|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Eating
Fossil Fuels
Author: Dale Allen Pfeiffer
[Some months
ago, concerned by a Paris statement
made by Professor Kenneth Deffeyes of
Princeton regarding his concern about
the impact of Peak Oil and Gas on fertilizer
production, I tasked FTW's
Contributing Editor for Energy, Dale
Allen Pfeiffer to start looking into
what natural gas shortages would do
to fertilizer production costs. His
investigation led him to look at the
totality of food production in the US.
Because the US and Canada feed much
of the world, the answers have global
implications.
What follows
is most certainly the single most frightening
article I have ever read and certainly
the most alarming piece that FTW
has ever published. Even as we have
seen CNN, Britain's Independent and
Jane's Defence Weekly acknowledge the
reality of Peak Oil and Gas within the
last week, acknowledging that world
oil and gas reserves are as much as
80% less than predicted, we are also
seeing how little real thinking has
been devoted to the host of crises certain
to follow; at least in terms of publicly
accessible thinking.
The following
article is so serious in its implications
that I have taken the unusual step of
underlining some of its key findings.
I did that with the intent that the
reader treat each underlined passage
as a separate and incredibly important
fact. Each one of these facts should
be read and digested separately to assimilate
its importance. I found myself reading
one fact and then getting up and walking
away until I could come back and (un)comfortably
read to the next.
All told,
Dale Allen Pfeiffer's research and reporting
confirms the worst of FTW's
suspicions about the consequences of
Peak Oil, and it poses serious questions
about what to do next. Not the least
of these is why, in a presidential election
year, none of the candidates has even
acknowledged the problem. Thus far,
it is clear that solutions for these
questions, perhaps the most important
ones facing mankind, will by necessity
be found by private individuals and
communities, independently of outside
or governmental help. Whether the real
search for answers comes now, or as
the crisis becomes unavoidable, depends
solely on us. - MCR]
October 3
, 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW)
-- Human beings (like all other animals)
draw their energy from the food they
eat. Until the last century, all of
the food energy available on this planet
was derived from the sun through photosynthesis.
Either you ate plants or you ate animals
that fed on plants, but the energy in
your food was ultimately derived from
the sun.
It would
have been absurd to think that we would
one day run out of sunshine. No, sunshine
was an abundant, renewable resource,
and the process of photosynthesis fed
all life on this planet. It also set
a limit on the amount of food that could
be generated at any one time, and therefore
placed a limit upon population growth.
Solar energy has a limited rate of flow
into this planet. To increase your food
production, you had to increase the
acreage under cultivation, and displace
your competitors. There was no other
way to increase the amount of energy
available for food production. Human
population grew by displacing everything
else and appropriating more and more
of the available solar energy.
The need
to expand agricultural production was
one of the motive causes behind most
of the wars in recorded history, along
with expansion of the energy base (and
agricultural production is truly an
essential portion of the energy base).
And when Europeans could no longer expand
cultivation, they began the task of
conquering the world. Explorers were
followed by conquistadors and traders
and settlers. The declared reasons for
expansion may have been trade, avarice,
empire or simply curiosity, but at its
base, it was all about the expansion
of agricultural productivity. Wherever
explorers and conquistadors traveled,
they may have carried off loot, but
they left plantations. And settlers
toiled to clear land and establish their
own homestead. This conquest and expansion
went on until there was no place left
for further expansion. Certainly, to
this day, landowners and farmers fight
to claim still more land for agricultural
productivity, but they are fighting
over crumbs. Today, virtually all of
the productive land on this planet is
being exploited by agriculture. What
remains unused is too steep, too wet,
too dry or lacking in soil nutrients.1
Just when
agricultural output could expand no
more by increasing acreage, new innovations
made possible a more thorough exploitation
of the acreage already available. The
process of "pest" displacement and appropriation
for agriculture accelerated with the
industrial revolution as the mechanization
of agriculture hastened the clearing
and tilling of land and augmented the
amount of farmland which could be tended
by one person. With every increase in
food production, the human population
grew apace.
At present,
nearly 40% of all land-based photosynthetic
capability has been appropriated by
human beings.2 In the United
States we divert more than half of the
energy captured by photosynthesis.3
We have taken over all the prime real
estate on this planet. The rest of nature
is forced to make due with what is left.
Plainly, this is one of the major factors
in species extinctions and in ecosystem
stress.
