Monoculture Wheat Crop

Monoculture Wheat Crop - Montana (National Geographic)

MONOCULTURES

A summary of Altieri's report (University of California) on the problems associated with monocultures. 

Monocultures are agricultural land areas ‘devoted to single crops and year-to-year production of the same crop species on the same land’ (Altieri, University of California). Development of monocultures was enabled by agricultural mechanization, the improvement of crop varieties, and the development and increased availability of pesticides and fertilizers. Governments have encouraged this as monocultures can contribute significantly to the ability of national agricultures to serve international markets.

Intensive farming has enabled farmers to become more integrated into international economies. As a result, monocultures are ‘rewarded by economies of scale’ (Altieri, University of California). Therefore farms today are ‘fewer, larger, more specialized and more capital intensive’. However, monocultures are highly vulnerable and dependent on many chemical inputs, as the lack of rotations and diversification has taken away key self-regulating mechanisms.

Problems

-       The move from crop rotation to harvesting the same crop type each year means the same nutrients are removed from soils year after year and nutrient depletion and soil degradation becomes a huge problem and is highly unsustainable.

-       Crop types have been selected for their high yields, ‘sacrificing natural resistance for productivity’; this makes them more susceptible to pests. This is overcome by increasing the use of pesticides, however, many argue that the negative impacts of pesticides, including the reduction of beneficial insects, outweigh the positives. (As shown in Rachel Carson’s, Silent Spring, which I will look into further at a later date)

-       Monocultures are also more vulnerable to disease, as populations of the same species will have the same resistance to certain diseases, therefore whole populations can be wiped out by one disease outbreak. Protecting monocultures and treatment of disease requires a further increase in inputs, occasionally to the extent that, ‘the amount of energy invested to produce a desired yield surpasses the energy harvested’ (Altieri, University of California).

Intensified chemical controls are required to overcome the limiting factors reducing the productivity of monocultures, such as high pest potential, limited soil moisture, or low-fertility soils. The efficiency of the many inputs required to maintain monocultures are decreasing and crop yields in most key crops are leveling off, making the whole practice highly unsustainable.

5 Food Facts

1.   As of 1990 we are using approximately 1,000 litres of oil to produce food from one hectare of land (Pfeifer, 2004).

2.   The US food system consumes ten times more energy than it produces in food energy (Pfeifer, 2004).

3.   There will be an estimated 2-2.5billion new mouths to feed by 2050 (Cordell et al, 2009).

4.   Global food production will need to increase by about 70% by 2050 to meet the global demand (Cordell et al, 2009).

5.   In 1970 it was believed that if the hungry world was to feed itself, it must increase its use of fertilizers by 100% and pesticides by 600% (Paddock, 1970) and the population has almost doubled since then, with the majority of the growth being in developing countries!

The Phosphorous Problem – “we are effectively addicted to phosphate rock”

In my previous post the Guardain blog entry brings to attention one of the limited natural resources that rarely gets a mention - Phosphorous! As we now know, modern agriculture is heavily reliant on fertilizers containing phosphorous, nitrogen and potassium. Phosphorous is derived from phosphate rock, which is a non renewable resource. Cordell et al. (2009) explain the phosphorous problem….

Historically crop production relied on natural levels of phosphorous in the soils. Old fashioned techniques such as crop rotation and use of manure maintained phosphorous levels for a while, however, human population soon outgrew the natural limits. Production of fertilizer moved from local, organic waste products to phosphorous material from distant sources such as guano (bird droppings deposited over previous millennia) and phosphate-rich rocks. Since the end of World War 2, global extraction of phosphate rock has tripled to meet industrial agricultures demand for NPK fertilizers.

The natural biochemical cycle recycles phosphorous back to the soil in situ via dead plant matter, whereas through modern agriculture, crops are harvested before they decompose, and transported all over the world to be consumed by humans. The phosphorous is therefore not returned to the soil directly, as human excrement is flushed into watercourses for treatment, rather than put straight back to the soils. Phosphorous is returned back to soils through annual applications of manufactured chemical fertilizers to ensure maximum yields are maintained.

Not only does our interruption of this natural cycle require copious amounts of fossil fuel-based energy, but the efficiency of the cycle is also severely reduced - 55% of phosphorous in food is lost between ‘farm and fork’ (Cordell et al 2007). Phosphorous is leached from the soil and can result in eutrophication of watercourses, this is often due to over-fertilization as chemical fertilizers contain far more phosphorous than manure.

