Blog #18 - 4/30/10

by Chas Bonner

Sustainable Agriculture: Reality or Fiction

Much has been written over the years about sustainability, and it has created more than enough controversy. Rather than argue the merits, we would like to point out the primary arguments of both sides.

Those who deride sustainable agriculture point primarily to the undeveloped world where, in essence, agriculture might be defined as “sustainable” or even organic in that there are few fertilizers, pesticides, or insecticides used. Yields are also a fraction of those in the developed world. Furthermore, because few commercial chemical amendments are available, any amendments that might be used would be disallowed in the developed world---human “night soil” among others. A good example of this problem is Africa which has become a net importer of food, much of it donated by international aid organizations, despite the fact that Africa has huge tracts of arable ground. With more soil and crop amendments, they might be able to feed themselves.

On the other hand, sustainability has become an operative word in the developed world. First, on the demand side there are more and more consumers who want organically grown food, locally produced food, and as few inputs as possible in their food. Typically, this segment of agriculture has been growing at double digit rates for years.

Second, on the production side, there are increasing mandates addressing sustainability. The EPA is beginning to define greenhouse gases as a pollutant. The SEC has declared that climate risk is material to investors. The EPA is reviewing dying ocean plumes around river estuaries such as the Mississippi and Columbia Rivers. There are numerous agencies reviewing rising levels of nitrous oxides in the air, 78% of which is attributed to decomposing fertilizer.

Finally, research points to a continuing increase in caloric inputs to produce each calorie of output. For instance, 17% of all energy use in America surrounds agriculture, food processing, delivery, and disposal.

At Scythe & Spade, we may worry about the implications and cost of sustainable agriculture, but we also see it as a business “megatrend” which probably cannot be derailed, and has a predictable direction. Therefore, our goal is to learn how to operate, how to stay ahead, and how to prosper within any megatrend.

Comments

[Paul Brierley]

Thanks for sharing this with me. I want to share with you an article on the word ‘sustainable’ that really hit home with me. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.

Sincerely,

Paul Brierley
Director of Organization
Arizona Farm Bureau Federation

***************************************************************

Farmers, It’s Time to Take Back ‘Sustainable’
By Troy Hadrick

It’s hard to get through the day anymore without hearing the word “sustainable.” In fact, I was recently asked if I was a factory farmer or if I raised cattle sustainably. Who judges what’s sustainable and what isn’t? It seems that the word has been hijacked and is being used by people who are opposed to modern agriculture.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head when you hear the term. When I hear about sustainable wood, it always puzzles me. Are there some trees that don't grow back?
But in food production, we hear more and more that modern agriculture can’t continue down the same path it’s currently on. What exactly led to that false notion, and how would anyone possess the kind of knowledge needed to back up that sweeping statement?
Skeptics say we should go back to how we used to raise crops and livestock. But how far back should we go? To the 1950s? Or how about the 1870s? Maybe we could go back to when everyone raised just their own food?
Broadly, it is frequently true that so-called sustainable practices are those techniques used before the combustion engine was invented. Every industry has adapted and used technology to improve production methods and output. That includes agriculture.
From a farmer’s perspective, there are two questions that should have to be answered before any agricultural practice can truly be considered sustainable. First, will the farm and ranch families implementing the practice be able to generate enough income to continue farming or ranching? Will those families be sustainable? And second, will the practice help producers increase food production to keep up with a growing population? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then, from my perspective, it should not be considered sustainable.
If farmers and ranchers can't make a living, they obviously won't be around very long. That’s not what I would call a sustainable practice. Or if America’s farmers and ranchers are forced to use production methods that do not yield enough food for everyone would you consider that sustainable? I wouldn’t.
At the end of the day, agriculture has a single, yet vital, responsibility – to provide food, fiber, fuel and other basics of life for an ever-growing world. The agriculture industry that some folks like to envision is better described as nostalgic rather than sustainable or even realistic. Our society wouldn’t have developed into what it is today if 25 percent or more of our workforce was still required to grow food. For the past century, we have continually produced more food with less farm inputs. With the technologies available today, that trend will continue.
American agriculture has a longer track record than any other industry in this country. Many families are producing food on the same land their ancestors did. That is proof of sustainability. Farmers and ranchers know a thing or two about being sustainable since our livelihood depends on it. It’s time we take our word “sustainable” back and encourage everyone to think about and use its real definition.
________________________________________
Troy Hadrick, a South Dakota rancher, is a member of the American Farm Bureau’s Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee.