No simple solution

My previous posts have indicated that there is no simple solution to reverse the effects of the intensification of agriculture. With increased environmental awareness, organic agriculture is becoming increasingly popular and viable, but is it enough? There are numerous questions and uncertainties associated with what’s best for future agriculture?

Is a smaller area of intensive agriculture with more space for natural, wild vegetation better than more widespread environmentally friendly (organic) agriculture? As our population increases we will have to either intensify agriculture further or farm more land – what is best?

Is local produce more environmentally friendly than imported food? Changes in consumption patterns and diet throughout the anthropocene has been possible through the global trade of food. Media coverage on food miles and the emissions associated with importing food has shown this negatively. However, if food can be grown more in a more environmentally friendly (natural) way elsewhere, should we import it? Is it more environmentally friendly to import tomatoes from warmer countries or to grow them locally in an artificially lit and heated poly tunnel?

Should we accept the fact that we should only eat seasonal produce and sacrifice exotic foods for the protection of the environment? The changes in our consumption mean that old fashioned techniques are not always viable, and organic agriculture doesn’t provide a simple solution. Change in consumption is one of the major causes of these problems especially the increased consumption of meat, therefore changing out consumption patterns play an important role in reducing this impact.

           

Tilman et al. (2002) suggest other ways of reducing the impact of agriculture, such as:

-       Environmentally sensitive areas and countryside stewardship schemes, as well as set aside subsidies to reduce surplus production and benefit biodiversity.

-       Education of farmers in fertilizer use efficiency to improve efficiency and minimize losses.

-       Education on appropriate crop rotations and better matching temporal and spatial nutrient supply with plant demand.

-       Landscape management e.g trees planted around fields to reduce erosion, buffer zones to reduce eutrophication.

Cordell et al. (2009) have more radical ideas, like the recovery of phosphorous from human urine. Urine could provide more than half the phosphorus required to fertilize cereal crops. Therefore we need to develop an infrastructure for harvesting, treating, storing and distributing human urine. Read Cordell et al. (2009) for more info, its a really interesting article! However, clearly much more funding and research is needed.

Complete adoption of organic practices may be a long way off, but I don’t think ‘organic agriculture’ is necessarily what we need, we need ‘sustainable agriculture’. Not just organic methods, but more careful stewardship and management of the environment in general. ‘Making the right decisions at the farm level in terms of input-use efficiency, human health and resource protection is becoming an increasingly knowledge-intensive task’ (Tillman et al, 2002). Education is vital – many farmers are unaware of the simple changes they could make and the possibilities of sustainable agriculture.

This video shows how we need to take a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture. Schemes like AgBalance can be used to educate farmers and policy makers on  sustainable farming, a necessity for the future.