It’s 9 Jan and time to conclude…
(NOTE: This is a rather long
post hehe… but I really hope it sums up my blog well!!)
Thought I’d give a brief recap of
the main posts (leaving out the interesting-to-know nuggets for now) just so I
can come to a reasonable conclusion. Refer to the actual posts for videos/citations
etc. J
For easier
reading…
1)
In BLUE- Guide for the journey through & Important
points
2) In RED- quotes that I have
collected that I think sum up the issue well!
3) In BLACK: Summaries of the posts
4) In GREEN: Some additional points I have gleaned from a
very insightful documentary that provides a nice conclusion…
|
It’s
always helpful to start with a big-picture/ retrospective view of things to let
it inform our future decisions. So first we looked at the origins and evolution
of agriculture...
POST #2: History of Agriculture: Origins
Various theories & evidence that led to the domestication of crops & livestock. These include:
Various theories & evidence that led to the domestication of crops & livestock. These include:
a.
Relegation
to ‘oases’ after the Younger Dryas
b.
Suitability
of Climate
c.
Technological
invention
d.
Population
Pressure
e.
Self-actualisation
No definite conclusion
on the fundamental cause/initiation but indications of interacting factors esp
through positive feedbacks that allowed the sustenance and propagation of
agriculture worldwide.
Differences
in evidence between global locations led me to the conclusion that “it is probably a result of macro- and micro-scale
factors: common broad factors which nudged the move but different strategies
employed which were tailored to immediate conditions.”
LESSON DRAWN:
Acknowledge multi-factorial nature + Varying Localized conditions
Mechanisms
used for greater productivity
f.
Crop
selection
g.
Acquiring
tools à Use of
animal power (E.g. plough)
h.
Industrial
agriculture- mechanical transport, fertilisers, pesticides, CAFOs, GMOs
Movements
countering the green revolution: Organic Farming i.e. Back-to-the-Past methods
LESSON
DRAWN: Agriculture drew upon the expertise of technological and scientific
knowledge but the negative ecological effects of agriculture makes us question
how beneficial the technological development and sound the scientific
knowledge/ application has been.
Then
we went on to evaluate if the problem of ‘excessive nitrogen use’, for which
modern agriculture is the culprit, was really a problem.
The problems (eutrophication,
health effects, dependence on fossil fuels to make nitrogen fertilizers etc.)
brought about by excessive nutrient inputs into ecosystems are undeniable, but
the limits we should delineate are
not agreed upon.
LESSON
DRAWN: It is not rational to dramatically reduce nitrogen in puts everywhere. it all really depends on
local conditions. The key is in understanding the balance of each system. While
we can’t currently prove with much certainty that we will cross ‘planetary
boundaries’ into another unknown and frightening state, but from the examples
of ‘multiple-states’ in ecosystems, there is a justification for precaution
here. More importantly, this presents not only a problem but an opportunity for
better stewardship, it is afterall safe
to say that ‘preventive action’ is always better/more efficient than ‘curative
action’.
We
went on to look at the dominant/popular alternative of Organic Farming which
came (in part) as a response to some of the lacks in Conventional Agriculture
There remains uncertainty in
terms of scientific justification for better macronutritional health benefits
of organic food though it does rule out the ingestion of pesticides (which are
harmful or not depending on how much one subscribes to the reliability of
FDA/regulatory authorities’ testing of these products) and there is evidence
higher amounts of good nutrients e.g. in grass-fed beef. Once again, the
precautionary principle is often applied here.
"the absence of proof means that
we either haven't studied it or we haven't found it yet, it doesn't mean we
won't. In the meantime, there's a precautionary principle: even though the case
isn't closed on low levels of pesticides in our diet, there are very good
reasons to minimize them."
-Michael Pollen
The environmental basis is also
mixed. In terms of yields, some growing conditions allow organic foods to
nearly match conventional ones though this cannot be said for all. The main
argument comes in here: more organic agriculture = more manure (more emission!)
& more landuse (more deforestation!). Accordingly, it seems that the
Organic Movement is too lacking- it might be beneficial for health but not for
the environment.
LESSON
DRAWN: It is not so much synthetics VS natural but more of the modes of
production that we should be looking at.