The Green Revolution
In the 1950s
and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic
transformation commonly referred to
as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution
resulted in the industrialization of
agriculture. Part of the advance resulted
from new hybrid food plants, leading
to more productive food crops. Between
1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution
transformed agriculture around the globe,
world grain production increased by
250%.4 That is a tremendous
increase in the amount of food energy
available for human consumption. This
additional energy did not come from
an increase in incipient sunlight, nor
did it result from introducing agriculture
to new vistas of land. The energy for
the Green Revolution was provided by
fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers
(natural gas), pesticides (oil), and
hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.
The Green
Revolution increased the energy flow
to agriculture by an average of 50 times
the energy input of traditional agriculture.5
In the most extreme cases, energy consumption
by agriculture has increased 100 fold
or more.6
In the United
States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents
are expended annually to feed each American
(as of data provided in 1994).7
Agricultural energy consumption is broken
down as follows:
* 31% for the manufacture of inorganic
fertilizer
* 19% for the operation of field machinery
* 16% for transportation
* 13% for irrigation
* 08% for raising livestock (not including
livestock feed)
* 05% for crop drying
* 05% for pesticide production
* 08% miscellaneous8
Energy costs
for packaging, refrigeration, transportation
to retail outlets, and household cooking
are not considered in these figures.
To give the
reader an idea of the energy intensiveness
of modern agriculture, production of
one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer
requires the energy equivalent of from
1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This
is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9
According to The Fertilizer Institute
(http://www.tfi.org), in the year from
June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the
United States used 12,009,300 short
tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10
Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel
equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen,
this equates to the energy content of
15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel,
or 96.2 million barrels.
Of course,
this is only a rough comparison to aid
comprehension of the energy requirements
for modern agriculture.
In a very
real sense, we are literally eating
fossil fuels. However, due to the laws
of thermodynamics, there is not a direct
correspondence between energy inflow
and outflow in agriculture. Along the
way, there is a marked energy loss.
Between 1945 and 1994, energy input
to agriculture increased 4-fold while
crop yields only increased 3-fold.11
Since then, energy input has continued
to increase without a corresponding
increase in crop yield. We have reached
the point of marginal returns. Yet,
due to soil degradation, increased demands
of pest management and increasing energy
costs for irrigation (all of which is
examined below), modern agriculture
must continue increasing its energy
expenditures simply to maintain current
crop yields. The Green Revolution is
becoming bankrupt.
Fossil Fuel Costs
Solar energy
is a renewable resource limited only
by the inflow rate from the sun to the
earth. Fossil fuels, on the other hand,
are a stock-type resource that can be
exploited at a nearly limitless rate.
However, on a human timescale, fossil
fuels are nonrenewable. They represent
a planetary energy deposit which we
can draw from at any rate we wish, but
which will eventually be exhausted without
renewal. The Green Revolution tapped
into this energy deposit and used it
to increase agricultural production.
Total fossil
fuel use in the United States has increased
20-fold in the last 4 decades. In the
US, we consume 20 to 30 times more fossil
fuel energy per capita than people in
developing nations. Agriculture directly
accounts for 17% of all the energy used
in this country.12 As of
1990, we were using approximately 1,000
liters (6.41 barrels) of oil to produce
food of one hectare of land.13
In 1994,
David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro
estimated the output/input ratio of
agriculture to be around 1.4.14
For 0.7 Kilogram-Calories (kcal) of
fossil energy consumed, U.S. agriculture
produced 1 kcal of food. The input figure
for this ratio was based on FAO (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the
UN) statistics, which consider only
fertilizers (without including fertilizer
feedstock), irrigation, pesticides (without
including pesticide feedstock), and
machinery and fuel for field operations.
Other agricultural energy inputs not
considered were energy and machinery
for drying crops, transportation for
inputs and outputs to and from the farm,
electricity, and construction and maintenance
of farm buildings and infrastructures.
Adding in estimates for these energy
costs brought the input/output energy
ratio down to 1.15 Yet this
does not include the energy expense
of packaging, delivery to retail outlets,
refrigeration or household cooking.
