Policy is historical. All policy originated with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. During the Depression, most farmers grew one of the major program crops, so this was a mechanism to deliver money to those people. The 70/10 statistic from GAO is an often quoted (and, essentially correct) statistic, but misses a central point. That 10% of farms produces roughly 70% of the value of agricultural production. An analogy is that the U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s fossil fuels. Yes, but it produces 25% of the world’s economic output. One may disagree with the system, but this is not the statistic to demonstrate its ills. In fact, I would submit the 70/10 statistic shows that the farm program is matched quite well with output (obvious cases of fraud, abuse, and stupidity aside).

Interestingly, you point to fruits and veggies and the government not encouraging production of those goods. Having worked some with that industry, its safe to say that they want no part of government interference with their markets. Perhaps these are only the big players, but I do know that those markets are very sensitive to changes in supply (that is, price changes quite rapidly with changes in supply) and so even small additions to production through subsidies or programs intended to increase supply rapidly decrease price. In one study that I did for USDA, a 1% increase in watermelon production led to a 18% decrease in price. So, be careful what you wish for. You say the system is making you poorer…wait until organic vegetable production goes up by 5%.

This probably isn’t the forum to debate economic policy, but let’s just say that I see our current course as self-destructive at best. But since the the Farm Bill is less than 1% of the overall federal budget and food and nutrition programs (that is, food stamps, WIC, school lunches, etc.; all “liberal” favorites) are over 60% of that amount, I hardly think those expenditures on farm commodities are worth discussing in light of current government spending. It’s funny how some will quibble over $15 billion in the farm bill when we flushed $1.6 trillion down the toilet in a matter of a week.

I also do not think the “food” debate is worthy of much air time. As I stated earlier with you, I think Mr. Pollan does not know of whence he speaks. I am quite sure he means well, but the economics just do not bear out his arguments. If, as Mr. Pollan I am sure agrees, the cost of corn in a bag of corn chips is quite small…say around 1%, that means that farm programs would have to reduce the price of corn by say 200% before you would get any appreciable price change in the Fritos. Then, one would have to assume that the price elasticity of demand for food is large (which it is not) for any price change to have a large impact on consumption. It just does not compute. Obesity is a mass balance problem…calories in vs. calories out. It is preferable to get lower income people greater access to fruits and veggies, but the impact of that on health outcomes is likely to be marginal (there is evidence of the “trading up” phenomenon where people buy higher quality food as income increases, so maybe it might work well). But, none of this supports Mr. Pollan.

Finally, I am not a climatological alarmist (and I do not believe the world’s oil supply will run out anywhere near the time period you suggest, but it will certainly get more expensive in the absence of alternative energy sources). In fact, the “global warming” movement has had to give up that term because global temperatures have reversed themselves and have been on a downward trend from almost 10 years now. They have adopted the term you use–”global climate change”–which is the scientific equivalent of of a smoke and mirrors game to trick the public into believing that they “know” what is happening when they do not have a clue (the “No Idea” camp is where I firmly reside and believe that the scientific community has sold itself out by not being intellectually honest on this point). Prudent steps to conserve and extend our resource base are both warranted and wise because we simply do not know the future. But, self-serving appeals to drastically change the economy are not necessary (you might check out Al Gore’s or Boone Pickens’ stock portfolios before you put tremendous credence in their reliability).

So, again, I return to my original point. The “change is afoot” statement is almost rhetorical as change has been afoot for over 50 years. That change has accelerated in the last 20 years. We are still learning and still changing, but agriculture is a lot further along than many wish to admit. You have a particular perspective on the problem, which is healthy. My perspective is simply that organic systems cannot and will not ever replace conventional production systems because there is an insufficient market to sustain their prices. Moving as significantly in that direction as some in the movement would like would only serve to significantly increase global food prices to the detriment of developing countries (yes, their producers might benefit, but they are net calorie importers, so their consumers are made worse off by a larger amount). The solution for sustainable long-term production will require additional movements in commercial agriculture and organic will be part of the mix.

It goes well beyond the individual farmer. The federal government may have created an unintended monster with the Farm Bill. In essence, we have been financially encouraging farms to become bigger (or die), and we are encouraging farmers to maintain profitability by squeezing out every acre of land that is being farmed for maximum production.

