow grains.  The winter barleys are six-row barleys.  These are used in some beers, but usually two-row is preferred because the grains are much larger and produce more extract.  Six-row barley is usually used as feed for stock.  Despite the colder temperatures, two-row spring barleys predominate in Canada.

Is this the end of beer as we know it?

Beer production affected world-wide?

Through this week many websites ran with the story saying global warming would mean the end of beer in 30 years.  They even run with the quote “”It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up.”  You really had to dig around to find a site to explain “how”.  Luckily several of the stories referenced the person who claimed beer was doomed.

When you go back to see what Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, really said, it is a slightly different story.  He said “climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia”.  That’s a far cry from “world wide” which many websites are claiming.  He theorizes Australia and New Zealand will become drier, providing fewer places to grow grain.

Australia is the fourth largest producer of barley and New Zealand is not even in the top 22 barley producing countries.  If Australia could not grow any grain at all it would hurt the industry, but it does not mean grain could not be grown anywhere else.

The real problem is not temperatures will be higher.  The problem in Australia is the climate change could mean drier conditions, at least this is what the scientist is theorizing.  Drier conditions would mean less crops, especially if they are using a dryland cropping system.

Just scare tactics

The reality is beer is not going to disappear.  We can all breathe a sigh of relief.  If we could not grow barley anywhere, we’d have bigger problems (i.e. – we’d all starve).   If you can’t grow barley, it’s not likely anything will grow.  Climate change is extraordinarily complicated.  A negative change in one location could be offset by a positive change in another location.  If your barley is irrigated, studies suggest increased CO2 could result in an increase in yield.  And unless it gets ridiculously hot, like Venus, it is going to rain somewhere.

The beer extinction is just scare mongering and Greenpeace is hitching on to this idea.  Their “save the ales” campaign is an attempt to show global warming could affect even the smallest parts of our life, even if this argument is silly.  They want to energize the college campuses around America, and what better way than tell college kids their beer could be gone.  I’d think about joining if I thought all beer was at stake, wouldn’t you?

© 2009 – 2010, fermentarium. All rights reserved.

Please see the fair use guidelines for republication. If you would like to submit articles to fermentarium.com, please review our Guest Post Guidelines.

Don't forget to "like" fermentarium on facebook

Related Posts

1. Guinness Red??
2. How to get a creamy feel in your homebrew beer
3. It isn’t easy drinking green