In a subsequent
study completed later that same year
(1994), Giampietro and Pimentel managed
to derive a more accurate ratio of the
net fossil fuel energy ratio of agriculture.16
In this study, the authors defined two
separate forms of energy input: Endosomatic
energy and Exosomatic energy. Endosomatic
energy is generated through the metabolic
transformation of food energy into muscle
energy in the human body. Exosomatic
energy is generated by transforming
energy outside of the human body, such
as burning gasoline in a tractor. This
assessment allowed the authors to look
at fossil fuel input alone and in ratio
to other inputs.
Prior to
the industrial revolution, virtually
100% of both endosomatic and exosomatic
energy was solar driven. Fossil fuels
now represent 90% of the exosomatic
energy used in the United States and
other developed countries.17
The typical exo/endo ratio of pre-industrial,
solar powered societies is about 4 to
1. The ratio has changed tenfold in
developed countries, climbing to 40
to 1. And in the United States it is
more than 90 to 1.18 The
nature of the way we use endosomatic
energy has changed as well.
The vast
majority of endosomatic energy is no
longer expended to deliver power for
direct economic processes. Now the majority
of endosomatic energy is utilized to
generate the flow of information directing
the flow of exosomatic energy driving
machines. Considering the 90/1 exo/endo
ratio in the United States, each endosomatic
kcal of energy expended in the US induces
the circulation of 90 kcal of exosomatic
energy. As an example, a small gasoline
engine can convert the 38,000 kcal in
one gallon of gasoline into 8.8 KWh
(Kilowatt hours), which equates to about
3 weeks of work for one human being.19
In their
refined study, Giampietro and Pimentel
found that 10 kcal of exosomatic energy
are required to produce 1 kcal of food
delivered to the consumer in the U.S.
food system. This includes packaging
and all delivery expenses, but excludes
household cooking).20 The
U.S. food system consumes ten times
more energy than it produces in food
energy. This disparity is made possible
by nonrenewable fossil fuel stocks.
Assuming
a figure of 2,500 kcal per capita for
the daily diet in the United States,
the 10/1 ratio translates into a cost
of 35,000 kcal of exosomatic energy
per capita each day. However, considering
that the average return on one hour
of endosomatic labor in the U.S. is
about 100,000 kcal of exosomatic energy,
the flow of exosomatic energy required
to supply the daily diet is achieved
in only 20 minutes of labor in our current
system. Unfortunately, if you remove
fossil fuels from the equation, the
daily diet will require 111 hours of
endosomatic labor per capita; that is,
the current U.S. daily diet would require
nearly three weeks of labor per capita
to produce.
Quite plainly,
as fossil fuel production begins to
decline within the next decade, there
will be less energy available for the
production of food.
Soil, Cropland and Water
Modern intensive
agriculture is unsustainable. Technologically-enhanced
agriculture has augmented soil erosion,
polluted and overdrawn groundwater and
surface water, and even (largely due
to increased pesticide use) caused serious
public health and environmental problems.
Soil erosion, overtaxed cropland and
water resource overdraft in turn lead
to even greater use of fossil fuels
and hydrocarbon products. More hydrocarbon-based
fertilizers must be applied, along with
more pesticides; irrigation water requires
more energy to pump; and fossil fuels
are used to process polluted water.
It takes
500 years to replace 1 inch of topsoil.21
In a natural environment, topsoil is
built up by decaying plant matter and
weathering rock, and it is protected
from erosion by growing plants. In soil
made susceptible by agriculture, erosion
is reducing productivity up to 65% each
year.22 Former prairie lands,
which constitute the bread basket of
the United States, have lost one half
of their topsoil after farming for about
100 years. This soil is eroding 30 times
faster than the natural formation rate.23
Food crops are much hungrier than the
natural grasses that once covered the
Great Plains. As a result, the remaining
topsoil is increasingly depleted of
nutrients. Soil erosion and mineral
depletion removes about $20 billion
worth of plant nutrients from U.S. agricultural
soils every year.24 Much
of the soil in the Great Plains is little
more than a sponge into which we must
pour hydrocarbon-based fertilizers in
order to produce crops.
Every year
in the U.S., more than 2 million acres
of cropland are lost to erosion, salinization
and water logging. On top of this, urbanization,
road building, and industry claim another
1 million acres annually from farmland.24
Approximately three-quarters of the
land area in the United States is devoted
to agriculture and commercial forestry.25
The expanding human population is putting
increasing pressure on land availability.
Incidentally, only a small portion of
U.S. land area remains available for
the solar energy technologies necessary
to support a solar energy-based economy.