The lack of ecosystem & health benefits under the guise of the
‘Organic’ Label is perhaps because Organic Agriculture isn’t as radical as it
should be..! There is a need for better
alternatives that focuses on more on how the process should be in tune with our
environment…
"Large-scale organic is much the
same as conventional agriculture in that it is all numbers -- get the most
yield in the fewest days."
- Farmer Kira Kinney of Evolutionary
Organics farm
What
then should guide our future development in agriculture? We looked at lessons
of the past from our experiences with agriculture and drew several principles
that can be inferred from the above…
The Green Revolution:
Problem #1: Wholesale adoption of technology without adaptation to localized
environments
Principle #1: Much care has to be
taken when touting a "global or cure-all" solution, and many good
solutions still have to be tailored to local conditions.
Problem #2:
A Technocractic Approach
Principle #2: Socially-sensitive
Change is required
Problem #3: Perspectives have been
to narrow- EITHER Ignoring the Environment OR Dismissing Productivity
Principle #3: An Ecologically sound
approach taking into account the myriad of Environmental Goals (e.g. unsustainable
water withdrawals, biodiversity loss, water pollution) in addition to Food
Security
Problem #4: Food distribution &
wastage woes make up a surprisingly big piece of the pie!
Principle #4: Remember, yields is not equivalent to food!
LESSON DRAWN: There is agreement that in light of the
population boom & global environmental change, solutions should be geared
to fulfil 2 aims
i)
High
Productivity
ii)
Environmental
Sustainability
“Perhaps a
helpful plumbline to guide us would be considering harm if the long-term costs
to humans exceed the short-term food production gain and whether or not these
agricultural methods can be part of the solution (instead of the problem) of
various environmental issues.”
Then
we went in search for alternatives!
It has been put forth that GMOs
are both very beneficial to the environment and health. That statement even if
it might true, should be taken with some amount of caution- esp when experts
who have been in that very field caution against the use of the technologies…
Nevertheless, I did not delve deeply into this issue but given the newness and
uncertainties of such a new technology, are there alternatives that have
similar benefits minus these uncertainties?
Agroforestry
certainly fits the bill of maximising production while providing environmental
benefits of better soil condition, higher biodiversity, carbon storage. The
issue lies with its feasibility. There have been successes but these come with
an in-depth understanding and tailoring of species to conditions..
This is a curious one. While
there have been anecdotal and some empirical evidence of higher crop yields
with the rather random “treatments”. Perhaps
the success have been a result of ‘hormone-like effects’ of the additions or
perhaps it is due to their more ‘ecologically-in-tune’ cycles adhering to
nature… I might say that this is a bit far fetched to be applied widely now.
Perhaps more research in the future will prove its effectiveness, perhaps not-
for now the jury is really still out
This is a convincing one. High
yields with hardly any external inputs and low energy mechanical aids. All
these because the farmer does a duty of understanding the environment- how one
species’ wastes becomes another’s food and really squeezing dry the
‘mutualistic’ relationships. Very ecologically sound.. Feasible? Well there are
certainly small scale success that lead one to gasp in amazement. More work
needs to be done to see if it can be applied globally!
An understanding of large-scale
agriculture does fulfil the 2 criteria if done well too! While the above has
shown that small-scale environments allow for sensitive tailoring and great
success, there is still hope for industrial systems which might be the most feasible
step next given the infrastructure already in place. This methods involves:
understanding crop requirements (with the use of technology like GPS i.e.
Precision agriculture), small amounts of synthetics, crop rotations and
integrated pest management (biological methods to control pests). Not too
different from Joel Salatin and co.’s small polycropping farms if you ask me!
=> LESSONS DRAWN:
The more ‘ecologically-sound’ methods (or at least those
promoted as that) have shown differing i) usefulness ii) feasibilities. Generally
agroforestry & polycropping- these systems that harness the benefits of
animals, trees and crops show great result. Here's what I've learnt:
1) Biodiversity is important
This is something that really left a mark on me after all
that reading. The things that work encourage diversity on many levels, not only
crop diversity but the use of fauna, and soil microbial diversity. This is all
the more important of course given the biodiversity crisis and the need for
crops to respond to a changing climate (See “Post #14 In the News this week… Agriculture responding to ClimateChange”) It is my personal opinion that one should maximize this
through the use of the myriad of crops
(currently mainly in seedbanks only) made available by evolution. One
thing’s for sure, the monoculture is unlikely the way to go….
