FARMING NOTES – JUNE 2015
The case for intensive agriculture – A recent article by Ted Nordhaus, based on a June 3rd speech at the Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy Symposium, made the case for decoupling the intensification of agriculture from the natural environment. Clearly it is critical that we maintain the sustainability and health of the precious soil and water of our farmland to ensure continued productivity for future generations. Yet at the same time we must not turn our backs on the technologies that have allowed the huge increases in productivity that have resulted from the continued application of science and development. Better to accept that we need to do our best to maintain our good farmland so that the non-farm ecosystems can support natural plants and wildlife. The example he gives is monarch butterflies which depend on milkweed to complete their life cycle. Corn and other crop producers need to control competing vegetation if they are to attain optimal yields so such weeds (plants out of place) as milkweed need to be controlled. If corn yields, for example, had not increased 4.6 times from 37 to 171 bushels per acre from 1951 to 2014, we would have needed 389 million acres of corn rather than the actual 83.1 million acres farmed last year to produce the crop. Nordhaus reminds us that low-productivity food systems have had devastating impacts on the environment. Increased productivity has allowed us to abandon marginal farmland. “First, and most importantly, the food system needs to grow enough food to meet the basic nutritional needs of somewhere in the vicinity of nine billion people by the middle of this century…..We need to accelerate the long-term process of growing more food on less land….Making more room for nature will, perhaps counterintuitively, require that we use the land on which we produce food more exclusively for production. A world with more forests, grasslands and wetlands, and more biodiversity within them, will require less biodiversity in our fields.” Article in Genetic Literacy Project. June 9, 2015 Honey Bees were introduced into the U.S. by early settlers as they provided the sweetness we now obtain from the cheap sugar obtained from cane sugar (tropical) and sugar beet (temperate climate). There are many local bee species (around 4,000!) but honey bees are very efficient pollinators and honey producers and live in significant colonies or hives that may reach 60,000 bees at their peak. An industrious worker bee may visit 2,000 flowers per day but a single bee only produces 1/12th of a teaspoon of honey in her lifetime. There are around 120,000 beekeepers, mostly hobbyists, with millions of hives. Many of our crops require pollination and it is estimated that honey bees pollinate approximately 25-33% of all the foods we humans consume. Another estimate indicates that bees impact 50-80 percent of the global food supply. Cornell estimated the value to be $29 billion in 2010. A USDA survey of bee population is carried out each year and it was found that in 2013/2014 total losses of honey bee colonies were 49.5% much larger than the 23.2 % the previous year but all recent years have been above the 18.7% level beekeepers consider economically sustainable. Losses have normally been higher in winter than during the summer but in 2014/2015 the reverse was the case. There is much debate about the reason for the reduction in population both in winter and summer. Varroa mites have certainly been a problem and lack of suitable habitat in both farm, suburban and “natural” environments is recognized as playing an important role. The effective neonicotinoid insecticides are known to be toxic to bees. They are widely used as seed treatments and labels prohibit spraying crops when crops are flowering and bees are around. The EU has placed a temporary ban on this group of insecticides although the science indicates that there are many factors causing the losses. USDA is carrying out research to decide if neonicotinoids should be banned in the US. The water wars are undoubtedly underway. Most visible is California which has suffered drought for 11 years out of the last 15. Agriculture contributes 2% of the state’s GDP yet consumes 80% of the available water. Alfalfa is the biggest user and a significant percentage of this crop is exported. Does this make sense? Almonds, valued at over $6 billion, are exported to 90 countries and California production represents almost 100% of US consumption. They are grown on around 840,000 acres and are the next biggest water user, representing 10% of California’s agricultural consumption and needing about as much water each year as the entire city of Los Angeles does in three years. Can this admittedly high value, high efficiency crop be economically and environmentally justified as 97.2 gallons of water are required to produce one ounce of fresh shelled nuts? 74% of our lettuce comes from California which requires 0.85 gallon to produce 1 oz. of lettuce. How about beef? UC Davis estimated that 441 gallons of water are required to produce a pound of beef. The Water Footprint Network estimates the much higher 1,845 gallons, even a hamburger at 450 gallons and beef taco 169 gallons. Might it be better to produce beef in other parts of the country where water is more plentiful and sustainable? These will be some of the challenges that will be faced in those states suffering from drought. There is every indication that climate change will exacerbate the drought. While it is claimed that cities and suburban communities can reduce their water needs, California expects another 12 million citizens in the future. Clearly agriculture will have to adopt technology and practices that reduce water use, already many low value crops have been abandoned. We do not have the California West Coast climate but we do have excellent soil and well distributed rainfall and huge markets on our doorstep. Surely we have an opportunity to increase production of those seasonal crops we can produce well. This will be challenging because of the scale and expertise of western production and their highly sophisticated marketing and transportation system. Climate change will require much adaptation but it also offers opportunities. Will we be able to grasp them?
Contributed by: Duncan Allison