0 % Unemployment - The Danish Model

None of the knives in this blog post are owned by me (otherwise I could be jailed for writing this).

Denmark has just made its total population criminals. This effectively means that unemployment is over, as we should legally all turn ourselves in. Once we're all imprisoned (for refusing to pay the fine, or owning more than one folding knife), the few people left out can work keeping us in the (very full) prisons...

Suppose you own a knife like this one:

This is the knife "Pingu" from Ansø knives - a lovely knife that is made specifically to be legal to carry everywhere in Europe (according to the general guidelines for cabin luggage in planes, this knife is OK - link here). The blade is non-locking, almost impossible to open with one hand only and measures under 6 cm. from tip to the fulcrum.

But it is now illegal in Denmark - because I can do this:

That knife might be a bit of special knife, but maybe you own one of these (I don't ):

Yup, the wine-opener is a folding knife - and with practice it can be wielded one-handedly as well - making it illegal.

So despair not unemployed people - big mother Denmark will find a way!

To finish this short blog on how to avoid unemployment, I should add that as long as I don't bring it out clubbing, the following knife is perfectly legal (broken phone for scale - blade 35 cm):

Killer whales are not always whale killers...

I was in Iceland in the summer of 2014, and went on a whale cruise with Laki Tours, based out from Snæfellsnes peninsula. They'd had a couple of quiet days, so expectations weren't super high (this is off cause a lie from my side - expectations are always high!) So wrapped in lots of clothes we went out...

Filled with joy over being out, not really caring that we didn't see any whales we started pretending we were there for the birds (this was no act for my girlfriend). We did get to see two puffins and lots of fulmars, but other than that, it was pretty quiet for the first three hours.

Fulmar, a type of gull common to the harsher coasts of north west Europe.

And the best shot I got of a puffin.

Then came the whales

Our man in the sky (a ladder on the mast) shouted that a group of white-beaked dolphins were being hunted by orcas! The only problem was, sometimes the dolphins were following the orcas - not your typical escape strategy. A couple of still pictures to follow...

I could not get the action in pictures so I tried to film it. But only having my old camera with me, quality is wanting (better quality here >200Mb).

As can be seen in the video, the dolphins don't seem afraid of the orcas, They seem to be mingling. Our best guess was that the orcas were a resident pod, specialising in capturing fish, and not interested in marine mammals. I had never heard of orcas working with other whales before, and my excitement was reinforced when the crew on the ship was equally surprised - they'd never seen it before!

Turns out it's not that rare, see here, here and here(.pdf). 

But it's nevertheless very fascinating, mostly on the part of the smaller dolphins. They count on being able to tell the difference between fish- and mammal-eating orcas. So why do this? My guess would be that it increases catch rates for both species. Both pods were small, and could have trouble surrounding or "herding" a school of fish by themselves, but together it would be easier to manage the fish. Especially the nimbler white beaked dolphins could help the orcas with smaller fish. Maybe the tail fluke shock-wave, produced by some orcas, stunning fish, could be the "what's in it" for the dolphins.

One thing is for sure - every time you venture outside you see something new (and every time you venture inside you see what you expect).

Organic farming, why and why not!?

I recently overheard a professor in the Danish radio stating that nutrient load on the environment from organic and conventional farming is equivalent when one takes into account the lower productivity/area in organic farming. This statement provoked me to dig deeper, as I'm an avid pro ecologist. Could I be wrong...?

Nutrients

Plants form the basis for all food production. Some grow wild, and we use animals to convert them into meat/milk that we can consume. Other plants we keep, and eat either directly or feed to animals we then eat. As most of us don't shit where we eat, we encounter a problem with nutrients, especially minerals.

The plants take up minerals (I'll stick to nitrogen, phosphor and potassium here), and store them in their tissue. This bound N, P and K is transported far and wide to be consumed elsewhere, and thus deposited in a concentrated way, often at waste water treatment plants in cities, far from where they are needed by the new crops we need to eat. The Nitrogen we get rid of by de-gassing waste water (denitification), and can be absorbed by certain plants and bacteria on the fields later on. The phosphor is either accumulated in phosphate accumulating organisms, or by chemically treating the water to bind the phosphor in salts. None of these processes bind all the phosphor (5-40 % is removed according to a producer of removal equipment), and much phosphor is released into the waterways and ultimately the sea. The accumulated phosphor can either be used as fertiliser, or be dumped at landfills. 

