|
Suggesting that agricultural
producers should join the green parade of environmental
sustainability seems illogical, at best. At worst, it seems
ludicrous. After all, anyone without a knack and understanding
for managing natural resources won’t be in business long.
That’s what’s happening, though, as
a growing number of consumers—still the mass minority—clamor for
organic and natural products. Their perception that such
products are healthier for them is part of it, but it also has
to do with a desire to know where what they eat comes from and
whether it was raised in keeping with Mother Nature, even though
most know less about Mother Nature than they due the subtleties
of metaphysics.
“We find increasingly strong
evidence that consumers expect both chain and independent
restaurants to be more socially responsive, and nutrition is a
clear priority,” says Bob Goldin, Executive Vice President of
Technomics, a strategic and research consultant to the food and
food service industries. In April, Technomics conducted its
second annual Corporate Social Responsibility Study. Close to
80% of consumers in that study claim they would respond
favorably to a socially responsible restaurant by visiting more
often and/or paying more.
According to the latest data
available from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), the
number of certified organic beef cattle grew from 13,829 in 2000
to 36,113 in 2005. Certified organic pastureland and rangeland
increased from 557,167 acres to 2.3 million acres during the
same time; 1.7 million acres of crop land was certified organic
in 2005.
Interestingly, ERS also points
out organic pasture and rangeland declined 6% between 2001 and
2003, mostly for rangeland in the West. As USDA implemented
uniform organic standards—including stringent standards for
livestock—the folks at ERS say some organic ranchers switched to
the natural meat market exclusively.
It’s About More than Food
At the same time there is a segment of the population,
including some agricultural producers who equate
economics-driven agriculture to non-sustainable practices.
“For those who strongly believe
in neoclassical economics and the power of the marketplace, it
is assumed that any scarcity in natural resources will be
adjusted for by the price of those materials in the market,”
writes Charles A. Francis, in a provocative paper, Greening of
Agriculture for Long-term Sustainability. The professor of
agronomy from the University of Nebraska continues, “However,
this approach externalizes many costs and usually does not
include the environmental impacts, nor long-term social
consequences of economic decisions. For others who see our
species as one more among many millions, and one that currently
appropriates a highly disproportionate fraction of resources for
our use, the short-term market approach is short sighted and
destructive. These people believe that we share the planet with
other life forms and in the health of the ecosystem lies our own
potential for continued survival.”
Then there is the radical fringe
that comes up with all kinds of pseudo-logic and pseudo science
to support their claims that modern agriculture is at the root
of environmental and societal problems.
“The current industrial farm
animal production (IFAP) system often pose unacceptable risks to
public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals
themselves,” concludes a controversial study conducted by the
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP),
released in April.
Among its recommendations are an
end to gestation crates in the swine industry, prohibition of
using antimicrobials for non-therapeutic in livestock and
increased regulation over contracts made between producers and
processors.
“The goal of this Commission is
to sound the alarms that significant change is urgently needed
in industrial farm animal production,” says John Carlin, PCIFAP
Chairman. “I believe that the IFAP system was first developed
simply to help increase farmer productivity and that the
negative effects were never intended. Regardless, the
consequences are real and serious and must be addressed.”
Understand, according to the
Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), the Pew Charitable Trusts
behind PCIFAP also underwrites in part a number of organizations
cattle producers would throw in the same camp as PETA or HSUS.
More specifically they fund other organizations like the Tides
Foundation, which has been likened to a money laundering
service, the intermediary between radical activist groups and
donors who wish to remain anonymous. According to CCF’s
ActivistCash.com site, the Pew organization has given right at
$119 million to the Tides Foundation and Tides Center.
Reaction to the study findings by
mainstream livestock organizations is that the report is biased
and that technical information provided by the livestock
industry was largely ignored.
“Despite our best efforts, we were not a meaningful part of the
commission’s activities,” said Kay Johnson Smith, Executive Vice
President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. “Much of the
information and many of the experts offered to the commission
were apparently either ignored or not used by the commission
when formulating these recommendations. Highly respected experts
from major land grant universities who either made presentations
to the commission or conducted research at its request stated
that they felt the commissioners had pre-conceived notions about
the U.S. livestock industry.”
“There was a lack of balance
among commission members, and the commission’s work was directed
by a group unfriendly to animal agriculture,” said Bryan Black,
president of the National Pork Producers Council. “As a result,
in its deliberations, the commission did not give adequate
weight to the views of the numerous credible voices from within
commercial animal agriculture who share the commission’s
objectives for a livestock sector that is protective of the
environment, food safety, public health and animal welfare… it’s
hard for us to react to the substance of the commission report
because it failed to issue all but one of its technical papers.
The lack of serious, fact-based findings and apparent reliance
on numerous anecdotal, non-peer reviewed allegations only
confirms our perception that the report recommendations were
largely predetermined.”
Of course, the general public has
no way of knowing that.
Green by Any Other Name
Far as that goes, the term Green has so many definitions
that there’s no standard to gauge by.
Radical-minded and populist green
purists like The Green Party of the United States espouse a
platform that extends beyond the environment to decentralization
of economic power, to community-based economics and feminism.
On the other hand, folks like
Francis take a pragmatic, objective view, though the notions
they broach are sometimes troubling to mainstream agricultural
producers who let conscience, common sense and the market guide
their stewardship.
Arguably, the void between
questions and answers about the most vexing subjects related to
sustainability is filled with miscommunication and the lack of
it. Communicating what producers do in the name of environmental
and cultural sustainability is usually at the bottom of the
industry’s to-do list.
For instance, it might seem
logical to consumers that beef from cattle spending a lifetime
grazing forage would be more environmentally friendly than
choosing beef from cattle that have spent a couple-hundred days
consuming grain from crops tilled, planted, fertilized,
harvested and processed mechanically with the use of fossil
fuels. Science says otherwise, though (see below).
