Follow this blog:
RSS

For more sustainable agricultural systems, total makeover is needed

By | May 6, 2011, 8:37 AM PDT

While new technology and new methods have definitely helped increase productivity on the farm, scientists insist that a redesign is needed. By introducing more organic farming and grass-fed productions into agriculture, and by changing policy incentives, the nation’s agricultural system would be better equipped to deal with several environmental impacts such as climate change, biodiversity loss and resource issues.

A group of scientists, including a team at the University of California, Davis and Washington State University, call for a reform in the United States agricultural system in a policy paper published in the journal, Science.

The scientists say the Farm Bill, which will be renewed in 2012, has some problems. Instead of promoting healthy, sustainable food, it makes our system depend on a few crops that is used for animal feed and in processed food.

“We have the technology and the science right now to grow food in sustainable ways, but we lack the policies and markets to make it happen,” WSU John Reganold said in a statement.

The piece in Science discusses the need for a redesign. However, the initial report was published as a 2010 report by the National Research Council Committee.

According to the report:

U.S. agriculture has had an impressive history of productivity that has resulted in relatively affordable food, feed, and fiber for domestic purposes and increases in agricultural exports. Fewer farmers are producing more food and fiber on about the same acreage, while input and energy use per unit output has decreased over the last 50 years. Despite these tremendous advances, U.S. farmers are facing the daunting challenges of meeting the food, feed, and fiber needs of the nation and of a growing global population and of contributing to U.S. biofuel production, under the constraints of rising production costs, increasingly scarce natural resources, and climate change. Agriculture is at a pivotal stage in terms of meeting societal demands for products while improving sustainability.

The scientists ask; why we are supporting “big agriculture” instead of supporting more sustainable practices? However, as customers shop at stores like Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and farmer’s markets, we see there is a demand for this type of sustainable agriculture.

We just have to make the policy decisions and change the market structure to promote more eco-friendly ways of growing food, instead of perpetuating the modern agricultural practices that take a toll on the environment and the quality of our food.

You can read the full report online here.

UC Davis and WSU

Photo: Maureen “Mo” Reilly / flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Boonsri Dickinson

About Boonsri Dickinson

Boonsri Dickinson was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2010 to 2012.

Boonsri Dickinson

Boonsri Dickinson

Contributing Editor, Science

Boonsri Dickinson is a freelance journalist based in San Francisco. She has written for Discover, The Huffington Post, Forbes, Nature Biotech, Technewsdaily.com, Techstartups.com and AOL. She's currently a reporter for Business Insider. She holds degrees from the University of Florida and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Follow her on Twitter.

Boonsri Dickinson

Boonsri Dickinson

In the unlikely event that Boonsri has a professional or financial relationship with a company she writes about, it will be prominently disclosed.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
18
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+2 Votes
+ -
There are other agricultural technologies with higher yields already
The classic farming of monocultures, one crop per field, is already known to not be sustainable except through heavy fertilization.

Polyculture techniques are used in many places around the world already with yeilds between 3 and 10 times per acre compared to our traditional farming systems in North America.
Posted by mheartwood
6th May 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
here we go again
So, the government funds a study that concludes decades of government policies and regulations failed, and the answer is................more government policies and regulations!

The only reform American industry needs at the this point is Government Reform - get it the out of the way.

This blog's blind faith in failed central government and total ignorance of free market enterprise is astounding.
Posted by cd3rd
8th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Here we go again
Perfectly stated.
Posted by GregGold
9th May 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
RE: Makeover
We could use an agricultural policy makeover. We pay people not to grow certain crops. We pay people to grow high-carb foods that contribute to obesity.

Quit voting for the same old bozos that bring us stupid policies. Free Congress!
Posted by bb_apptix
9th May 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Crop rotation is old news.
The problems began when the farms started buy the crap from so called experts that spraying fertilizer and pesticides on crops was better than good crop management.

All we have seen is a depletion of the soil and a drop in crop yields unless large amounts of fertilizer are used.

Several years ago a handful of Canadian farms started composting their organic waste for fertilizer and rotating crops to avoid soil depletion in a study of the long-term impacts of the practices on the farm. They proved the old school methods work great when updated with modern advantages in compost management and harvesting.

Not only did the average depth of the topsoil increase, but also their crop yields nearly matched the fertilized fields after just a few years. Use of the practices are spreading in Canada as the US Department of Agriculture studies it further.
Posted by Hates Idiots
9th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Sustainability has to be economically sustainable as well.
"However, as customers shop at stores like Whole Foods, Trader Joes and farmers markets, we see there is a demand for this type of sustainable agriculture." What a totally unquantified and therefore meaningless statement. The people that shop at high end "green" stores represent less than 5% of the US population - probably a lot less. Get an economic clue author - there is a far larger picture to be examined here. For example most of the booths at farmer's markets by enlarge buy their produce from the same suppliers as the grocery stores do - except they are buying seconds and over stocks. Food like everything else comes down to economics.