Although this goes beyond farming, politics and economics are also intertwined in this (as they are to varying degrees in every other industry), food will have to cost more. You are right to point out that reducing dependence upon chemical inputs increases the need for more labor. How much more, I would leave that to you and other experts to debate. The degree to which the Farm Bill can be changed to promote the growing of specialty crops (as you know, crops for people to eat) to reduce their over-all costs would be in my opinion a good act of public policy. In contrast, the GAO reports that 70% of available annual Farm Bill dollars (billions of dollars) go to only 10% of all US farmers. To make matters worse, presumably because of lack of adequate funding for USDA enforcement, the GAO reports that over a 6 year period of time (1999-2005) the USDA made 1.1 billion in payments to farmers, 2 years (or more) after their death; 40% of this money was dispensed without any eligibility inspection of any kind.

Regardless of one’s political orientation, political conservatives usually are more concerned with government waste and individual fraud, than perhaps those with a more liberal bias (I admit, I am of that latter breed)—this is certainly a practice that should be stopped. Let’s use some of that money to beef up USDA on enforcement and also (where available) help people pay for food that costs more to produce, but is less damaging to the environment. Let’s make junk food, or as Michael Pollan refers to it as “food like substances”, let’s make those products more expensive to buy.

Is this a form of social engineering, a redistributing of the wealth. Yes, it may be to some degree. Isn’t that what we do every day when we offer tax subsidies to major corporations that don’t need our support (look at how we subsidize the oil companies despite having years of record profits)? The point is this: our government over the last 40 years has instituted policies that have led to tremendous income disparity in this country. The rich have gotten much richer, the rest of us, poorer. I believe this is largely a matter of record.

If you believe that we are running out of oil, that roughly in 2035-2040 we will run out, if you believe that climate change will produce long-term, unstable, and more extreme weather, worldwide, if you believe that water is fast becoming our next scarse resource, and that our soils have been damaged by decades of industrial farming, if you believe that food safety is of too great a concern to continue as we do with industrial farming practices and our present food distribution system, yes, I believe farmers will have to change their farming practices (along with it, some of their cherished beliefs). We all will have to change our ways (at the very least, some of our ways) in order to survive.

Farmers are not the enemy. They represent our future, and in many ways, they are our real heros, struggling to produce food in a food system that promotes environmental destruction, and terrible resource waste. Farmers must not only battle the financial environment that creates its own challenges, they also must cope with nature with little room for mistake. From the eaters to our politicians, to farmers, processors, distributors, to the multinationals and other large agribusiness interests—change is inevitably afoot.

Change is in the air!

Thanks for the questions. I think they are legitimate and deserve a response. First, the form of the question reveals your “bias.” That is, you ask: “is it fair to say that conventional farming practices do not recognize the importance of the soil beyond being a repository for applying chemical inputs as deemed necessary to extend crop yields?” So, are you really saying that conventional farmers do not care about their children or the potential for their children to make a living off that land in the future? I don’t think that is how you mean it, but it is certainly how those in conventional agriculture take the meaning and why many shut down and choose not to engage in the conversation. We must remember that these farmers were: (1) brought up in a particular culture with a particular set of experiences, and (2) operating in a particular economic environment that is not necessarily the same as you. A Kansas farmer does not have the same cropping opportunities, local markets, or input costs as a farmer in the Central Valley of California. This is essentially a resource base/input mix problem.

A little thought experiment may help illustrate what I am trying to say. Chemicals and mechanization replace labor. Currently, there are roughly 7.2 million people engaged in farming across the U.S. (or about 2% of the U.S. population). Let’s say we go in the direction of “sustainable” on a commercial basis, and let’s further VERY conservatively assume that we would need to roughly double labor to offset chemicals in order to maintain the same yield. That would mean we would instantly need an additional 7.2 million workers just to stay where we are. (This is part of the reason organic is touted for Africa by the previous poster…they have excess labor that needs to be employed; so this is just as much a social program as it is a food program in Africa). And mind you, this is nowhere near the requirements. Back of the envelope estimates suggest that biotechnology alone reduced labor requirements in cotton by roughly half. Add on fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, and WOW!! At present, the market provides premiums for organic products that are sufficient to cover the cost, but as I noted, that market is thin. Too much production and the price differences will not cover the added costs of production.

So, I would say that conventional farming does recognize issues of soil quality and does view itself in a broader ecological system (after all, conventional farmers are the largest source of privately held wildlife habitat in the country and have long ago recognized the economic and biological benefits of wildlife on their farms). Do all farmers know all there is to know and do they all act how you would act? No. But, then again, I might say that I view some of the economic decisions you make as irrational. But, given a limited set of information about uncertain future events and your personal preferences, I cannot say much about how rational you may be other than whether your decisions maximize your money income.

In answer to your question on oil…how will any of us survive at $300/barrel oil? The answer…we adapt to new prices, develop new technology, and even contract production. Even today, we are examining ways to utilize on-farm crop and animal residues to generate biodiesel and/or electricity to offset some off-farm demand for that energy.

In response to the UN report…part hogwash, part truth. Let’s be perfectly clear. “Sustainable” or organic production (whichever you prefer, it does not really matter) are susceptible to all of those factors just like conventional agriculture. To the extent that any of those issues rear their ugly head, they will affect conventional and organic agriculture, and may actually affect organic more adversely because they will not have access to those risk reducing inputs like pesticides for dealing with invasive pests. I do worry some that biotech companies have focused on a very narrow germplasm set. If a disease comes along to which the germplasm is susceptible, it could create problems. Right now, those firms appears to be using 3 or 4 lines; but some of those lines are even related…so, this is a legit concern that needs to be addressed.

You ask: “How will conventional agriculture evolve toward embracing the philosophy of sustainability (in a substantial way) to insure its future? Or, is this unfair a question?” I think the answer is that conventional agriculture has made that move, although there are some elements/practices that have evolved more quickly than others (for primarily economic reasons) and there are still practices that we are developing on a commercial scale. For example, U.S. farmers increased no-till acreage from 16 million acres in 1990 to over 64 million in 2004 according to the Conservation Technology Information Center in West Lafayette, IN. The total was more than 22% of total cropland that year, and has likely increased more than that (although I could not find more recent data). As another example, according to USDA/ERS data, nitrogen fertilizer use peaked out in the mid-1990s and has been bouncing around the same levels since that time. Organic material fertilizer use has grown over that same period.

Bottom line…conventional farmers have long had a misunderstanding of the term sustainable. But the “sustainable” community has long had a false impression of conventional agriculture and perhaps a too narrow definition of “sustainable” themselves. As farmers have learned more about their impact on their environment, many have altered practices to the extent that it was economically viable for them to do so. The “farmer’s market, local production, organic” crowd needs to get a mental image of their customers, and then go to Wal-Mart in a mid- to low-income area. If your eyes are open, you will understand why the organic market is a thin slice of the overall pie and why a large customer base simply cannot afford the higher prices of organic products.

So, I return to my original points. Organics will play a role and the sustainable movement has already had significant impacts on conventional agriculture by “pulling” conventional production towards more sustainable production practices.

I have a few questions for you, or anyone else who may care to jump in.

Instead of focusing upon the term “Organic”, can you expand upon the key differences in approach (and philosophy) that exists between conventional agriculture and sustainable agriculture?

For example, is it fair to say that conventional farming practices do not recognize the importance of the soil beyond being a repository for applying chemical inputs as deemed necessary to extend crop yields? As opposed to a sustainable approach that may involve crop rotation, no till methods, and growing more types of crops within a given area of land to maintain soil fertility? A recognition that the soil itself contains beneficial bacteria, living organisms, etc. that provide nutrients to the soil, and also improve its water holding and dispersal capabilities?

Is it also fair to say (in your opinion) that conventional agriculture does not view farming based upon a holistic understanding of it being part of an ecological system (or appreciation for such an interrelated system), but instead treats each part, based upon a particular form of analysis, with its own arsenal of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, etc., adding what is needed to maximize( largely) mono-crop production? As opposed to a sustainable approach that may use some chemicals, for example, a limited use of pesticides, under certain conditions, with the broader understanding that it is generally preferable to work with nature, as opposed to working against it. An example would involve the approach of integrated Pest Management, again a systems approach to controlling ( in this instance) pests. Using beneficial insects (where possible) to control pest populations is a better, more sustainable approach because it’s not subject to pesticide resistance that reduces effectiveness over time, higher costs (of regularly applying pesticides), and poses lower health risks to farm workers (and possible food eaters) from exposure to an array of chemical poisons. More importantly, it recognizes that nature has evolved over millennium natural ways to control pest populations, introducing beneficial insects being but one example using IPM methods.

