Farming for Tomorrow: Sustainable Changes
An apple a day keeps the doctor away – or it used to, 80 years ago. Now, the average apple doesn’t cut it; although it looks like the same apple, the method of growing it is different, and with it, it’s concentration of vitamins and minerals. Though apples like those grown 80 years ago are available, consumers pay a higher price for better nutrition – a price some can’t afford to pay. The food we eat is essential to maintaining a healthy immune system, but as a result of agriculture’s shift from small scale to industrialized production and processing, food quality and consumer health has suffered (Long, 2009). The nutritional value of food – from broccoli to beef – depends on the way it’s produced, and cheaper production is synonymous with a style of farming that trades quality for quantity; nutritional benefits, for capital gain. Major deforestation, air and water pollution, and loss of species as well as the ever decreasing health of western society – especially in poor communities – are all byproducts of modern agriculture’s capitalist approach to food production and management which exploits long term human and environmental health in favor of short term profit. The effects of modern farming practices are so severe that, in 2006, the United Nations reported industrial agriculture as being “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” (Stienfeld)
Before supermarkets and mass food production became commonplace, food mostly came from small family farms; families would grow enough for themselves in the spring and summer, and sell the excess in farmers markets. The great turning point in the industrialization of our food started in 1947 when factories once used to make explosives switched over to to making chemical fertilizer (Pollan). After World War II, there was a large surplus of ammonium nitrate, the main ingredient in explosives. Ammonium nitrate is also an excellent source of nitrogen for plants; The government considered spraying nitrate surpluses on forests to help the timber industry, but eventually decided to spread the ammonium nitrate on farmland as fertilizer. The introduction of synthetic nitrogen encouraged farmers to produce varieties of food, such as corn, that rely most heavily on fertilizers and chemicals, and to grow as much of them as possible. Surplus nitrogen combined with cheap fossil fuels – used to operate machinery as well as to create pesticides and chemical fertilizers -were used to drive down food prices and to up food production especially in commodity crops like corn. In a time when the food shortages of the great depression were still fresh in the minds of consumers, Nixon’s secretary of agriculture Earl Butz coined the ‘get big or get out’ approach to AG that encouraged farmers to plant commodity crops like corn “from fencerow to fencerow.” – a classic monoculture farming practice that intrinsically depends on chemicals for success. The government benefited not only by taking food shortages off the table as a political issue, but also by capitalizing on leftover chemicals from the war that caused the food shortages in the first place. Industrial agriculture was considered a technological triumph – a means to enable a growing population to feed itself. Today, a growing number of scientists and farmers alike see industrial agriculture as a dead end (Jackson).
Now more than ever, a shift in focus from monetary gain to a more holistic approach of measuring success in farming is key to preserving the health of humanity. By taking into account the well-being of species and organisms whose success directly affects the continuity of ecosystems vital to our biosphere, farming practices have great potential to help rather than harm the environment (UCS). To take their rightful place as stewards of the land, farmers and agricultural corporations should start thinking long term – not just meeting present needs, but also aiding to the ability of future generations to meet their needs. By using methods that don’t deplete the health of soil, water, air, or animal resources, but replenish them, farmers can employ sustainability to ensure their continued success over time. Sustainable farming involves the use of many techniques and practices that come together to form a system both economically viable, and environmentally sound. Unlike conventional farming, the sustainable method works with, rather than against nature to tackle issues like pests, weeds and soil fertility – with great results. Farmers can transition to sustainability with small, realistic, comprehensive changes.; though it won’t happen overnight, practices such as rotating crops, using cover crops on empty fields, and employment of natural pest predators – in commercial, industrial, even small scale farming – contribute collectively to form a continuum that promotes ecological health as well as social and environmental awareness in farming culture – the basis of sustainable farming.
Sustainable farming considers all aspects of food production from the ground up – literally. Soil is the foremost ingredient in successful crop production, and one of the most overlooked commodities in conventional agriculture (Kirschenmann). More than just a medium to hold plants in place, soil is made up of complex communities – whole ecosystems – comprising millions of living organisms and organic matter. Though ‘dirt’ is everywhere, fertile soil is a limited resource – over the last 60 years well over 1/3 of the world’s available, arable farmland went barren due to soil erosion and degradation (Pimentel, Giampietro 1994). By trading conventional plowing and tilling for cover crops, monocultures for mixed plant varieties, sustainable farms are able to significantly improve soil health and increase the nutritional benefits of food they produce. Cover crops essentially kill multiple birds with one stone: they prevent weeds, protect against erosion, and strengthen soil vitality (Stark). With a cover crop such a Crimson Clover blocking space weeds would usually fill in an empty field, herbicides aren’t as necessary. The layer of leaves and stems left behind by crops like Clover nourish the topsoil, while under the earth they break up deeper soil naturally with their roots, replacing tilling and plowing (Delgado). Aiming to further decrease harmful pesticide use, sustainable farmers utilize further methods like ‘multi-cropping’ and natural pest control; multi-cropping involves planting a variety of plants in one area – most of which are the prominent crop, but with a mix of pest repelling plants such as marigolds, and plants that attract pollinating insects like bees, and ‘pest predators’ like lady bugs. When farms employ these methods, commercial pesticide application almost ceases entirely, with pesticides being used only as a rare last resort – in fact, most farms that employ natural pest management methods successfully cut pesticide usage by 95% or more (Kirschenmann). This dramatic drop in chemical dependence is great for sustainable farmers bank accounts, as Nitrogen fertilizer alone makes up nearly half of commercial farms total energy costs. While commercial farms depend on fertilizers to boost their yield, a review of 286 projects in 57 countries found that by adopting sustainable agricultural practices, farmers increased productivity by an average of 79%, (Pretty et al., 2006) – all without compromising environmental, or human health with commercial chemicals.