The land area for harvesting biomass
is likewise limited. For this reason,
the development of solar energy or biomass
must be at the expense of agriculture.
Modern agriculture
also places a strain on our water resources.
Agriculture consumes fully 85% of all
U.S. freshwater resources.26
Overdraft is occurring from many surface
water resources, especially in the west
and south. The typical example is the
Colorado River, which is diverted to
a trickle by the time it reaches the
Pacific. Yet surface water only supplies
60% of the water used in irrigation.
The remainder, and in some places the
majority of water for irrigation, comes
from ground water aquifers. Ground water
is recharged slowly by the percolation
of rainwater through the earth's crust.
Less than 0.1% of the stored ground
water mined annually is replaced by
rainfall.27 The great Ogallala
aquifer that supplies agriculture, industry
and home use in much of the southern
and central plains states has an annual
overdraft up to 160% above its recharge
rate. The Ogallala aquifer will become
unproductive in a matter of decades.28
We can illustrate
the demand that modern agriculture places
on water resources by looking at a farmland
producing corn. A corn crop that produces
118 bushels/acre/year requires more
than 500,000 gallons/acre of water during
the growing season. The production of
1 pound of maize requires 1,400 pounds
(or 175 gallons) of water.29
Unless something is done to lower these
consumption rates, modern agriculture
will help to propel the United States
into a water crisis.
In the last
two decades, the use of hydrocarbon-based
pesticides in the U.S. has increased
33-fold, yet each year we lose more
crops to pests.30 This is
the result of the abandonment of traditional
crop rotation practices. Nearly 50%
of U.S. corn land is grown continuously
as a monoculture.31 This
results in an increase in corn pests,
which in turn requires the use of more
pesticides. Pesticide use on corn crops
had increased 1,000-fold even before
the introduction of genetically engineered,
pesticide resistant corn. However, corn
losses have still risen 4-fold.32
Modern intensive
agriculture is unsustainable. It is
damaging the land, draining water supplies
and polluting the environment. And all
of this requires more and more fossil
fuel input to pump irrigation water,
to replace nutrients, to provide pest
protection, to remediate the environment
and simply to hold crop production at
a constant. Yet this necessary fossil
fuel input is going to crash headlong
into declining fossil fuel production.
US Consumption
In the United
States, each person consumes an average
of 2,175 pounds of food per person per
year. This provides the U.S. consumer
with an average daily energy intake
of 3,600 Calories. The world average
is 2,700 Calories per day.33
Fully 19% of the U.S. caloric intake
comes from fast food. Fast food accounts
for 34% of the total food consumption
for the average U.S. citizen. The average
citizen dines out for one meal out of
four.34
One third
of the caloric intake of the average
American comes from animal sources (including
dairy products), totaling 800 pounds
per person per year. This diet means
that U.S. citizens derive 40% of their
calories from fat-nearly half of their
diet.35
Americans
are also grand consumers of water. As
of one decade ago, Americans were consuming
1,450 gallons/day/capita (g/d/c), with
the largest amount expended on agriculture.
Allowing for projected population increase,
consumption by 2050 is projected at
700 g/d/c, which hydrologists consider
to be minimal for human needs.36
This is without taking into consideration
declining fossil fuel production.
To provide
all of this food requires the application
of 0.6 million metric tons of pesticides
in North America per year. This is over
one fifth of the total annual world
pesticide use, estimated at 2.5 million
tons.37 Worldwide, more nitrogen
fertilizer is used per year than can
be supplied through natural sources.
Likewise, water is pumped out of underground
aquifers at a much higher rate than
it is recharged. And stocks of important
minerals, such as phosphorus and potassium,
are quickly approaching exhaustion.38
Total U.S.
energy consumption is more than three
times the amount of solar energy harvested
as crop and forest products. The United
States consumes 40% more energy annually
than the total amount of solar energy
captured yearly by all U.S. plant biomass.
Per capita use of fossil energy in North
America is five times the world average.39
Our prosperity
is built on the principal of exhausting
the world's resources as quickly as
possible, without any thought to our
neighbors, all the other life on this
planet, or our children.