How will conventional agriculture practices survive when oil prices hit $300 a barrel?

Finally, the United Nations Environment Program ((UNEP) released a sobering report: The Environmental Food Crisis ( http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis/ ) (February 2009) stating, in part: “Up to 25% of the world food production may become ‘lost’ during this century as a result of climate change, water scarcity, invasive pests and land degradation. Simply cranking up the fertilizer and pesticide-led production methods of the 20th Century is unlikely to address the challenge. It will increasingly undermine the critical natural inputs and nature-based services for agriculture such as healthy and productive soils; the water and nutrient recycling of forests to pollinators such as bees and bats.” It goes on to say: “We need a green revolution but one with a capital G if we are to balance the need for food with the need to manage the ecosystems that underpin sustainable agriculture in the first place”

How will conventional agriculture survive, with its greatest emphasis upon maximizing profits through means that rely upon standard manufacturing practices (Paul Roberts says, we produce TVs the same way we grow food http://cookingupastory.com/show/paul-roberts-the-end-of-food/ ): centralization of large scale production and processing centers (mega-farms, for example); mono-crop production (mass production), Fred Kerschenmann ( http://cookingupastory.com/show/fred-kirschenmann-the-future-of-agriculture-part-2/ ) says that 92% of agricultural crops grown in Iowa are just corn and soybean; using biotechnology to create super varieties of plants (with a more highly desirable mix of traits) but adapted to a narrower range of environmental conditions (the achilles heel of biotechnology?); long distance distribution from highly centralized operations, all requiring tremendous reliance upon fossil fuel and irrigated water to produce desired results.

How will conventional agriculture evolve toward embracing the philosophy of sustainability (in a substantial way) to insure its future? Or, is this unfair a question? Should I be asking instead: How will sustainable agriculture evolve so that it will play a substantial role in future food production, to meet our needs, and that of a expanding world?

The other university studies sound interesting and promising, but I am not aware of them. The few that I have seen have suffered from one primary problem…there was residual nitrogen in the soil from previous fertilization in their test plots. If that is truly the case, all it shows is that we have been over-fertilizing…not that organic will continue those yields into the future. Remember, part of being sustainable means that you must be able to produce that amount indefinitely. Certainly, I get a yield boost when I follow corn behind soybeans (a nitrogen fixer). So simple rotation can help improve soil fertility, reduce chemical use and it not be “organic.”

My point is that your viewpoint that organic is THE solution is a bit naive. We have been pursuing organic research since the 1960s at least with no evidence that it can sustain global population. It is PART of the answer for reaching environmental goals and producing food for sure. A good analogy is wind energy. Can it replace fossil fuel consumption by itself? Not a chance. Can it be a meaningful part of a solution to fossil fuel consumption? Of course.

One aspect not discussed here, is the need for the re-training (as it were), of the consumer brain. We all live entirely too much by immediate gratification. We’re accustomed to enjoying foods out of season, and out of region. Imagine that impact, should we all truly begin to commit to viable sustainability.

I’m fortunate to live on a full acre in a fairly wealthy community. My immediate goal is, to improve an as yet “unsustainable” soil. We’re very much clay challenged around here. I also have to battle fairly severe ordinances. My city was developed a s a planned community; makes for a sustainable nightmare.

Thank you SO MUCH for what you’re doing here. I’m sharing you with everyone I know. Celeste

Additionally, the Long-term Agro-ecological Research (LTAR) initiative at Iowa State University’s Neely-Kinyon Farm shows yields equal or greater than conventional counterparts for organic corn, soybeans and oats. In 2007, for instance, the organic corn yielded more than the conventional with 209 bushels per acre compared to 188 bushes per acre for the conventional corn. Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Michigan found that organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land in developing countries

It is becoming clearer that organic offers a very sustainable solution that addresses the world’s hunger problems and the long-term health of the planet.