And while a few scientist may ask why large farms are supported over small ones - scientists have their own form of professional tunnel vision, but most economist know why. Large farms are overwhelmingly more economically efficient because of simple economies of scale that small farms can't possibly achieve. A 100 years of farming technology economic evolution has proven this over and over. To think otherwise is willful ignorance and refusing to accept very well proven facts. Small and organic farms are far from economically or environmentally sustainable, merely niche markets catering to those with higher discretionary incomes - nothing more, nothing less. They require even more land, water and energy resources than larger farms/unit output - and there is a net loss environmentally. The more obvious fact is that there is no way organic farming could support a fraction of the world population. The author and doubtful readers might want to read the Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.

Worse while we are discussing sustainability in agriculture - we discuss biofuels which at scale are dependent on peak petro-chemical and peak phosphate fertilizers - just like 95% of human food production - with which BIOFUELS COMPETE FOR FERTILIZER! It's hard to imagine a more uninformed and clueless leadership in this country that doesn't get this basic fact or what the long term implications are for ignoring it.

Even so, there is no reason why large farms can't be even more efficient and environmentally benevolent than they are. Actually, there are lots of good reasons why they can be, but primarily because they have the economies of scale to do so. There scale and levels of wastes are economically attractive to recycle in the most optimum way at the least costs. At a national level our focus should be making the most economically efficient farms environmentally efficient as well through life cycle and mass balance analysis - and it should be easily sold to them on the improved economics that it produces for them if accomplished intelligently.

Optimum environmental efficiency that reflects the reality of a growing global population and declining unsustainable resources will always be the most economically efficient in the long run. Ironically both environmentalist and capitalist are generally equally clueless about what constitutes the true economic realities of our times and what they will be in the very near term future.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
Updated - 9th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
One might get the impression...
...that many of these people do understand the economics of it all. What they'd really like to do is dial back the social-economic clock to the 1850s.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
9th May 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
I don't buy that argument.
I think that the reason factory farms are more profitable is because they are designed to take advantage of crop subsidies rather than representing the true market value of the crop and model itself.

I would also like to say that Bio-Fuels only make sense without crop subsidy as they are only economically viable when sourced from post consumer waste. The Hippies burning used fryer oil stories is what introduced most of us to the concept after all.
Posted by shaunehunter
10th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Free market myths and sustainability.
Bureaucracies are bureaucracies by scale more than anything else - whether public or private - size spreads and reduces individual accountability. Both large gov. and corporate bureaucracies are equally corruptible because of their common human element and its inherent yield to greed - especially when individual accountability risks decline. When gov. and markets become inbreed (today), the likelihood of corruption is exponential. Surely most of us has taken notice of the current "free market" caused recession/depression? This was a failure of both gov. and the so-called "free markets."

For anyone who actually studies markets, there has never been a pure "free market" anymore than there ever was a pure "communism" - only periods when markets were less influenced and or corrupted (political or corporate influences). While economic evolution has clearly favored capitalism - it certainly didn't do so because it was faultless.

As the global playing field continues to level and population growth continues to slow, undeveloped natural resource opportunities continue to decline - capitalism as we know it (absolutely market and population growth dependent) is going to have to reinvent itself to even survive - much less be sustainable. It is already happening as we see more social programs to deal with unneeded unskilled labor (even high unemployment of very skilled labor) in country after country. This is an economic subject no one wants to talk about - it's just too scary, but it's staring us in the face and we will be affected by it - how badly depends on how we prepare now.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
9th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Population growth is not slowing
Sorry, but worldwide population growth is not slowing enough to avert a crisis. We're around 7 billion now, on our way to 10 billion by the middle or late century. That's going to require around 40% more food than we produce today, and that's just not possible without drastic changes such as stop feeding meat animals.

The US is scheduled to be around 350 million, growing much slower. If it was just the US producing for the US, then we could handle that. However, food is a global market. We already export many agricultural products to Asia and other places. More importantly, without our exports many places in the world would starve.
Posted by zackers
9th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Remember Russia's 5 Year Plans?
Keep government out of the farm business. No matter what choices that the farmer makes, he pays the price for mistakes. If the government makes a mistake then you and I pay the price.
Posted by IMWeira
9th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
"Sustainablity" is not the answer
The idea that by switching to more "sustainable" agricultural practices we can produce more food is just ridiculous. For example, we can feed some cattle entirely on grass, but there just isn't enough grass around to make that much of a difference. Hasn't anybody noticed that most of the west where cattle are grazed is very sparse, even desert?