The more earnest questions behind
the Green Debate revolve around who controls natural resources
through private ownership and what say if any the public should
have in how those resources are managed.
Reconciling Want and Need
“Serious consideration of limited natural resources,
efficient and judicious use of nonrenewable resources, and care
for the environment in which we all live is critical to health
of the ecosystem and our own well-being,” says Francis. “We must
take a broad view of the environment, a long-term perspective on
resource use, and a practical outlook on what is possible with
current resources and population plus those projected for the
future. We need a thoughtful sorting out of our needs versus our
wants.”
In the paper mentioned earlier,
Francis outlines economic challenges and solutions, including
the necessary short-time business focus used to measure
agricultural efficiency.
“…the very least that can be done
is to recognize inconsistencies in the time frames and accept
that current accounting is unrealistic to measure real
agricultural sustainability, except as shown by consistent
returns to investors. It is obvious that we need a longer time
frame for planning and sustainability,” says Francis. “We need
an ecological accounting, one that includes a measure of
ecological resource availability for our generation as well as
for people in the future, an equity in distribution of benefits,
and one that includes health of the ecosystem for ourselves and
other species.”
Next, Francis outlines
Environmental challenges and solutions, including those
surrounding carbon emissions and water; the notion that what we
do one place affects another.
“The tragedy of the commons, where resources are shared by
everyone and there is no economic incentive for individual
stewardship is alive and well in our current industrial
agriculture.” Says Francis.
Finally, he looks at social
challenges and solutions. This is the place plenty of folks who
believe in capitalism will suffer the most severe heartburn.
“The current economic paradigm is
focused on individual wealth and accumulation of land and
capital… If we are concerned about equity and social justice, we
need to seek models that will maintain a broad ownership of land
and resources as envisioned by Jefferson and promoted by the
original land grant university system. Cooperation should be the
guideline rather than uncontrolled competition,” says Francis.
But, somewhere along the way
people need to be fed.
“If the world plans to have
forests, wildlands, and wildlife species in the 22nd century,
then we’ll need to triple the crop yields on the land we already
farm—just for food and feed.
Except for a chunk of western
Brazil, there isn’t much high-quality cropland left in the world
for cropland expansion, and none of it extra for biofuels,” says
Dennis Avery, Director of the Hudson Institute Center for Global
Food Issues (CGFI) in a May commentary. “But the same people who
don’t want us to burn coal are telling us not to raise
high-yield crops either.
Greenpeace and the World Wildlife
Fund tell us not to use nitrogen fertilizer taken from the air.
They demand organic-only nitrogen from cattle manure or green
manure crops—but such low-yield systems produce only half as
much food per acre.”
Unit production per input hasn’t
exploded over the past 50 years by ignoring the science. The
fact that a majority of producers have embraced production
efficiencies, which also happen to exploit economic efficiency,
means that more people have been fed than without them. Of
course, you’re talking about a society that has only begun
quacking about burning corn in their gas tanks because of the
price.
Earlier this year Dennis and Alex
Avery released a study—The Environmental Safety and Benefits of
Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production
–indicating that, “Pound-for-pound, beef produced with grains
and growth hormones produces 40 percent less greenhouse gas
emissions and saves two-thirds more land for nature compared to
organic grass-fed beef.” Analysts at the Hudson Institute’s CGFI
used beef production models from Iowa State University’s Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions
estimates from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“Environmentally conscious
consumers who have been told that grass-raised beef is more
environmentally sensitive and sustainable should rethink their
beef purchases in light of our findings,” says Alex Avery. “In
short, growth promoting implants safely and responsibly allow
humanity to produce more beef from less feed, using less land,
and creating less waste.”
If you happen to be a fan of grass-fed beef, put your pens and
guns away. The statement is not an indictment of grass-feeding,
but the findings of a scientific study that lend perspective to
assumptions.
In the Executive Summary of Fifty
Years of Pharmaceutical Technology and its Impact on Beef we
provide to Consumers, researchers Thomas Elam and Rodney Preston
conclude, “Through a combination of research, technology
development and innovation, the U.S. beef cattle industry has
increased beef production per head of cattle by over 80 percent
in the last 50 years. Furthermore, the total production of beef
has doubled, from 13.2 to about 27 billion pounds, in the same
period of time.
“Pharmaceutical technology,
genetics, nutrition, pasture management, stocker management and
feedlot production have all played important roles. Increases in
grain (corn) yields and a reduction in the real prices of grains
have been pivotal in the growth of the feedlot industry, which
has enhanced the efficiency of beef production and improved the
consistency and quality of the end product. The overall impact
of these technologies has been to keep beef cost-competitive in
the consumer’s market basket while simultaneously improving its
quality. Pharmaceuticals have greatly facilitated and enhanced
the increased importance of grain feeding in the U.S. beef
production system.”
Then there are those pesky social
wonderments again.
“These overarching concerns about
the quest for long term sustainability must be taken into
consideration as we seek strategies for a true greening of
agricultural corporations and their activities,” says Francis.
“How we define sustainability—the time frame, the boundary
issues, and the reliance on current fossil fuels—depends very
much on the assumptions we make about global economic and social
stability. This in turn is influenced by our world view of
nature and about natural ecosystems and resources. Making these
assumptions explicit is essential if there is to be credibility
of programs with non-profit environmental groups, organizations
concerned with social justice and equity, and the general
public.”
Agree or not, the industry needs to come to grips with the
topics raised by Francis, in the name of sustainability.
For Francis’ paper, see:
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/96/5/1211
For the Avery study, see:
www.cgfi.org
For the Elam/Preston study, go to:
www.beeftechnologies.com |