The problem with especially phosphor is that it's applied to the fields, but doesn't end up there in the end again, it ends up polluting our water. To keep plants growing on the fields we have to get new phosphor in. This phosphor usually comes from mines (especially in USA and China), and is a finite resource. This is a problem for both types of farming.

The organic farmer is not allowed to use a non-biological phosphor source, and has to rely on manure to boost phosphor content of his soil. The manure production however has the same problem as all farmers, they have to get phosphor from somewhere too - suggestions have been made to use phosphor rich seaweed to help close the loop.

Also the organic farmer can leave non-edible parts of the plant (stem, roots) to rot on the field, only removing the phosphor bound in the grains from the field, making the phosphor deficit smaller.

Because of transfer of disease the use of human faeces is often not a good solution to this problem, even though it would close the loop...

What about the carbon?

Carbon, a bit like nitrogen, transfers from us back to the crops as CO2, and is not really a concern in the discussion between conventional and organic farming. Carbon is mostly relevant as a measure of how much energy is used in the production of a given amount of food. Organic farming usually scores better here (lower carbon/food unit), mostly due to the high energy cost of producing artificial fertilisers. Otherwise the tractor of the organic farmer runs the same way the any other tractor does, and can be run on fossil or renewable fuels accordingly.

Yield.

Gross yield is higher for conventional farming. This is true for all industrial scale farming. But what's really interesting is net yield, a kind of input-output balance for farming, and that's when it gets interesting (and relevant).
I've found two long term studies, one from USA and one from Switzerland. The one from the states has run over 25 years and still going. They have equal or better yields from organic fields, with organic plots outperforming conventional during stress, e.g. drought, plant disease. Taking into account the lower cost of production (less purchased fertiliser, less pesticides and less fuel), the organic production is 20 % more profitable (when priced at the same price as conventional produce!).
The Swiss study (21 years) found that their organic plots yielded an average of 84 % of the conventional plots. But the conventional plots received 66 % more fertiliser (NH4NO3 equivs.) and used 40 % more fuel than the organic plots. This mean that the net output from the organic plots were higher than conventional plots - I'll attempt a calculation of how much by converting production and energy use into joules/ha (all numbers from Swiss report).

Conventional plots

 Yield:
5.6 t/ha assuming 90 % carbohydrates, 10 % protein
2828 kJ/mole at 162.14g/mole for cellulose & 17 kJ/g for protein
5600 kg * 90 %                       = 5040 kg
5040 kg / 0.16214 kg/mole     = 31084 moles
31084 moles * 2828 kJ/mole  = 87,906 MJ (from carbohydrates, cellulose)
5600 kg * 10 %                       = 560 kg
5600 kg * 17000 kJ/kg           = 9,520 MJ (from protein)

Total gross yield: 87906 + 9520 = 97426 MJ/ha

Energy use:
360 kg fertiliser at 28 GJ/t (source) = 10,080 MJ
570 L diesel-equiv at 35.9 MJ/L      = 20,463 MJ
And some pesticide that I deem insignificant in the energy budget.

Total energy use: 10,080 + 20,463 = 30,543 MJ/ha

Net Yield:
97,426 MJ/ha - 30,543 MJ/ha  = 66,883 MJ/ha

Organic plots

Yield:
4.7 t/ha assuming 90 % carbohydrates, 10 % protein
2,828 kJ/mole at 162.14g/mole for cellulose & 17 kJ/g for protein
4,700 kg * 90 %                        = 4230 kg
4,230 kg / 0.16214 kg/mole      = 26089 moles
26,089 moles * 2,828 kJ/mole  = 73,778 MJ (from carbohydrates, cellulose)
4,700 kg * 10 %                        = 470 kg
470 kg * 17000 kJ/kg                = 7,990 MJ (from protein)

Total gross yield: 73,778 + 7,990 = 81,768 MJ/ha

Energy use:
122 kg fertiliser at 28 GJ/t (source) = 3,416 MJ -> 0 MJ  (comment on this below)
340 L diesel-equiv at 35.9 MJ/L      = 12,206 MJ
No pesticides, and all organic fertiliser (manure), meaning no costly ammonia-production.

Total energy use: 0 + 12,206 = 12,206 MJ/ha

Net Yield:
81,768 MJ/ha - 12,206 MJ/ha  = 69,562 MJ/ha

So with no pesticides, the net yield from the organic plots were 4 % better in the Swiss study.
I will admit that prior to me doing this calculation, I thought organic would win by more, but this just goes to show that one can easily be confused by percentages.