UC Davis is a leader in agricultural research, but this paper is based on providing "healthy, sustainable" food for the Whole Foods crowd. Unfortunately, as much as we all want food that's healthy (though that definition keeps changing), it won't produce enough to feed the 10 billion plus population a few decades from now. In fact, an agriculture based on "sustainability" won't feed the 7 billion we have today.

For centuries in our past, people used what we would consider sustainable methods to produce food. It took the entire efforts of 95% of the population, and those people routinely suffered famines and starved. Civilization barely improved because so much effort was spent on just feeding ourselves each day.

Our agricultural policy can certainly use an overhaul. We subsidize some things, such as ethanol, which force corn production when that same land could be used to produce a wide variety of crops. Many crops, such as sugar, have import protections which ensure a high domestic price and cause the use of substitutes such as fructose, another corn product which diverts farm land from other uses.

In the current world environment, where we no longer produce surplus corn and grains, our policies even threaten the lives of poor people around the world. Our policy of diverting 40% of our corn crop to ethanol means that's other crops that's not being produced and exported to the poor around the world.

This fall just before harvest, it's estimated that the US will only have about a three *week* supply of grain on hand. That means if we have any kind of a crop failure, we are going to see shortages for the first time in decades. In the US we will "merely" see huge price increases in groceries, but in other places in the world it will mean that people will starve. US ethanol mandates may even require that we *import* corn, thus taking it out of the mouths of the poor around the world.
Posted by zackers
9th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Take that a step further...
...and impose a carbon-tax scheme to make energy even more expensive. Now food production, processing and transport costs even more. More and more of our resources will be directed towards food production as exports, mainly foodstuffs decrease.

Then you'll see a real man-made disaster.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
9th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Let's address the real problem here...
The true cause of this problem is worldwide population growth, pure and simple. Until we get a handle on that problem we're merely whistling in the dark.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s when I was in school, Zero Population Growth was a high ideal and was accepted as one of the things that would eventually create world peace. What happened? Political correctness happened.

No scientist or politician (besides Chairman Mao) has the cojones to tell the US and the rest of the world that if they want to eat, they had better stop producing large families. I've heard the ridiculous statement, "That would be racist, because the majority of the world is non-white, and we can't regulate their behavior", which is just a coward's excuse. Whites have already lowered their birth rates to acceptable levels. Now it's everyone else's turn.

When we're all starving together there will be genocide, race wars and mass murder for control of food sources. Isn't it better to tell the truth now, let the chips fall where they may, and just possibly avert future disaster? Or would you rather be politically correct?
Posted by baron34
11th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
not true
actually, it was Richard Nixon who started using US funds to promote family planning. Even 30 years ago, when I worked in Africa, we gave out contraception in our baby clinics, and every village had a pill lady to give out contraceptive.
As a result, the population is falling in most countries, even here in the Philippines the rate is now 3 babies per family, not 5 as it was 20 years ago.

And as a Filipino I don't see why you point out "whites" who lowered their birth rates. Do you include China, Korea, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Iran as "white"? These countries have also stablized their birth rate to replacement value.
Posted by tioedong@...
11th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Check your numbers before yelling at the USA for poulation issues.
If the US population depended on births we would be slowly losing population over the past 3 decades. Immigration, a large percentage of it illegally, has kept the US population growing.

We are guilty of being humanitarians to our own destruction by sending food to parts of the world that should not support large populations.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 12th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
The relevance of Ethics in Sustainability
In some countries, governments are struggling to find workers for their aged working populations. In others, advice are flooding from everywhere in order to help them cope with rocketing populations through birth rate control. At the same time, super developed countries are wage wars to one another in order to protect and keep their so-called zones of influence under control for strategically economic reasons. Not only do they have open markets to their manufactured products, but they also upkeep there the kind of market which provides them prospective consumers. Recent political upheavals all over the world illustrate such opinion. In this respect, what attracts me more in the idea of sustainability is the ethical dimension that it includes. Without a humane dose of ethicality in undertaken actions or policies, no positive outcome should be expected from them. Let us make the world more humane a place to live through ethical beliefs after being sketching out moral behaviors!
Posted by Djedou Adaman
11th May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Please just go see it, there may be items you need
welcome to our company www.ifancyshop.com2442
Posted by ainiqbgcr
28th Jun
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!