"Biodiversity protects our food"
"Every plant is important in some way"
-
Someone
from the video below
2) It is important to understand the symbiotic relationships
between animals and plants, macro invertebrates and plants, ultimately enabling us to develop them, Technology should
be tools to this end, not drivers of the system.
Those systems that work aim to understand the balance of an
ecological system and not go all out on a single aim. We need a life/nutrient-cycle view to
agriculture- nothing in nature is useless i.e. not a linear raw material
->product-> waste system! Life in the soil creates grass health which
supports and maximizes the harnessing of solar energy. Using synthetics isn’t
bad and might even be necessary in some cases what’s important is that technology
should be environmentally-friendly. The video below shos that there are farms
that are thriving WITHOUT the use of fertilizer or heavy machinery. Why? Hay is
not needed and not gathered because Cattle are able to stay out in winter
without rooting out all the grass because of root health of grass attributed to
a diversity of grass present.
(No-till/ ploughing → Maintains Invertebrate diversity→ Allows
topsoil fertility → Allows Grass diversity → Allows strength of grass rooting →
All year round grazing)
"The only reason why modern agriculture could get
away with killing life in the soil is by another use of fossil fuel. This time
it is by turning it into chemical fertilizer…. we use fertilizers to grow plants in soil that
is otherwise dead"
-
Someone
from the video below
We wanted to show that small amounts of
synthetic inputs are very powerful tools, but they’re tools with which you tune
the system, not drive it,”
-Adam Davis, a researcher with the United States Department
of Agriculture.
"Chemicals are like a drug-trip- you need a bigger
injection to get the same kick every time"
-Joel Salatin
"Work the land, observe it instead of fighting
against it"
-
Someone
from the video below
3) A step further… Biomimicry in farming??
Now this last point brings me on to a final video (great video really!). This video shows a farmers’ journey on finding a low-energy
and feasible farm of the future. One of the most interesting parts (last half
of the video I think?) is that about learning form forests- the most productive
ecosystems on earth. This
approach involves “Taking the principles of this and bending them to
something more edible" and what you get is “a forest garden… is like
half a dozen fields stacked one on top of each other". This involves
using trees to feed animals! A step further into agroforestry I guess? Sounds
intriguing & promising indeed!
Just like to say a Big THANK YOU!
To all who have accompanied me on this meaningful journey… Think I’ve been able
to develop my writing a little? (in terms of argument-structuring and speed at
least I hope!). And it’s been great fun getting do rethink and question the
things I am excited about- by far one of the most fun things I have done in
university hehe…
Why care about all this you might ask? My blog heading has the quote:
"Eating is an agricultural act" - Wendell
Berry
Eating concerns both OUR HEATLH & OUR ENVIRONMENT: It’s not only climate change, but our fossil fuel dependence.
Since the 1980s, we have been "eating into our inheritance"
going from an "oil crisis" to an "oil famine". Amidst all the food choices we
have, how can we as consumers do that?
“Think of the Sticker VS Actual
cost/benefit to both our health and environment.”
-
Joel Salatin
"We pay three times for our food: at
the register, with our health care, and via agricultural subsidies"
- Michael Pollan, Fresh The Movie
Sometimes, the easy way out/convenience
doesn't always save us money it comes at a hidden cost to our health and
environment. But if we take a close look
in appreciation of the wealth of processes that nature has already in place and
harness that, it would not only facilitate our survival but to me it also adds
beauty and meaning to life.
I started my blog with this question “Put it
plainly: if one tries to be healthy (which
could also mean feeding the earth here), does that mean he necessarily is
harming the environment and vice versa?”
I’m encouraged to say that possibly, the answer is no. In the end, I still do stand by this view:"Since
Man is dependent on and part of nature (environment), whatever is best for
nature would be best for Man(health). Hence the development or nature is not
contrary to the development of human society i.e. the two are not mutually
exclusive. (If it helps, this is a 'co-evolutionist' ethical perspective on the
human-environment relationship.)" Hopefully now I can say that there is indeed some evidence to back that up
(though this is just a shallow dip into the whole field, and I’ll be happy to
stand corrected on what I’ve figured out). And if we work hard in the direction of these
alternatives, it is quite an exciting future for agriculture even amidst the
problems :) What we need now is really, the will I guess..!
On that note, Goodbye everyone! Eat well, Live well J
