Farm Press Blog

Manure, farmer’s markets: solution for a growing world’s food needs?

RSS
Senator John Tester, D-Mont., told a Georgetown University audience that farm programs have “weakened agricultural diversity and made it harder for family farms to stay afloat.” He says also that the widespread adoption of genetically modified crops and “who controls seeds is particularly disturbing.”

 

At the same Future of Food Conference where Britain’s Prince Charles advocated for organic agriculture, a U.S. senator inveighed against federal farm programs and genetically modified crops.

John Tester, D-Mont., who told the Georgetown University audience, “I speak to you as a farmer who has made his living off the land, lived my whole life with my hands in the dirt,” says farm programs have weakened agricultural diversity and made it harder for family farms to stay afloat.”

Tester, who with his wife grows grow organic wheat, barley, and other crops on a farm that has been in their family more than 100 years, says also that “the rise in GMOs and who controls seeds is particularly disturbing.”

The U.S. has “done an incredible job of increasing food production” through better farming techniques, chemicals, and fertilizers,” he acknowledges. “We have only to look at the agriculture trade balance and the amount of food we export to realize how productive we are.” But, he says, these accomplishments have “come at a cost.”

A hundred years ago, Tester says, “We had crop diversity, because it was essential to profitability. Farmers knew a diverse rotation is good for insect and pest control, to help manage plant disease, good for plant vigor, and good for soil health.”

But over the last 100 years, he says, “We’ve seen far less diversity as far as crop rotations go and far less diversity and competition in marketing our crops.”

Another factor in consolidation and lack of diversity has been U.S. farm programs, he says.
“When I was growing up, participating in the farm program was something my parents considered a patriotic duty; it was set up to support and improve rural communities. But if you look at the last 50 years of farm programs, you’d be hard-pressed to say they have encouraged diversity, because payments go to a select few crops. You’d also be hard-pressed to say they have saved rural America or promoted family farm agriculture.”

Today, Tester says, the majority of farmers have off-farm jobs “just to make ends meet.” Farmers are able to control just a few things — labor, conservation, farming techniques, and seeds, he says, “but with GMOs, farmers don’t control seeds, multi-national agribusiness does.

“We’ve heard over and over that these transgenic plants are our only hope to feed the planet as our population grows. I’m here to tell you, I don’t buy it. What it has done is to take away options from family farmers and options away from consumers. Farms won’t be able to control seeds, and you won’t know what you’re eating. Once the genie’s out of the bottle and GMOs are introduced, there’s no going back.”

The “good news,” Tester says, is that “the nation’s local food movement is growing … because more people realize the future of food relies on … consumers who understand it’s going to take smart policies at all levels to keep our food system strong.”

Consumers “are being empowered,” he says. “Their voices are being heard — people are listening.”

A few months ago, Tester added an amendment to a food safety bill “that was a much-needed overhaul of our nation’s food safety as applied to vegetables and manufactured foods.”

He says “the nation’s biggest food companies poured a whole lot of dough into a lobbying effort to fight this common sense amendment; the corporate giants released everything they had against us. But in the end we won, because common sense prevailed. Smart, sustainable food policy is common sense, and if you fight for it, you can win.”

Family farmers find it increasingly difficult to compete in a consolidating, centralizing agriculture, Tester says.

“Consider: just four meat packing companies control 84 percent of our nation’s beef. Just 10 percent of our nation’s egg producers produce 99 percent of the eggs we consume; and only two-tenths of 1 percent of the nation’s food manufacturers produce 53 percent of the nation’s food. There’s a reason Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz said in the 1970s, ‘You need to get big or get out.’”

Monoculture agriculture was accelerated after World War II with the advent of farm chemicals and water-soluble fertilizers, Tester says, and universities began to rely much more on private funds than public funds to bankroll their agricultural research.

“That private research can steer toward projects with bigger potential for profits for agribusinesses and thus those increased profits attract more research dollars to increase profits — and the cycle goes on and on.”

Nobody quarrels with the senator’s or Prince Charles’ right to farm however they wish. But however much they urge it so, the food needs of a burgeoning world population can’t be met with manure and local farmer’s markets.

Discuss this Blog Entry 2

Tim Gieseke (not verified)
on Jun 2, 2011

I use GMOs, petrochemicals and manure to raise corn and soy, but I do appreciate the Senator's perspective. In system analysis, it is pretty easy to project the outcome of subsidizing a handful of crops on a per acre and per bushel basis - you get more of each at the expense of human capital (less farmers). Diversity is more expensive in the immediate cropping year and the economies of scales prevail in the short term. The cost is resilency in the long-term. I think what Tester may be saying is that in agriculture, the economy of scope is more appropriate for long-term success than the economy of scale. Our world has always fed us the mantra that America must feed the burgeoning population; as if that is a solution for a burgeoning problem. For the first time in the history of the human race we are beginning to understand the finite capacity of the earth. Two options that exist include 1) Feed the world at the fastest rate possible and see how many people we can fit on it 2) Identify what the capacity of the natural capital and determine in round numbers where our population has to reside. A lot the population graphs that I see show us leveling off at 9-10 billion or so. Apparently some thinkers think we are not going to or be able to supply a burgeoning population forever. I guess for now, let's keep the governor off and see how fast this boat can go with a full tank of economies of scale subsidy gasoline. Hopefully the finish line isn't a wall or if it is I suppose that most of us will not be in the boat anymore and our smart kids can figure out a solution.

Alice W. Smith (not verified)
on Oct 11, 2012

As long as people grow things that are not naturally grown in an area, there will be problems. Over time, nature has developed a system that allows plants and animals to survive in any particular environment. Man believes himself better than that and firmly believes that he can make things grow by altering the environment in which they are grown. But in the end, these attempts will be met with failures of one degree or another. Frightening as it is, starvation, disease, and death are the way that the natural world maintains a balance. Try as we might, we will fail. We can rape and pillage and plunder all of the natural resources without regard to conservation, but in the end, the balance will be regained. The only question is one of when do people finally start to realize that there are consequences to actions and behave accordingly.

Please or Register to post comments.

What's Farm Press Blog?

The Farm Press Daily Blog

Connect With Us

Blog Archive
Continuing Education
Potassium nitrate has a positive effect in controlling plant pests and diseases when applied...
This online CE course details sound mechanical irrigation design and management practices to...