Develop farmer knowledge networks — When it comes to innovation, shared information — both from farmers and from publicly available research — is critical. This farming shift must be supported by a knowledge network. Just as software engineers have innovated in leaps and bounds using “open source” shared code, farmers will innovate at a much faster rate if they can access information on what practices work for which crops, under what conditions and in which geographies.
Some forward-thinking farmers are already moving down this path. In 1999, a group of farmers affiliated with the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society formed the Farm Breeding Club. Their goal was to share knowledge and seed stock for seed saving and crop breeding. The FBC provides information to farmers so they can directly participate in public plant breeding efforts. Today they have 13 different crops being researched by farmers, including potatoes, oats and sweet corn.
Rethink: How We Move Food
Beyond farming, we need to rethink how our food travels from farm to plate. Along each step, there are ample opportunities to improve this journey.
Transition to a more regionalized system — Experts have long argued that feeding hungry people is not a problem of production, it’s a problem of distribution. In a May 2012 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization found that even if we increased agricultural productivity by 60 percent by 2050, we’d still have 300 million hungry people because they lack access to food.
About one-third of the food produced globally each year is wasted somewhere between farm and plate. This translates to 1.3 billion metric tons of food.
By regionalizing global farming, communities can feed themselves and rely less on imports. A region should be defined based on its ecological dimensions — the geographical area that accounts for ecological parameters, such as water and land resources, and the conditions necessary to feed nearby populations.
Regionalization does not necessitate eliminating exports. After all, much of farming is about responding to nature — droughts, hailstorms, monsoons, etc. — and production yields vary by the season. But in transitioning to a more regionalized system, farmers would be required to rely on their local markets, too.
Reduce waste — According to the FAO, about one-third of the food produced globally each year is wasted somewhere between farm and plate. This translates to 1.3 billion metric tons of food. In the U.S., the waste percentage is 40 percent. If total U.S. food losses were reduced by just 15 percent, says an August 2012 report by the National Resources Defense Council, more than 25 million Americans could be fed every year.
With a keener eye to where losses are taking place, we can begin to address the problem. In wealthier countries, we can raise consumer awareness about reducing food waste at home, create incentives for municipal composting systems, improve post-harvest handling and storage, and find ways to market products that aren’t “perfect,” such as fruits and vegetables with cosmetic blemishes. In lower income countries, improvements in harvesting techniques and low-cost storage and cooling facilities can make a significant difference between spoiled and edible foods. Regardless of where the losses occur, businesses should work to address the challenges. Losses like these are equivalent to throwing money away, and no one can afford to do that.
Empower employees — Rethinking how food moves from farm to consumer requires a new level of engagement with employees. In his book Drive, Daniel Pink draws on four decades of scientific research about what motivates people, highlighting three elements: mastery, autonomy and purpose. While traditional rewards and compensation still have a role, these more intangible elements are key to unlocking high performance and innovation. And innovation comes from people who know their jobs best — employees on the ground and on the shop floor.
Morning Star Company, based in Woodland, Calif., is the world’s largest tomato processor, managing 25 to 30 percent of the tomatoes processed each year in the U.S. It created a business model where employees are empowered to achieve goals through collaboration, and no one holds titles or hierarchy. As one person at the company said, “nobody’s your boss and everybody’s your boss.” This model has resulted in many benefits, including increased initiative, expertise, flexibility and loyalty.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
Is there any evidence at all that grass fed meat is "better" (I'm Australian and most of our domestically consumed cattle and sheep meat is grass fed and our rate of bowel cancer is the highest in the world!). By evidence I don't mean claims by Michael Pollen, I mean actual data. I don't know of any.
Is there any evidence that reductions of meat consumption would free up land? Sure ... Jonathan Foley's work is the best I know of. But how much do you need to reduce consumption to free up land?
That depends on how much meat you want to produce. Is it 10 percent of what is eaten now? 50%? 1%? Without putting a number on it, there is no way to calculate the land required. Eating just 1% of meat would certainly free up land ... but 50%? That's far from obvious. And what about climate change? For every ruminant we graze, that's a significant amount of methane that needs to be dealt with. Australia has more cattle than people and the warming they produce exceeds that of all our coal fired power stations ... and grass fed cattle produce far more methane than feedlot cattle.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/11/australias-most-powerful-climate-forcing-agent-its-not-coal/
On the land-related point, given that 1/3 of cereal production is fed to animals, one might posit that we could switch from animal-feed to people-feed crops. Thus it might not ‘free up land’, but you would use land differently so you can feed more people (given feed to animal conversion rates). And to your point, it’s about the quantity of meat we want to produce. I don’t have an exact percentage to give you. My point is around reworking parameters to feed a growing population. In fact, I think that these numbers need to come from a bottoms-up, not a top-down approach so that the regional ecology and population needs are taken into account. There are a lot of variables at stake and we need to consider the needs of the land and people.