Population & Sustainability
Considering
a growth rate of 1.1% per year, the
U.S. population is projected to double
by 2050. As the population expands,
an estimated one acre of land will be
lost for every person added to the U.S.
population. Currently, there are 1.8
acres of farmland available to grow
food for each U.S. citizen. By 2050,
this will decrease to 0.6 acres. 1.2
acres per person is required in order
to maintain current dietary standards.40
Presently,
only two nations on the planet are major
exporters of grain: the United States
and Canada.41 By 2025, it
is expected that the U.S. will cease
to be a food exporter due to domestic
demand. The impact on the U.S. economy
could be devastating, as food exports
earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually.
More importantly, millions of people
around the world could starve to death
without U.S. food exports.42
Domestically,
34.6 million people are living in poverty
as of 2002 census data.43
And this number is continuing to grow
at an alarming rate. Too many of these
people do not have a sufficient diet.
As the situation worsens, this number
will increase and the United States
will witness growing numbers of starvation
fatalities.
There are
some things that we can do to at least
alleviate this tragedy. It is suggested
that streamlining agriculture to get
rid of losses, waste and mismanagement
might cut the energy inputs for food
production by up to one-half.35
In place of fossil fuel-based fertilizers,
we could utilize livestock manures that
are now wasted. It is estimated that
livestock manures contain 5 times the
amount of fertilizer currently used
each year.36 Perhaps most
effective would be to eliminate meat
from our diet altogether.37
Mario Giampietro
and David Pimentel postulate that a
sustainable food system is possible
only if four conditions are met:
1. Environmentally sound agricultural
technologies must be implemented.
2. Renewable energy technologies must
be put into place.
3. Major increases in energy efficiency
must reduce exosomatic energy consumption
per capita.
4. Population size and consumption must
be compatible with maintaining the stability
of environmental processes.38
Providing
that the first three conditions are
met, with a reduction to less than half
of the exosomatic energy consumption
per capita, the authors place the maximum
population for a sustainable economy
at 200 million.39 Several
other studies have produced figures
within this ballpark (Energy and Population,
Werbos, Paul J. http://www.dieoff.com/page63.htm;
Impact of Population Growth on Food
Supplies and Environment, Pimentel,
David, et al. http://www.dieoff.com/page57.htm).
Given that
the current U.S. population is in excess
of 292 million, 40 that would mean a
reduction of 92 million. To achieve
a sustainable economy and avert disaster,
the United States must reduce its population
by at least one-third. The black plague
during the 14th Century claimed approximately
one-third of the European population
(and more than half of the Asian and
Indian populations), plunging the continent
into a darkness from which it took them
nearly two centuries to emerge.41
None of this
research considers the impact of declining
fossil fuel production. The authors
of all of these studies believe that
the mentioned agricultural crisis will
only begin to impact us after 2020,
and will not become critical until 2050.
The current peaking of global oil production
(and subsequent decline of production),
along with the peak of North American
natural gas production will very likely
precipitate this agricultural crisis
much sooner than expected. Quite possibly,
a U.S. population reduction of one-third
will not be effective for sustainability;
the necessary reduction might be in
excess of one-half. And, for sustainability,
global population will have to be reduced
from the current 6.32 billion people42
to 2 billion-a reduction of 68% or over
two-thirds. The end of this decade could
see spiraling food prices without relief.
And the coming decade could see massive
starvation on a global level such as
never experienced before by the human
race.
Three Choices
Considering
the utter necessity of population reduction,
there are three obvious choices awaiting
us.
We can-as
a society-become aware of our dilemma
and consciously make the choice not
to add more people to our population.
This would be the most welcome of our
three options, to choose consciously
and with free will to responsibly lower
our population. However, this flies
in the face of our biological imperative
to procreate. It is further complicated
by the ability of modern medicine to
extend our longevity, and by the refusal
of the Religious Right to consider issues
of population management. And then,
there is a strong business lobby to
maintain a high immigration rate in
order to hold down the cost of labor.
Though this is probably our best choice,
it is the option least likely to be
chosen.
Failing to
responsibly lower our population, we
can force population cuts through government
regulations. Is there any need to mention
how distasteful this option would be?
How many of us would choose to live
in a world of forced sterilization and
population quotas enforced under penalty
of law? How easily might this lead to
a culling of the population utilizing
principles of eugenics?
This leaves
the third choice, which itself presents
an unspeakable picture of suffering
and death. Should we fail to acknowledge
this coming crisis and determine to
deal with it, we will be faced with
a die-off from which civilization may
very possibly never revive. We will
very likely lose more than the numbers
necessary for sustainability. Under
a die-off scenario, conditions will
deteriorate so badly that the surviving
human population would be a negligible
fraction of the present population.
