Georgia is the center of the poultry industry. At a local luncheon the former president of the largest poultry operation in the state recently (October 2012) said the industry grew tremendously since 1970 from 1.5 billion to 7.5 billions pounds of chicken a year. He added that by 2050 the world’s population will be 9.1 billion up 34 percent from the current 6.8 billion and meat production must increase by 74 percent.
His comments and others like his, operate at two levels – the explicit and the implicit. Explicitly there is huge growing demand (not only from the population increase but from increased demand for meat as people around the world earn more) and this is a selling opportunity so long as the infrastructure is in place, otherwise production will move to Latin America, etc. But there is also an implicit assertion – that there is a moral imperative to provide food for the growing population of the world.
And once you accept the implicit assertion you are boxed in. Because only conventional agriculture (Green Revolution now enhanced by GMO’s) can demonstrably supply the quantity of food required by the growing masses. I remember discussing organic growing with an intelligent younger person who accepted all the virtues of safer more nutritious food produced sustainably while caring for the environment, but concluded by saying that the big drawback, if organic production was the norm, was there wouldn’t be enough food for everyone. And that is the box I find myself in.
A big reason for the increase in world populations has been the availability of cheap food as a consequence of the Green Revolution, you can trace the correlation. But these production practices are not sustainable, using the definition of sustainable development as “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” How do you brake a runaway train charging down a hill? No one wants wars or famine nor environmental collapse. No easy answers, but at least escape the box and say it would be no bad thing if food prices began to gradually rise as we transition to more sustainable growing methods with better quality food and it would be no bad thing either if the world population gradually fell to sustainable levels. Or do I have it wrong?
Green Revolution agriculture has billions, probably trillions of dollars invested in research and breeding work. ‘Normal’ agriculture can’t compete with this. Not only this, but organic agriculture depends on a healthy environment, and there’s a limited amount of this left for agriculture. Most of our planet is seriously damaged by now. We simply aren’t going to abandon the GR tomorrow, that’s for sure.
Another issue is meat. The world’s meat production is at a very high level right now, and it’s not realistic to think this level of production could be achieved in a natural way. Too much land would be required for grazing and growing hay. Realistically, the level of meat production has to drop about 90%.
We are also currently growing many types of crops unsustainably, for example grapes that need massive amounts of water, in Australia. We are also used to eating things out of season, and shipped from the opposite hemisphere. Lots of things like this would need to change, and in fact need to change now. It’s not that we would need to accept less, but we would need to think differently about what we eat.
Except for these issues, there’s not one shred of credible evidence to suggest GR agriculture would be any more productive than normal/organic agriculture.
There’s no reason why most regions in the world can’t grow their food locally, and have complete sovereignty over it. There’s no reason we have to feed the world by growing inappropriate commodity crops in inappropriate climates, and transport them all over the world.
They had this argument at the FAO a few years ago over Africa. They were developing a plan of sorts for feeding Africa for the future, and and asked if it need to be GR style? Some study was done, and the conclusion was ‘organic agriculture could feed Africa’. I think if you Google on this, you’ll find stuff about this on the Internet.
While at the time of the GR there was both a food increase and a population increase, I’m not of the opinion you can say there’s a dependency. It is simply a lie to say GR agriculture is more productive, just like it’s simply a lie to say the corn just grown during the mid-western drought was drought tolerant.
This is how the food industry works, they lie and wait for others to prove their are lying. When they’re caught lying, they move on to the next lie. They promised us weeds wouldn’t develop Round-Up resistance. We all knew it would happen, and now that it has, they’re moving on to the next herbicide.
You need to get used to hearing all the propaganda, and recognizing it as a lie from the get-go.
I think like I’ve said before, it’s not that some good things haven’t come out of the GR. They should, after all the money invested into it. The basic premise of the GR however, is just a lie.
