Can Sustainable Agriculture Lead to a Sustainable Future?

By Emily Amaya Evans

Summary

In the article titled, "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture" (Horrigan, Leo, et al.) unsustainable agricultural practices are discussed in terms of their effect on the global and local environment, human health, and economics.The majority of the agriculture systems practiced in the United States and other developed nations are termed industrial agriculture and are aimed at producing a maximum yield of crops and meat. Equivocally, a large input of energy, water and land will yield a large output of crops and meat. The article specifically focuses on how a more sustainable environment can be achieved with the production of crops rather than meat. The main points that the authors argue are that the industrial agriculture reduces biodiversity and nonrenewable fossil fuels, promotes soil erosion land damage, drought, and induces severe consequences on human health and economics. Finally the article summarizes a variety of ways that industrial agriculture can become more sustainable.

Biodiversity may be affected as a result of monocultures or monocropping. This occurs when the same crop is planted over and over again at the same location. A reduction in biodiversity leads to a decline in insect and plant populations that are responsible for fighting off new diseases that threat the livelihood of crops.

A significant loss of energy results from the production of meat and inefficient methods of agriculture. Energy is lost from the conversion of grain to food for cattle, chickens and hogs. The energy needed to grow and transport the grain for meat production could be used to feed humans, producing more food with less stress on the environment and eliminating unnecessary usage of the land and energy. An estimate from the article states that, “Conservative estimates are that cattle require 7 kg of grain to create 1 kg of beef, compared with 4 kg for pork and just over 2 kg for chicken.” If meat production were reduced or eliminated, that much more grain and resources used to grow the grain would be available for human consumption and use. Overall the average U.S. farm uses 3 kcal of fossil fuels to produce 1 kcal of food energy, for beef production the necessary ratio is 35 kcal to 1 kcal of food energy. In addition to energy for production, energy is needed to transport the food from the farm to the dinner table. Since agriculture production has become focused on mass production, fewer farms provide the U.S. with the majority of the meat, and energy due to transportation may be high. The article argues that more farms with smaller yields per farm will result in overall lower energy expeditures.

Land that is excessively grazed by cattle is left barren and stripped of nutrients leading to soil erosion. It is estimated that 38% of all farmland is damaged by unsustainable agriculture. By reducing meat production the availability of useable land for crop growth would increase, thereby satisfying the hunger demands for a larger global population.

Inefficient irrigation and pollution resulting from agriculture are likely to induce a shortage of clean, useable water. Irrigation is necessary for several agriculture systems, and if not performed efficiently may result in the depletion of aquifers worldwide. Currently it is estimated that two thirds of the world’s water supply is used for agriculture, which is primarily a result of overwatering due to irrigation. Pollution resulting from animal waste and runoff of excessive nutrients has affected 70% of the U.S. waterbodies. Eutrophication of water resources may result from the presence of waste and high concentrations of nutrients leaving several forms of aqueous life dead and may even lead to the death of the waterbody itself. Production of beef complicates the problem, by requiring 100 times more water for production than the equivalent amount of grain.

Human health is jeopardized by exposure to the various chemicals that are utilized in industrial agriculture as well as by an excessive consumption of meat products. These synthetic substances are employed as pesticides, herbicides, and antibiotics. Exposure to individual chemicals and to the combination of such chemicals used as pesticides and herbicides has led to a variety of epidemiology studies. The results show that long-term exposure may result in a suppressed immune system, increased rates of cancer, and disruptions in the reproductive, endocrine and nervous systems. The majority of the meat produced is fed growth-inducing antiobiotics, that when ingested by humans may increase the human body’s ability to resist human antiobiotics. Diets high in saturated fat and low in fiber are linked to chronic degenerative diseases such as cardiovascular disorders, cancer and type II diabetes. This diet is common among citizens of the U.S. due to a high beef intake. One way that the article has shown this is by comparing the rate of these diseases with China before the average beef intake was high and after. The results show that after the average diet contained more beef the rate of the diseases was more prevalent. Hidden behind the relatively inexpensive price tags of meat are costs related to environmental cleanup, pollution, and government subsidies. When these costs are taken into account it is suggested that agriculture practices cost each consumer $259 and even more for taxpayers.

There are several methods that have been employed for sustainable agriculture since the dawn of humans and include crop rotation, cover crops, no-till and low-till farming, soil management, diversity, nutrient management, integrated pest management, and rotational grazing. For hundreds of generations, agriculture has supportive the growth of civilizations. Recently this form of agriculture has been transformed into industrial agriculture, which abuses the environment and jeopardizes human health. In the eyes of the authors, for future generations to prosper and enjoy the beautiful environment around them industrial agriculture must make another transformation to sustainable agriculture.

Reaction

From what I have already read on the subject, the material presented in this article offers a thorough and realistic view of the current state of agriculture and its affects on the world, only the statistics that it gave were startling. If you look at the agricultural problem in terms of an engineering problem, hence energy in must equal energy out, then the energy needed to support a massive output of crops and meat must be also be massive. Since the earth is naturally at a somewhat steady state, depleting the resources faster than the resources are supplied will cause environmental problems, throwing the natural cycle of the earth out of whack, disrupting equilibrium. This rapid depletion is a result of big business and the love of greed and power.

At one point in the article it is suggested that by eliminating beef from the diet of one person 232,800 gallons of water and 679 pounds of grain a year would be saved that would otherwise be used to produce the average intake of yearly beef for one person. Millions of people in the world are going hungry, and the amount of resources that would be saved from the elimination of beef production (not to mention any other type of meat) could be used to feed the malnutrition.

To answer my own question, Can Sustainable Agriculture Lead to a Sustainable Future?, the answer is hopefully. If we are to continue at the rate of destruction that we are currently at, the environment will suffer irreversible harm. Now is the time to act, and fight back against the corporations starting with small, personal gestures.