Ag Instructor Vic Martin: Sustaining Agriculture

Great Bend Tribune
Published July 12, 2015
Sustaining Agriculture - Part I

            It’s interesting how the meaning of a word changes depending on what person or group is using it and for what purpose.  The term organic originally meant anything pertaining to living organisms or compounds containing carbon.  Today in society it has evolved to denote foods grown without the use of “chemicals” such as synthetic pesticides, hormone implants and fertilizers and/or without the use of genetically engineered organism.  Natural originally denoted the world around us and today it has evolved to mean foods with little or no processing, chemical additives or in a “non-factory farm.”  The term sustainable has also undergone such a change and what it means to a farmer or rancher is markedly different than what it means to the consumer, especially in the marketing of foodstuffs and by the restaurant industry.

            Let’s start with the original definition of sustainable: Able to be maintained at a certain rate or level; Able to be upheld or defended; Pertaining to a system that maintains its own viability by using techniques that allow for continual reuse.  In ecological terms sustainable defined the ability of a biological system to remain diverse and productive.  So the original definition was simply anything that could maintain itself at a given rate for a long period of time.  That definition has been modified and extended by many in the “sustainable” food movement to mean the following:

  • Any of a number of environmentally friendly farming methods that preserve an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
  • The production of food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare.

Again, that sounds good because all producers and the public in general want to protect the environment, public health, maintain/improve resources, have animals humanely treated and producers be economically viable.  How that is defined is where the dichotomy occurs between the “traditional” and “sustainable” agricultural positions.

The “sustainable” agriculture movement has evolved and what you all see in the media and ad campaigns by grocery stores and restaurants into a synonym for organic food production.  It is shorthand for the elimination of synthetic pesticides, genetically engineered crops (GMOs), synthetic fertilizers, “artificial” hormones, and the elimination of factory and corporate farms.  In some ways the movement is as much a social/political program of thought as an environmental one.  This is not to demean the adherents, their concerns, or the need to continuously examine the safety and efficacy of how we produce food, fiber, and fuel.  The majority of producers would be thrilled to not have to spend monies on pesticides, fertilizers, and GMOs.  The overwhelming number of livestock producers are deeply concerned for the safety, health, and well-being of their animals.  Next week’s column discusses just how “sustainable” the sustainable food movement is.

Great Bend Tribune
Published July 19, 2015
Sustaining Agriculture - Part II

Today focuses on the factors traditional agriculture uses the Sustainable Food Movement objects to.  First though a reminder of what is defined as sustainable:

  • Any of a number of environmentally friendly farming methods that preserve an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
  • The production of food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare.

Now, for the sake of argument, let’s accept that everyone from traditional agriculture to Chipotle agrees these are proper goals.  If you speak with producers you will find they basically agree with this but would add sustainability includes economic sustainability.  The disagreement between the opposite ends of the spectrum involves the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, GMOs, etc.  This week – what is the purpose of technologies used by “unsustainable” agriculture?  Space doesn’t allow for great detail.

First, the easiest one, public health and GMO foods.  There is absolutely no scientifically validated evidence that GMO foods pose any health risk when consumed.  Complex meta-analysis of all research studies confirm this.  We have over twenty years and billions of meals with GMO foods that confirm this.  There are serious health risks from certain pesticides but changes in regulations and usage combined with new chemistries have significantly lessened the risk and pesticide residues are closely monitored.  These are used to increase production, decrease the time needed for food to get to the table while increasing quality and overall efficiency.

Farmers and the environment has benefitted greatly from the adoption of GMO technology for crops.  Bt and herbicide resistant technologies have allowed for the decreased use of many pesticides, especially insecticides, and the increased use of more environmentally friendly, less hazardous, pesticides.  These technologies have the added benefits of increasing production per acre and improving the quality of foodstuffs.  GMO technology has also increased water use efficiency, allowed for increased nutrition in developing countries, and improved shelf life.  There are issues of concern dealing with insects like bees and Monarch butterflies.  For the Monarchs the problem isn’t the insecticide technology but the Roundup Ready ® technology that is destroying their food source – milkweed.  This can be addressed.  The other problem is the development of pesticide resistant insects and weeds.  A great deal of research has and is being conducted to address this.

Hormone usage, where appropriate and allowed, helps livestock grow more efficiently while using less feed which decreases the acreage needed to produce feedstocks.  Appropriately used antibiotics there are quite strict regulations regarding the use of the products.

Synthetic fertilizers allow for increased production per acre.  Crop plants take up nutrients in the inorganic form.  Some of these are manufactured and some are mined.  Proper fertilization insures proper nutrition of plant products consumed by humans and livestock.  This also decreases stress on plants allowing for better disease resistance and water use efficiency.

Herbicides, among other things, allow for increased crop yield, improved quality, decrease plant stress and improve water use efficiency.  They further decrease secondary hosts for insects and diseases.  Next week – What happens to sustainability if we don’t use these “unsustainable” technologies and where the sustainable movement may be right?

 

Great Bend Tribune
Published July 26, 2015
Sustaining Agriculture - Conclusion

To wrap up this series let’s examine what would happen if conventional agriculture abandoned the practices discussed last week as called for by the sustainable agriculture movement.  How “sustainable” would that be for the environment?  First a reminder of what we are defining as sustainable:

  1. Any of a number of environmentally friendly farming methods that preserve an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
  2. The production of food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare.

Unfortunately there isn’t room for great detail but the information is readily available.

  • The elimination of GMO technology – This would result in a significant increase in the use of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides not nearly as friendly to the environment.  Since GMO technology has resulted in better water use efficiency more irrigation would likely result and rain fed crops would experience greater water stress.  Heat and cold stress technology would be lost.  Crop quality would decrease as would the overall nutritional profile while the shelf life of many crops would decrease.  The overall result would be increased pesticide usage and decreased crop yields.  More land needed to produce the same yields while agriculture looks to feed two billion more people over the next twenty years.
  • Elimination of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides – Eliminating synthetic fertilizers would dramatically decrease yield and currently there is no way to replace the needed amount of nutrients with “organic” fertilizers.  Eliminating synthetic pesticides also significantly decreases yield and crop quality.  And since a goal of sustainability is to protect the environment, eliminating pesticides would make reducing and/or eliminating tillage much more difficult, result in more tillage for weed and pest control while increasing soil water and wind erosion.
  • The use of hormones and pharmaceuticals in livestock production – First keep in mind these technologies aren’t used like candy and strictly regulated.  Let’s focus on beef cattle production.  The responsible use of implants significantly decrease the cost of gain and therefore the price to the consumer.  Implants also mean less feed is needed per pound of gain and results in leaner meat.  Overall less land is needed to produce feed for protein production.  One article said that eliminating implants would mean more acreage in corn equivalent to the state of New York.  The amount of estrogenic activity found in implanted beef while slightly larger than non-implanted is dwarfed by the amount found in tofu or even bread.  Hormones are not used in poultry or pork production.  The responsible use of pharmaceuticals in meat production maintains animal health, allows a quicker time to finish, and a healthier food supply. 

To wrap this topic up, if we adopted what the sustainable food movement advocates, the goals in the first two bullet items would rapidly move out of reach.