To deal with the first part of the question, one can review the compelling calculations put forth by Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute. He quotes a USDA report from 1978 which states that we only had 33 percent of the manure necessary to support food production then. Now, we have half again as many people on the earth and are projected to quickly reach double that population. We use all the manure we have, even with our current commercial hog and poultry farms, which are critical to our ability to collect and utilize animal waste efficiently. A scientist at the University of Manitoba claims that an all-organic United States alone would need manure from another billion cows.
Moving to a system of organic farming exclusively would mean, as Avery puts it, “massive waves of organic hunger, nutrition-related disease, wars and global agony.” It is quite clear that we cannot feed the world, let alone our country, with only organic food.
So, can we still be sustainable? That is a word I’ve always liked but hesitated to use, as it is so ill-defined and easily misconstrued. However recently, I have seen some new approaches that really make sense. First, the American Meat Institute (AMI), on its website entitled “Meat Fuels America,” defines sustainability as follows: “A sustainable meat industry is one that takes a long-term view of its impact on natural resources, animal welfare, employees, consumers and the communities where it operates.
Protecting these critical resources ensures the health of our businesses, our workforce, our communities and those we aim to nourish with our products. The meat industry is proud of its efforts to be responsible corporate citizens working to sustain our industry’s bright future in feeding our nation and the world.” Exactly the same goes for production agriculture as AMI has so eloquently stated for the post-harvest side of the equation.
Secondly, a recent news release from the Technical University of Munich in Germany stated that a group of German scientists have figured out how to define and quantify agricultural sustainability. They have helped make this multi-faceted concept a benefit to farmers, food manufacturers and consumers alike. Their central idea of sustainability is not to live at the expense of the environment and of coming generations, but rather to strike a balance between exploitation and renewal when using resources.
Their goal was to improve the environmental balance of agricultural enterprises without compromising their operating efficiency and social performance. They contend that sustainable agriculture benefits everyone: it conserves natural resources, saves energy, reduces the need for pesticides and fertilizers, and fosters a healthier environment, more competitive farms and safer foodstuffs. They say that operating in an environmentally sound way is not enough, for it is only when an enterprise strikes a balance between ecological factors and economic and social aspects that it becomes truly sustainable.
The German Agricultural Society has already set up a certification system based on these scientific results. If a tested enterprise can meet its target values, it receives the certificate “Sustainable Farming—Fit for the Future.” The food industry is also employing this new indicator model.
Therefore, the answer appears to be that we can operate sustainable, large enterprises that balance all the environmental, economic, ecological, and social aspects in a sustainable way, and still be able to feed a hungry world. That’s a relief!
Editor’s Note: Dr. Meisinger is the Executive Director of the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence. To contact Dr. Meisinger, e-mail him at: drdave@iastate.edu or call him by phone at: (515) 975-3557.
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.