Phosphorous flows through global food production and consumption system. (Losses and recovery are in millions of tonnes per year, Cordell et al. 2009)

Global demand for phosphorous is predicted to increase by around 3-4% annually. Reports estimate its depletion in 50-100 years. We are expected to reach peak phosphorous production in 2030 and production costs are already increasing. The quality of phosphate rock is declining therefore cheap fertilizers will soon become a thing of the past. Equally, the mining and manufacture of fertilizers is only possible when cheap fuels exist and these are rapidly running out.

90% of worldwide demand for rock phosphate is for food production. It is one of the most highly traded commodities on the international market. Only a few countries control phosphate reserves, with China having the largest. Export tariffs have recently been imposed to ensure China maintains enough phosphate to feed itself. 


There is no substitute for phosphorous in food production. One of the only viable solutions is the recovery of phosphorous, which would require a shift from importing phosphate rock to domestic production of renewable phosphorous fertilizer (potentially from human excreta). Not only would recovery of phosphorous reduce the extraction of the non-renewable resource, it would also increase countries self-sufficiency.

Cordell et al (2009) highlight “as we are learning from climate change and global water scarcity, a long time frame is required to address phosphate scarcity”. We need to take action now before peak phosphorous is reached and we have no alternative. Despite all this, phosphorous scarcity has not been addressed in the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization official reports.

How green was the green revolution? By increasing our reliance on fertilizers, it made us addicted to phosphate rocks, which did enable many more people to survive – but for how long? 

The six natural resources most drained by our 7 billion people

For how long can we realistically expect to have oil? And which dwindling element is essential to plant growth?


Our rapid population growth has been highlighted this week as we've reached a massive 7 billion! This Guardian Blog entry summarizes how our huge population is draining natural resources and agriculture is evidently one of the main drains.


                        The six natural resources most drained by our 7 billion people!

How Green is the Green Revolution

Between 1950 and 1984, world grain production increased by 250% (Pfeifer, 2004). This is a huge achievement in the fight against world hunger. This video paints a very positive picture of the green revolution, allowing only a few seconds to consider the environmental impacts of the practices and giving no consideration to its long-term sustainability.

         The Green Revolution was made possible by the use of fossil fuels, to run mechanized equipment, for production of fertilizers and pesticides and to run irrigation pumps etc. This led to increased energy consumption by agriculture of 100 fold or more (Pfeifer, 2004). Previous food production was reliant on solar energy; this renewable resource has a limited rate of flow into the planet and therefore kept population growth within environmental constraints. The shift to fossil fuels enabled rapid population growth. Paddock (1970) believes the Green Revolution undermined the efforts to limit the world’s population growth. He states that the increase in food, enabling more people to survive, could be detrimental in countries where no effective population control is in place. He highlights that populations will expand until they reach a carrying capacity, when starvation limits growth. If technology increases the carrying capacity, the population will grow until it reaches the new carrying capacity and starvation will occur again, thus the Green Revolution provides no solution. What Paddock (1970) predicts here, is exactly what we see today.

         This newly enabled population growth increased our reliance on non-renewable, finite, fossil fuels. The Green Revolution allowed for population growth but cannot sustain it. The environmentally degrading nature of this intensive practice is leading to even higher energy input requirements with no increase in output. Between 1945 and 1994 energy input to agriculture increased 4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold (Pfeifer, 2004). Modern agriculture must continue to increase energy input just to maintain current yields. Paddock (1970) states that ‘the Green Revolution would die tomorrow without one of its three legs: subsidies, irrigation and fertilizer’ which are reliant on fossil fuels and each come with their own environmental impacts.

         Paddock (1970) sees the Green Revolution as merely a way of ‘postponing the day of reckoning’ when the growth of food production will be slowed by rational means or by an indescribable catastrophe. Calculations on fossil fuel reserves indicate that the agricultural crisis will only begin to impact upon us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050 (Pfeifer, 2004). However, the current peaking of global oil production and the peak of North American natural gas production may cause this crisis to begin much sooner.

‘To many, the Green Revolution is a turning point in man’s long war against the biological limitations of the earth’ (Paddock, 1970).

But the earth is fighting back!

Timeline of English Agricultural Developments

I have created a very brief timeline, adapting info from BBC British History to highlight some of the changes in Agriculture leading up to the Green Revolution.

I now hope to focus my posts on the environmental impacts of these changes, in the UK and globally.