Seeing the success of the sustainable movement, some conventional farmers are open to changes, but are often unable make them because of their lands long-term chemical dependence; lacking funds to support the transitional period necessary for large scale operations to make the switch, farmers often stick with unsustainable practices simply because they have no choice. The government continues to subsidize crops that inherently promote farming practices inconsistent with environmental health, while providing virtually no subsidies that encourage sustainability. Though incentives are available to growers who implement certain sustainable practices through the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the amount of money provided is nowhere near what growers of heavily subsidized commodity crops have enjoyed since the Great Depression. Fear of losing their livelihoods, and scrutiny over the economic viability of sustainable farming generally clouds any motivation farmers might have to stray from ‘the norm’. and from the influx of money they receive that guarantees them – for now, at least – price stability, and income security. In reality, a major shift away from industrialized farming may be more conducive to financial certainty than the outdated assurances from hardcore conventional farmers of sustainable agricultures inability to feed a hungry nation would have them believe; a 30-year side-by-side study showed that organic systems were nearly three times as profitable as conventional systems over time, with sustainable organic systems averaging a net return of $558/acre compared with the $190/acre return pulled by conventional systems. Though the higher price chemical free growers get for their products affects the numbers, lower input costs for sustainable farm systems was the determining factor for the large difference in net return. Although this data exists, the proliferation the antiquated idea that sustainable agriculture is economically unrealistic persists within farming culture. Until the government confirms the viability of sustainable agriculture with the creation of monetary incentives and subsidies, a large portion of the conventional farming community won’t accept change – many still deny the negative effects of chemicals on the environment, maintaining strongly that sustainable and organic farming are products of an environmentalist regime to destroy America’s traditional farming system. Nevertheless, consumer demand for responsibly grown food is on the rise, and no matter farmer’s personal beliefs, public interest takes precedence in deciding what to grow, and how to grow it. The switch from conventional to sustainable farming requires the participation of farmers as well as laborers, policymakers, researchers, retailers, and consumers. By voting with our money and purchasing choices, we, the consumers can exercise our ability to affect food production.
If agricultural policies don’t change, our modern farming system will – like the great barrier reef, and the millions of honey bee colonies caught in the middle of big AG’s chemical crossfire – inevitably, collapse. From the air we breath down to the ground we walk on, the rampant use and exploitation of nonrenewable resources by industrial agriculture threatens the very ability of the earth to sustain life, yet short term monetary gain still takes precedence over even the long term survival of humanity. As the government stands idle, farmers fall into an ever worsening state of chemical dependence. Sustainable agricultural provides us with practical ways to reverse this vicious cycle, but how a world dominated by greed and special interests will come to a collective decision on how to make the switch to sustainability is a mystery. The change, if there is to be one, will come from the public in the form of small shifts in individual thought and decisions based on awareness and social responsibility – not laws or government decisions. One thing is certain: the time for change is now.
Works Cited
Steinfeld, Henning (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
UCS. “Industrial Agriculture.” Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 May 2015.
Pollan, Michael. “What’s Eating America.” Smithsonian. N.p., July 2006. Web. 19 May 2015.
Fields, Scott. “The Fat of the Land: Do Agricultural Subsidies Foster Poor Health?” Environmental Health Perspectives 112.14 (2004): A820–A823. Print.
Pretty J. N. et al. (2006). ‘Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries’, Environmental Science and Technology 40 (4), 1114-1119.
Jackson, Wes. Natural Systems Agriculture: A Radical Alternative. 2002. Reprinted from Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment Volume 88, pp. 111-117, 2002, with permission from Elsevier Science.
David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro, Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Nov. 1994
Stark, J. C. 1995. Development of sustainable potato production systems for the Pacific NW. SARE Project report #LW91-029.Western Region SARE. Logan, Utah.
Delgado, J. A. et al.1999. Use of winter cover crops to conserve soil and water quality in the San Luis Valley of South Central Colorado. pp 125-142. In R. Lal (ed.). Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. CRC Press,
Kirschenmann, Fred (2012) TEDxManhattan: Soil — from dirt to lifeline
trillian mann 