In my own growing activities I am not at a point where my organic growing has the same yield as NPK, though my growing is ‘cide free and provides tastier and healthier food. But I also have a long ways to go and hopefully am improving with each season. Also, aside from NPK, monocropping is more efficient to plant, nurture and harvest, and therefore more efficient. But at a big cost to diversity, soil health and resilience. This is based on my own observations and so that is why I struggle with the issue in the post.
However, as you suggested, I googled “FAO organic agriculture” and found a discussion titled “Can organic farmers produce enough food for everybody?” which avers this is possible, provided the soil is not too damaged, there is sufficient water, and land tenure/ownership is not an issue. So thanks for the reference.
But how to get there? As long as there is doubt, people will not sacrifice in the short term for the long term solution – until there is a major event like Sandy and the reality of environmental change/damage is apparent. I agree that with more research, traditional growing yields will be enhanced, but if the chemical and agricultural complex will not profit, who will do the funding? Recent government ventures into alternative energy were not successful.
Okay, lots of conflated things here again.
First of all pesticides and other agro-chemicals, NPK and GR seeds (hybrids, GMOs and whatnot) go together. These are all GR products. They are all designed to work together, be dependent on one another and used in mono-cultures.
OP/heirloom varieties developed specially for organic culture, and to be grown in conjunction with biodiversity, are something different.
If you’re somehow trying to conflate these two concepts, you’re probably getting disappointing results.
NPK causes a lot of damage very quickly to the soil. This has always been the way the GR has imposed it’s dominance over organic culture. By giving away free GR seeds and fertilizer the first season, the agriculture companies ensure soil is no longer suitable for organic culture, and the farmers become completely dependent on the argo-companies. Yes, supposedly after 2-3 years of no chemicals the ground is suitable for organic culture again, but this is just for ‘certified organic’, and the reality is something else. If you’re using NPK now, it may very well be decades or more before you can consider your land as fully recovered.
I was reading about an organic grain farm in Australia, where the land had been in the family for generations so they knew the complete history of it. They said the land was fully organic, except once in the 1950s there was an application of super-phosphate. Both that application of phosphate, as well as the fact that it’s otherwise free of chemicals, are important aspects to how the farm operates today.
Yes, it’s true. GR farming is more ‘efficient’. It saves a lot in labor, and lends itself to economies of scale. It replaces human labor with fossil fuels. In part this comes for all the investment the GR has, but in part we’re all going to have to get used to the idea that a lot more people are going to need to work longer hours on farms.
In terms of government ventures into alternative research and funding, I’m not going to go there. I think a lot of this has to do with the issues of the election today, and it just has to be sorted out. This is just like the issue of short and long term gains.
In terms of how to get there?
Start a blog. Talk to people one on one, and explain the issues. This takes a lot of time!
Become vegetarian or cut back sharply on your meat consumption. If you eat meat, make sure it’s sustainably raised.
Reduce your consumption of out of season and unsustainably grown foods.
Reduce your personal consumption of energy.
Support your local farmers.
Start a garden or farm and grow some of your own food, organically — without NPK. Learn how growing food works and teach others. Learn basic seed saving and plant breeding techniques. Trade seeds. These are all skills where there are critical shortages, and they take time to learn.
These are all things that make a difference.
When you do any of these things, you highlight the issues. Consider that even the Obamas on a personal level do many of these things. What he does as a president is of course something different…
Two good posts – thank you. With respect to remediation do you have experience or views on the biodynamic approach? I just finished reading Steiner’s 1924 agricultural lectures, which were interesting. Without getting into astral forces, I think there are for me some practical takeaways. Your suggestions for spreading the message are sensible – I still think most people are vested in their habits and beliefs, and will not respond to food and environmental issues until they are forced down that road. But that certainly should not diminish the resolve of the rest of us to push for change.
Biodynamic is very popular in Europe, and Demeter is a well know certification for this. Many people here are very committed to the concept.
Yes, I think biodynamic food tastes better, but personally I think it comes more down to a farmer giving extra care to what he produces. I’m not a great believer in the astral forces.