And those survivors would suffer from
the trauma of living through the death
of their civilization, their neighbors,
their friends and their families. Those
survivors will have seen their world
crushed into nothing.
The questions
we must ask ourselves now are, how can
we allow this to happen, and what can
we do to prevent it? Does our present
lifestyle mean so much to us that we
would subject ourselves and our children
to this fast approaching tragedy simply
for a few more years of conspicuous
consumption?
Author's Note
This is possibly
the most important article I have written
to date. It is certainly the most frightening,
and the conclusion is the bleakest I
have ever penned. This article is likely
to greatly disturb the reader; it has
certainly disturbed me. However, it
is important for our future that this
paper should be read, acknowledged and
discussed.
I am by nature
positive and optimistic. In spite of
this article, I continue to believe
that we can find a positive solution
to the multiple crises bearing down
upon us. Though this article may provoke
a flood of hate mail, it is simply a
factual report of data and the obvious
conclusions that follow from it.
Endnotes
| 1. |
Availability
of agricultural land for crop
and livestock production, Buringh,
P. Food and Natural Resources,
Pimentel. D. and Hall. C.W. (eds),
Academic Press, 1989. |
| 2. |
Human
appropriation of the products
of photosynthesis, Vitousek, P.M.
et al. Bioscience 36, 1986. http://www.science.duq.edu/esm/unit2-3 |
| 3. |
Land,
Energy and Water: the constraints
governing Ideal US Population
Size, Pimental, David and Pimentel,
Marcia. Focus, Spring 1991. NPG
Forum, 1990. http://www.dieoff.com/page136.htm |
| 4. |
Constraints
on the Expansion of Global Food
Supply, Kindell, Henry H. and
Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23
No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences. http://www.dieoff.com/page36htm |
| 5. |
The
Tightening Conflict: Population,
Energy Use, and the Ecology of
Agriculture, Giampietro, Mario
and Pimentel, David, 1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page69.htm |
| 6. |
Op.
Cit. See note 4. |
| 7. |
Food,
Land, Population and the U.S.
Economy, Pimentel, David and Giampietro,
Mario. Carrying Capacity Network,
11/21/1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page55.htm |
| 8. |
Comparison
of energy inputs for inorganic
fertilizer and manure based corn
production, McLaughlin, N.B.,
et al. Canadian Agricultural Engineering,
Vol. 42, No. 1, 2000. |
| 9. |
Ibid. |
| 10. |
US
Fertilizer Use Statistics. http://www.tfi.org/Statistics/USfertuse2.asp |
| 11. |
Food,
Land, Population and the U.S.
Economy, Executive Summary, Pimentel,
David and Giampietro, Mario. Carrying
Capacity Network, 11/21/1994.
http://www.dieoff.com/page40.htm |
| 12. |
Ibid. |
| 13. |
Op.
Cit. See note 3. |
| 14. |
Op.
Cit. See note 7. |
| 15. |
Ibid. |
| 16. |
Op.
Cit. See note 5. |
| 17. |
Ibid. |
| 18. |
Ibid. |
| 19. |
Ibid. |
| 20. |
Ibid. |
| 21. |
Op.
Cit. See note 11. |
| 22. |
Ibid. |
| 23. |
Ibid. |
| 24 |
Ibid. |
| 25. |
Op
Cit. See note 3. |
| 26. |
Op
Cit. See note 11. |
| 27. |
Ibid. |
| 28. |
Ibid. |
| 29. |
Ibid. |
| 30. |
Op
Cit. See note 3. |
| 31. |
Op
Cit. See note 5. |
| 32. |
Op
Cit. See note 3. |
| 33. |
Op
Cit. See note 11. |
| 34. |
Food
Consumption and Access, Lynn Brantley,
et al. Capital Area Food Bank,
6/1/2001. http://www.clagettfarm.org/purchasing.html |
| 35. |
Op
Cit. See note 11. |
| 36. |
Ibid. |
| 37. |
Op
Cit. See note 5. |
| 38. |
Ibid. |
| 39. |
Ibid. |
| 40 |
Op
Cit. See note 11. |
| 41 |
Op
Cit. See note 4. |
| 42. |
Op
Cit. See note 1. |
| 43. |
Poverty
2002. The U.S. Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02hi.html |
|
|
|
|
