1.1.2 Conventional agriculture: solution or cause?
Richard Eckard, Associate Professor in the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, explains the challenge of increasing food production to feed the world while transitioning turning conventional agriculture into sustainable agriculture. As stated above, the global population is predicted to reach around 9 billion by 2050. In parallel, to meet this future need, agriculture will have to increase production by between 60 and 80% by 2050. Meanwhile, due to a decline in investment in agricultural research and development, as well as a stabilization of agriculture expansion into new areas, we are currently witnessing a constant decline in agricultural productivity and resources. Furthermore, available farmlands are reducing, and even the remaining lands have to deal with some form of degradation mainly due to erosion, soil acidity and soil salinity. According to the UN Environment Program, 25% of the world’s food production will likely be lost because of environmental degradation by 2050. According to Richard Eckard, to meet the challenges mentioned just above, we absolutely need to produce more food while using less lands, inputs (e.g. …show more content…
water) and energy, and while reducing soil breakdown and greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, we must take into consideration the huge impact intensive agriculture has on the environment and restrain it as much as possible. Aside from reducing food wastage, which could and should be an action to take, a new pattern called “sustainable intensification” has emerged in agriculture, aiming to combine the rise in production along with the restriction of environmental footprint coming from food production. However, although research over the past 60 years has considerably increased production, it does not seem to be the case any longer, because feed, fertilizer and water inputs have led to diminishing returns. More inputs alone will no longer improve the efficiency or sustainability. Thus, to some experts, the term sustainable intensification is an oxymoron, as most agricultural intensification cannot come without a negative pressure, and further degrade the available natural resources, making the intensification harder. In order to explain to what extend agriculture is by nature unsustainable and cannot be sustainable, Toby Hemenway comes back to the origins or agriculture, when it emerged 10,000 years ago. Starting from that point, he drew up a comparison between farmers, who grow their own food in farms (agricultural method) and foragers, who look for their food in nature (hunter-gatherer method) over the years. Below are the characteristics he found out: Table 1: Comparison between farmers and foragers Farmers Foragers - Worship gods whose message usually is that humans are chosen …show more content…
Therefore, not only ecological degradation is inevitable but is also sign of progress
- Calories mostly come from grains
- Storable food, surplus, calories from carbohydrates (grain are more calorie-dense than forager food): sedentary, with growing population (more calories means more births)
- Agriculture’s surplus requires hierarchy: someone to distributes, someone to guard, someone to produce, etc.
- Slow feedback from degrading the environment. Degrading the environment brings more food, so they keep doing it
- Loss of biodiversity means more food: have to clear forests to grow crops
- Wilderness is a nuisance, a source of pest animals and insects, as well as land that’s just “going to waste.”
- Growing population needs more food, and crops can be grown everywhere: nurtured the agriculture expansion. Farmers are conquerors
- Farmers need 2-3 days to gather a week’s food, plus more to pay
Richard Eckard, Associate Professor in the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, explains the challenge of increasing food production to feed the world while transitioning turning conventional agriculture into sustainable agriculture. As stated above, the global population is predicted to reach around 9 billion by 2050. In parallel, to meet this future need, agriculture will have to increase production by between 60 and 80% by 2050. Meanwhile, due to a decline in investment in agricultural research and development, as well as a stabilization of agriculture expansion into new areas, we are currently witnessing a constant decline in agricultural productivity and resources. Furthermore, available farmlands are reducing, and even the remaining lands have to deal with some form of degradation mainly due to erosion, soil acidity and soil salinity. According to the UN Environment Program, 25% of the world’s food production will likely be lost because of environmental degradation by 2050. According to Richard Eckard, to meet the challenges mentioned just above, we absolutely need to produce more food while using less lands, inputs (e.g. …show more content…
water) and energy, and while reducing soil breakdown and greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, we must take into consideration the huge impact intensive agriculture has on the environment and restrain it as much as possible. Aside from reducing food wastage, which could and should be an action to take, a new pattern called “sustainable intensification” has emerged in agriculture, aiming to combine the rise in production along with the restriction of environmental footprint coming from food production. However, although research over the past 60 years has considerably increased production, it does not seem to be the case any longer, because feed, fertilizer and water inputs have led to diminishing returns. More inputs alone will no longer improve the efficiency or sustainability. Thus, to some experts, the term sustainable intensification is an oxymoron, as most agricultural intensification cannot come without a negative pressure, and further degrade the available natural resources, making the intensification harder. In order to explain to what extend agriculture is by nature unsustainable and cannot be sustainable, Toby Hemenway comes back to the origins or agriculture, when it emerged 10,000 years ago. Starting from that point, he drew up a comparison between farmers, who grow their own food in farms (agricultural method) and foragers, who look for their food in nature (hunter-gatherer method) over the years. Below are the characteristics he found out: Table 1: Comparison between farmers and foragers Farmers Foragers - Worship gods whose message usually is that humans are chosen …show more content…
Therefore, not only ecological degradation is inevitable but is also sign of progress
- Calories mostly come from grains
- Storable food, surplus, calories from carbohydrates (grain are more calorie-dense than forager food): sedentary, with growing population (more calories means more births)
- Agriculture’s surplus requires hierarchy: someone to distributes, someone to guard, someone to produce, etc.
- Slow feedback from degrading the environment. Degrading the environment brings more food, so they keep doing it
- Loss of biodiversity means more food: have to clear forests to grow crops
- Wilderness is a nuisance, a source of pest animals and insects, as well as land that’s just “going to waste.”
- Growing population needs more food, and crops can be grown everywhere: nurtured the agriculture expansion. Farmers are conquerors
- Farmers need 2-3 days to gather a week’s food, plus more to pay