According to these two studies organic farming clearly comes out as the most profitable.
I know some people who would argue that I cannot simply use net joule output, as we cannot eat "diesel joules", and spending fossil fuel to create "food joules" is a net gain. This is true, but using less fuel means it'll last longer, and we don't have to replace our old tractors with new electric ones as soon, if we spend less fuel. The fossil fuels will run out.

Health

With regards to the health side of things there's a lot of mixed messages out there.
A few hard facts though are:

• Limits for residues are often based on what we can detect, and not on whether or not it's harmful to ingest.
• Even though most conventional produce is well within the above mentioned levels, sometimes this is not the case.
• Limits for residues are set per compound and often not as a total residues value, this means that if three pesticides are present in your food, and each one is under the limit, it is approved. But studies show that pesticides can show additive effect, meaning that 1mg of "A", "B" and "C", has the same adverse effect as 3mg of either "A", "B" or "C". (suppose a limit of 2mg).
• Organic produce does not contain pesticides (other than what the wind has carried).
• Residues of pesticides severely damage ecosystems and humans - read the wiki entry on this.
• Check out this video!

Sources:

• www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2004/87-7614-284-1/html/helepubl.htm (Danish)
• http://www.inra.fr/en/Scientists-Students/Food-and-nutrition/All-reports/Cocktail-effects-of-toxic-substances/The-cocktail-effect-of-pesticides (Cocktail-effects)
• http://infohub.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/page/files/misconceptions_compiled.pdf (General info)
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/french-children-farms-vineyards-exposed-dangerous-cocktail-pesticides (non-food contamination)

I might update this post as I learn more, or if I'm corrected.

As always, please leave a comment.

Racism

This might be dangerous territory - but so much more important because of it.
(Please comment on this post)

I'm from Denmark, and although I'm not proud of the way politics have turned in the past decade (very xenophobic), I'm still inclined to think that we are a kind and tolerant people.

The other day this was challenged by and Irishman, who in particular did not like our use of the word "indianer" (similar to the English "indian", but with a slightly different meaning).

The discussion lead to these two questions:

1. Is it racism if you use a common (non derogatory) word to talk to others about a non-present ethnic group who finds the word derogatory?
2. Or do you become a racist if you use words that are non-derogatory to you, used in a non-derogatory way, but perceived to be so by a third person?  

In both these cases I think the answer is no.

Some further thoughts on this:

In Danish the word "indianer" means: 

"Person belonging to an ethnic group that together with inuits and aleuts are the indigenous people of the North and South America". (picture)

In English, this is what an American-Indian is:

"A member of any of the aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere except often the Eskimos; especially :  an American Indian of North America and especially the United States".

(Merriam-Webster)

So the definitions don't line up completely; the English definition does not include Eskimos, and is emphasising the native Americans of north America to a higher degree. An Indian is thus only a person from India.

The discussion was mainly about whether or not it was racist to use the (Danish) word "indianer" when talking about the indigenous people of South America.

My own opinion on the matter lies very close to the following (taken from the introduction to ethnic slur on wikipedia):

"For instance, many of the terms listed below (such as "Gringo", "Yank", etc.) are used by large numbers of human beings in many parts of the world as part of their ordinary speech or thinking without any intention of causing offence, and with little or no evidence that such usage does in fact cause much or indeed any offence, while the implicit or explicit labeling of such large numbers of people as racists (or similar terms such as prejudiced, bigoted, ethnophobic, xenophobic, etc.), simply because they use some words on the list below, can itself be deeply unfair and insensitive and can thus cause deep offence".

So among Danes there's no issue here, but when you mix it up a little and add a Swede and an Irish to the company things get more interesting. They will now perceive the Danes as being insensitive and racist - who's right here? Can all Danes be deemed racists just because the same word has a different meaning abroad? 

There are words of cause, where even I know not to use the Danish word outside conversation with ethnic Danes. E.g. it's safe to use the Danish equivalent of Negro in Denmark, it's spelled "neger" and just means that your ancestors lived within 20-30 degrees of the equator. This is backed by multiple court rulings, and not my just my opinion.

Racism by naming/labelling 

It was pointed out that maybe it has to do with who comes up with the name. If you don't yourself come up with the name given to you, it is racist to call you by it, if you have your own name for yourself. A little reading on etymology reveals that almost no ethnic group carries a name they chose for themselves. This makes sense as names for ethnic groups are usually needed to talk about the group, which is a thing most often done by people not in that group (if you're in the group "us" suffices). 

I certainly don't think of myself as a racist, and surely you're only a racist if your actions (or words) causes harm? - with or without intention.

Please leave comments