To Conclude...

I hope you have all enjoyed my blog and that it has given you some food for thought! Throughout this blog we have seen the impact that the production of our food is having on our environment and how unsustainable our current practices are. Agriculture was one of the first human impacts on the earth, and throughout the anthropocene mankind has realized how we can use nature as a resource. The impacts of this have increased through the intensification of agriculture to feed our growing population. The human population has exceeded the earth’s carrying capacity, and as a result the earths natural resources are being over exploited.

Technical innovation may be able to solve the problem of our diminishing natural resources through harvesting phosphorous from urine etc. But the problem is much bigger than that, I personally don’t think that technology can solve the whole problem. We need to go back to basics and work within the earths environmental limits with more sustainable practices and to slow down our population growth to reach a population that the earths resources can sustain naturally. We need a complete change in the way we produce food. The Guardian article ‘Global food system must be transformed 'on industrial revolution scale’ highlights how we cannot continue as we are, as our current food system is failing.

Climate change is going to intensify this problem and make the solution even more challenging. A report from the government's futures thinktank Foresight states that ‘the global food system between now and 2050 will face enormous challenges, as great as any that it has confronted in the past… the food system needs to change more radically in the coming decades than ever before, including during the Industrial and Green Revolutions’. All solutions involve huge uncertainty therefore much more funding for research is needed and any decisions need to be highly scrutinized to try to make more sustainable decisions than created by the green revolution. Food production needs to be a much higher priority in political agendas worldwide. However, we also need deeper societal changes to combat the cause of the problem as sustainable agriculture cannot maintain our unsustainable lifestyles. 

So next time you sit down to eat, think about where your food has come from and the impacts it has had on our planet from the farm to your fork.

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.

Can we produce enough?

The University of Nebraska produced a report in 2007 on whether organic agriculture can produce high enough yields to feed the world.

            Badgley and Perfecto (2007) used data from a global dataset of 293 yield ratios for plant and animal production to show that organic agriculture can produce enough food to feed the world at its current population. They also state that data from 77 published studies suggest that nitrogen-fixing legumes used as green manures can provide enough nitrogen to replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (74% of studies came from peer reviewed studies). Suggesting that organic agriculture could feed the world.

            Cassman (2007) responded to Badgley and Perfecto’s report stating that comparison between organic and conventional yields is not enough to conclude that organic agriculture can feed the world. Cassman (2007) calls for more peer reviewed research and states that the question of whether organic agriculture can feed the world remains unanswered.

            Cassman (2007) also highlights that most of our food problems are not about lack of yield, they are a result of poverty and lack of buying power. We often overproduce in developed countries and it’s the distribution of food, which is the problem and organic agriculture wont change that. Equally, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the future, how much will our population continue to grow? How much arable land will be lost due to urbanization? How much arable land will be used for biofuels rather than food? These questions highlight that food security depends on policy and prices as much as it does on yields. 

Back to basics - Organic Farming

As we have seen, the modernization of agriculture has come with many environmental implications in the quest to feed our growing population throughout the anthropocene. Many argue that we should revert back to old-fashioned agricultural practices to reduce the environmental damage. This would involve a change from intensive monoculture systems, which are heavily reliant on inputs of natural resources, to smaller scale organic agriculture with less external inputs to supply local demands, using more natural forms of energy inputs.

         In organic agriculture, chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not used. Complex crop rotations are used to protect against pests and animal manure is used as a natural fertilizer, legumes are planted to fix nitrogen rather than using chemical fertilizers. The Soil Association state ‘Organic farming offers the best, currently available, practical model for addressing climate-friendly food production. This is because it sequesters higher levels of carbon in the soil, is less dependent on oil-based fertilisers and pesticides and confers resilience in the face of climatic extremes.’

Pimentel et al (2005) report on a Rodale Institute farming trial, which compared organic and conventional farming over 22 years. The main conclusions from the trial reveal that:

–           Fossil fuel energy inputs were 30% lower in organic practices.

–           Soil organic matter was higher in organic systems, this helped conserve soil and water resources, which were beneficial in drought years, this is important for the future with climate change.

–           Nitrogen was higher in organic systems which highlights the success of legume cover crops over chemical fertlisers.

–           Crop rotations and over cropping successfully reduced soil erosion, pest problems and pesticide use in organic practices.

–           Use of livestock waste as fertilizer reduced pollution as well as the use of chemicals.

–           Organic plots had higher biodiversity, which contributes to a healthy ecosystem and reduces the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

         Through the successes seen in the organic plots throughout the study, Pimentel et al (2005) suggest that in order to make our food production more sustainable we should incorporate some organic practices into our conventional systems.

         Organic agriculture wont stop our reliance on natural resources but it is using them in a more sustainable way. Organic farming technology can help make farming more sustainable and ecologically sound, but it is heavily debated whether organic agriculture can produce high enough yields at affordable prices to feed the world.

Can Genetic Modification Save the World?

