If you’re still skeptical there’ll be less land available for raising more livestock and growing more crops in the future, look to Washington. There, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced earlier this week the federal government is pursuing a land conservation policy that could reduce U.S. cropland by 1.5 percent.
Vilsack’s idea is to take marginal or fragile land out of production. That isn’t so bad. Usually such land is not particularly productive anyway, which made it agriculturally marginal in the first place. Or, if it is productive, it comes at an unacceptable environmental cost. Maybe it’s been found to house sensitive flora or fauna. Or maybe it’s too close to waterways. Dozens of reasons could exist for it being labeled marginal or fragile.
But to some extent, it also feeds people. It’s estimated the farmland being removed from production, some five million acres, could produce more than 150 million bushels of wheat, 200 million bushels of soybeans or 700 million bushels of corn. That’s Big Agriculture.
And public relations-wise, it’s also the Fourth of July for those who oppose commercial agriculture. Consider this: The photo that accompanied the cropland reduction story did not picture a farmer out harvesting his or her fields, working hard to feed the world. Rather, it showed a plains bison and her calf roaming freely about, suggesting a clear link between less cropland and more wildlife.
Who among the public would not favor such a warm and fuzzy scenario? Compare the struggle and return of once-endangered species to the march towards more and more fields of corn, soybeans and wheat. No contest, even if it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison by a long shot.
Nonetheless, the farm sector needs to tune into this trend. In fact, for this particular cause, it should actually jump on the bandwagon. Here’s why.
Bison won’t feed the world. Neither will local food, organic agriculture or any of the other movements or alternatives that have been gaining traction on consumers’ radar. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a place in the wonderfully and complex agricultural sector, a sector populated with what the public says are some of the world’s most trusted men and women.
But fringe production is not the answer to questions about world hunger, or how society is going to address the need to feed seven billion people. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization states production will need to double by 2050 to feed everyone. That won’t be done on marginal or fragile land. In fact, some estimates say more land, not less, will be needed.
This all speaks loudly for a commitment to research. Every time marginal land is set aside, farmers should stand up and applaud decision makers for being environmentally aware, while simultaneously reminding them of their responsibility to ensure tools, technology and policies are in place to feed the world.
Consumers too must be told and shown repeatedly that commercial scale farming is how the world’s needs will be met. This must include evidence that some progress is being made, mainly through domestic and international private and public sector research partnerships, to feed the one billion who are already hungry.
Economically, the timing is ideal. Agriculture is being positioned as a key driver in economic recovery. In this kind of a climate, resources dedicated to agri-food research are seen as an investment, not an expense. Even when hard political and economic choices must be made, a commitment to agri-food research is defensible and productive. How many other sectors can say that?
The Agriculture Secretary needs support from the farm sector to keep consumers and environmentalists happy. If he must be seen dedicating land to conservation reserves and wildlife habitat, so be it.
But in return, the farm sector needs his support to conduct business. Realizing more production from less land will require the kind of investment the public understands. For a change, everyone can come out a winner. In Washington, Ottawa, Brussels or wherever national and international agricultural policy decisions are made, that sells.
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.