The term “multifunctionality,” as it applies to farming, slips off Europeans’ tongues with ease. Multifunctional farms are seen as having roles other than food production, such as environmental sustainability and agri-tourism. They’re part of the European culture. For decades, governments there have paid farmers to be multifunctional, to put resources into matters that go beyond production agriculture. That’s what people want.
North American farmers argue they, too, are multifunctional; it’s just that they don’t use that term. In the U.S. and Canada, various programs exist to help farmers identify and improve areas that are lacking environmentally. Governments support these programs. Other initiatives exist too, to promote the likes of agri-tourism. They’re not as aggressive as those in Europe, some of which pay small farmers to stay that way because tourists find it quaint and spend money visiting rural areas. But they’re there.
Prof. Rene Van Acker at the University of Guelph thinks farmers should take a more multifunctional approach to agriculture. In a publication called The International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Van Acker, the former chair of plant agriculture at Guelph and first associate dean of external relations for the Ontario Agricultural College, argues that agricultural sustainability depends on a shift to multifunctionality, from what he describes as a narrower industrial model.
In that model, the overriding goals have been production and higher yields. And Van Acker says that as farms have increased in size, farmers have actually pared down their crop diversity. You’d think more acres would translate into more kinds of crops (and therefore more variety for consumers), but it’s not so. Farmers had to adopt simpler farming systems, because volume is easier to manage with fewer crop varieties. And volume is how they’ve tried battling lower crop prices.
But less diverse farming systems have greater production problems, says Van Acker. Limited diversification makes easier pickings for disease, predators, drought and the effects of bad weather.
Against this backdrop, society’s expectations of agriculture are soaring. People are increasingly looking to farms for clean water delivery, bioenergy, high-quality niche products, health and wellness, land stewardship, food security and food sovereignty. Society wants – demands, in fact -- more than crops and livestock. It always has; it’s just never been so vocal or strident as it is now. Van Acker says meeting these demands will require more complex, diversified and intensified farming systems.
Does this leave you scratching your head? How can society expect so much while paying so little for food?
Indeed, consumers’ zeal for cheap food transcends sustainability. Local food advocates are making some progress helping generate a fair price for certain commodities and ingredients. But overall, the gains in the food business continue to be made by discount sellers who appeal to consumers with low prices.
Those who support so-called industrial farming argue that small farms can’t feed the starving world. Some say developed nations have to torque-up production. Others say underdeveloped nations need help to produce more of their own food. And still others say the misery will go on until the population growth in chronically drought-stricken countries is under control.
Agricultural researchers are trying to make sense of all this. They’re looking at the whole, at how technology and diversity can be married up to help farmers sustainably produce enough food to meet the needs of people everywhere, and at the same time meet society’s growing needs. The challenge is massive, and multifunctionality may be one way to approach it.
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.