            Genetic modification (GM) is often marketed as the solution to our global food crisis. GM crops are sold on the basis of their economic and environmental benefits through increasing yields and greater food production with lower production costs, compared with conventional crops.

            A Royal Society report ‘Reaping the Benefits’ (2009), supports the use of GM crops. The report confirms that GM can provide control of pests and weeds through use of disease-resistant crops that can minimize the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. They also suggest that GM crops enable no-till agriculture, which can reduce soil erosion and fossil fuel use and drought tolerant seeds can be used to provide resilience to climate change. Thus the report states that ‘Britain's future food sustainability depends on employing some form of GM to increase yields’.

            The Royal Society fully support the notion that technological advances have provided us with the potential to use scientific solutions to feed the world. The report indicates that the problem of food security for our growing population is so serious that we should try anything we can, to solve the problem, and that this will not be possible without the use of GM.

            Alternatively, a group of NGOs, coordinated by environmentalist Vandana Shiva, produced a report on the role of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in increasing food production (Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, 2011). The report reveals that the way that genetic modification is marketed as the solution to the world’s food crisis is highly misleading. Shiva boldly states that genetic engineering has failed to increase the yields of a single food crop but instead, it has increased the growth of superweeds.

            The NGO report indicates that weeds are becoming resistance to herbicides and pesticides, through the transfer of herbicide resistance to weeds, resulting in the development of super weeds and super pests. Shiva (2011) gives examples of this in India, China, the US, Argentina and Brazil and describes it as failed technology, as GM crops have not increased the control of pests and weeds, they have actually reduced it. This has resulted in an increase in the requirement of pesticides.

            Evidence suggests that some GM crops actually have reduced yields when herbicides are not applied therefore GM crops can increase our reliance on herbicides. Some believe, that the biotech industry is forcing us into a more chemical dependent agricultural system. Shiva (2011)  states that any benefits of GM crops are outweighed by the negative impacts associated with increased use of pesticides.

            These two reports from different reputable actors puts great uncertainty in the fate of GM crops as a solution to sustainable food production for the future. For some, it seems like the ideal solution for increased yields and resistance to pests and weeds, whereas others see the problems of the uncertainty associated with the use of new technology and ideas. As the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs reveals, technology and nature do not always interact as expected and as a result, GM crops could create a food production system ever more reliant on natural resources. 

            Whether we go ahead with GM food production or not is a highly important decision, as co-existence between GM and conventional crops is not possible due to genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops which is impossible to control (Shiva, 2011). Therefore the Royal society report admits that we need a lot more investment in research into sustainable agriculture before we go ahead and fully implement GM practices. 

This is a obviously a very brief overview of the debates associated with Genetic Modification, so check out the two reports in more detail if you're interested.

I quite like this cartoon I found on another blog.

Modern Agriculture: The Cause? Or the Solution?

This video clearly states that technology has a large role to play in the solution and that old fashioned methods wont produce enough to feed the world. However, I am skeptical, as technology has not helped to reduce the environmental impact so far, it has in fact worsened it. Therefore I don't see how this simplistic video can state that 'with careful stewardship of the earth' modern agriculture is the solution.... its just not that simple! However, it does nicely highlight the issues associated with government policy and how these need to change in order to produce enough food sustainably. 

Global food systems must be transformed ‘on industrial revolution scale’

The existing food production system clearly isn’t working as millions of people are still malnourished and the environmental impact of food production is not sustainable – as this blog has shown.

‘1 billion are going hungry, 1 billion are lacking crucial vitamins and minerals from their diet and another billion are "substantially overconsuming”’ (Guardian, 2011).

This Guardian article 2011 highlights the need for a change in agricultural practices as shown in the Global Food and Farming Futures report, from the Government office for science. The article nicely sums up how, with our current practices, the world cannot feed itself without destroying the environment, therefore we have no option but to make a change.

We have three main issues – an expanding population to feed, which requires  a change in the unsustainable nature of the exploitation of our natural resources as well as consideration for the impacts associated with climate change – as agriculture is a large contributor of green house gasses. These issues highlight the urgency of the problem.

            The main conclusion is that farmers need to grow more food at a smaller cost to the environment – but unfortunately this is easier said than done and as a result, the report comes to the conclusion that no single solution exists.

            The report states that the solution must involve reducing food waste and spreading our existing knowledge to developing countries. As well as the incorporation of organic agriculture, although the report states that this shouldn’t be the main strategy, as they don’t believe that organic agriculture can meet future demands without huge changes in peoples diets (I will address this in a later post). The report also states that technological advances should be considered such as genetically modified crops and cloned livestock and that they shouldn’t be excluded on ethical or moral grounds. They also highlight that government policy has a large role to play in changing global food systems as the government have been criticized for suggesting that technology holds the solution, many believe it will take a lot more than that!

Have a read of the Guardian article and let me know what you think… should we put our faith in technology and go for GM or should we go back to the small scale organic production of the past, after all, it was a technological revolution that got us into this mess in the first place. Can technology get us out of it again?