If you checked out last week's blog, you'll see I'm in the middle of a conversation with Brent Swartzendruber, a farmer from Henderson, Neb. We've been debating the merits of conventional farming vs. other methods, and what will be sustainable and still feed the world in years to come. Here's the latest:

Mike,
I grant that there are some who want to see agriculture go back to a Norman Rockwell painting as a way of alleviating anxiety about our over-consumptive lifestyles in general. But would you also consider that standard views of Ag are "romantic" in thinking, that we can go on the same as we have? Our system is 100% dependent on fossil fuels from beginning to end. This causes global warming and makes our farm economy very unstable.

Michael Pollan and others do not suggest that production Ag will go away, only that we must stop eating oil. I also think it is "romantic" to suggest that we are the only ones who can feed the world. This too can be "dangerous" and "morally corrupt." The world can feed itself. What gets in the way is warfare, political corruption, and predatory trade practices. Our own overproduction of subsidized crops leads to "dumping" of commodities on other countries that in turn ruins the living of local farmers who cannot compete with "under the cost of production" prices.

The jury is still out on the overall experience of the Green Revolution. Are you aware of the negative effects of the Green Revolution in India? Many, many farmers' lives have been destroyed through indebtedness and a forced reliance on commercial fertilizers and chemicals that have not kept yield high in the long run. Higher yields have not led to less hungry people because larger farms make wealth unattainable for many.

You suggest that other ways of farming will drive up prices and leave people hungry. Did you note the food riots that occurred when oil spiked two years ago?  Overproduction by a few does not lead to food security for all. I don't think those who are questioning our current system are trying to drive ag "backwards," but toward a system that is sustainable (as our current track is not).

--Brent  

Brent,
I never suggested modern Ag should never change or get set in its ways. If that were the case we wouldn’t see the productivity gains we have seen over the last several years.
 
Fossil fuels are a case in point. If Michael Pollan were only preaching that we need to stop using oil, then I would be a big follower of his. We all know that oil is a finite resource. Our May/June issue criticizes commercial agriculture for not moving in the direction of more sustainable practices. My interview with Howard Buffett, which appears online, takes a closer look at how farmers today must be willing to learn new ways of capturing organic matter and nutrients from cover crops when (not if) oil shoots upwards, taking fertilizer prices with it.

I agree that people pushing for our current ways of doing business are highly motivated to continue those ways; people in the fertilizer and equipment business, for example.
 
You may also have a point on who will feed the world. Brazil is also quite capable of feeding other countries. Hopefully there will be others as well, but to say “the world can feed itself” doesn’t make sense – it cannot and is not feeding itself right now. How will it ‘feed itself’ on the same land base for an additional 3 billion people by 2050? Most countries are not set up economically or politically to be self sustaining (African countries are the poster child, but there are others).

Some of the brighter minds at Global Harvest Initiative talk about how the world’s farmers – and a vast majority are very small stakeholders - must be modernized with a combination of scale-neutral practices that best fit the region and markets. If that does happen, higher yields and efficiency will drive some farmers out of business. That’s the price you pay for greater productivity.
 
-- Mike

Mike,
I think we are closer on some of these matters than I would have originally thought. As to who will feed the world and the world feeding itself, I would like to hear you respond to the matters of justice that I brought up. The Green Revolution increased yield, but many contend that in the long run it has degraded land and water resources, destroyed local cultures and ag systems and left many farmers in a debt train that has led to immigration and horrible suicide rates among growers (see "Lessons from the green revolution" at www.foodfirst.org). 

Our own endless search for "markets" for our surplus overproduction of just five subsidized crops leads our government to "dump" our commodities on other countries, thereby destroying local Ag systems. What about predatory trade practices by first world countries? You mentioned Africa. That is a case in point.  Africa produces some very fine coffee that we purchase and consume at an unethically low price through our trade policies. This devastates local Ag communities and leads to poverty that we then try to alleviate by sending our overproduced crops; that in turn create more devastation by undercutting local cost of production for those same crops. Overproduction or increased industrial production does not equal feeding the hungry. This is what I mean when I say the world can feed itself. 

We cannot have a discussion about who will feed the world without talking about justice. I appreciate that you referenced scale-neutral practices that fit regions and markets, but I'm not sure that we have the same scenario in mind. Is it wrong if someone farms by hand instead of by machine? Must everyone conform their communities and Ag models to ours? What if higher yields and efficiency lead to massive inputs of costly commercial (fossil fuel) resources and smaller numbers of wealthier farmers that leaves many people off the land, destitute, and food insecure because they cannot afford to buy food no matter how much there is of it? Is that the price of greater productivity that you are willing to pay?
--Brent

What do you think? Respond below.