As for climate change and animals, this is a really interesting issue. Based on what I have studied, animals can be an integral part of a healthy ecosystem landscape. And while enteric fermentation is problematic from a carbon emissions standpoint, we need to also consider the benefits that animals can bring from an ecosystem-health perspective. Yes, they may contribute methane into the atmosphere, so we need to consider quantity of animals. But they can also regenerate our lands if we practice holistic management techniques. Alan Savory’s team has done extensive work on this and I know several folks who follow his principles. You can find his portfolio of research here: http://www.savoryinstitute.com/2013/03/resources/evidence-supporting-holistic-management/. And you can watch a great TED talk on this topic here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html.
Joel Salatin, Allan Savory, and others have shown that properly managed ruminants on grasslands will actually sequester carbon and build soils. Oh, and increase yields and profit, by the way.
Shauna: Other species of animals on our planet expand or contract their populations based primarily on their food supply. Why should we be different? If we were only able to produce enough food next year for 7.1 billion people, I'd be pretty confident in saying there would be 7.1 billion people. Would people suffer? I don't think people would suffer any more than they already do suffer. I know it's a crazy thought. I just thought I'd put it out there. We are, after all, biologically based creatures that evolved on this planet WITH all the other creatures that are here. Shouldn't the same natural laws that govern their existence also govern ours?
When you eat red meat, any red meat (kangaroo, beef, pork, venison, etc) your body generates endogenous nitrosamines ... the same stuff that causes lung cancer in smokers. This process is entirely natural and has nothing to do with refining or processing. Your claim about bowel cancer being the result of refined and processed food isn't supported by any data at all ... it get echoed around the internet ad nauseum but there's no actual epidemiology to support it. Whereas there is plenty to support the red meat link. The nitrosamine causal chain is one of a few for which there is good evidence.
Also, you recommend `agroecology’- an understanding the structure and function of the natural ecosystems on which agriculture is built. The World Bank IAASTD Report is partly to blame for the confusion over just what agroecology is and its relation to natural ecosystems. The Glossary of the IAASTD Report claims that: “Agroecological functions are generally maximized when there is high species diversity/perennial forest-like habitats.” I think this almost exactly wrong. Most of our food now comes from annual grasses – a plant type that cannot survive in `perennial forest-like habitats’. There is a sound agroecological reasons for the success of cereal monocultures. Firstly: a major ecological principal is the need to escape competition, in particular from the dominance of woody vegetation – grasslands worldwide manage this escape. Secondly, cereal fields are a close mimic of the wild annual grasslands that supported our pre-agricultural ancestors over 10,000 years ago. These natural fields of one species were maintained by natural disturbance – flooding, fire, and grazing. From the dawn of agriculture farmers have mimicked this disturbance by tilling and weeding to reduce competition for the crop.
In addition, we may have a `monoculture of the mind’ for agroecology. Rather than a broad international acceptance of agroecology, it is dominantly promoted from a limited number of scientists in the United States, with the apparent intention of turning the agricultural clock back a hundred years or so.
First, grass fed beef produces more methane than feedlot beef. Why? Because that's what you find when you measure it, here's one such study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10375217
Savory? He's fine if you are more interested in a good story than in finding out what actually happens. Here's a little critique: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.html
Now back to grass fed beef. The UCS stuff is about fat profiles. I was talking about bowel cancer which has nothing to do with fat profiles. Red meat causes bowel cancer (see World Cancer Research Fund's 2007 report) and the faty acid profile is irrelevant. It might be relevant to heart disease but to find out you'd at least need to confirm that Australians have less heart disease ... and since we have heaps of it, I doubt you can do that. It doesn't matter how often you say that this or that fat profile is healthy ... you need epidemiological data ... measure of relative death rates of people eating different diets. Our heart disease rates dropped here a couple of decades ago when we started to remove fat from dairy products (remember this is all grass fed fat) and reduced sheep intake (remember all our sheep were grass fed) and replaced it with chicken (grain fed!).
Agroecology is, indeed, not a new concept and it seems - based on the definition you highlight - that there are different interpretations of what it means. I defined agroecology in the article, and it's a bit broader than how you define it (referencing the WB). Species diversity is certainly key. But understanding the geographical complexity is also a part of the analysis. Here is how Stephen Gliessman, a pioneer in studying this work, talks about it: http://www.agroecology.org/Steve.html. I don't agree that those who are working on agroecology are taking us back in time. Quite the opposite, I see some amazing in-depth scientific research that looks at soil structure, water filtration and a host of other ecological components that seek to understand how farming and nature can work together symbiotically. Healthy soil is the foundation for farming and this is what I see progressive agroecological practitioners working on.
I'd love to learn more about your points on policy and subsidies. I realize that these are complex issues and federal policy is more than just direct payment subsidies. But there are plenty of other 'price supports' the the U.S. offers to farmers that ultimately end up acting as a subsidy - i.e. crop insurance.
Regarding methane production of pasture-raised versus grain-fed, this analysis has many variables to consider and it's not a black and white response. The study you referenced uses low-quality feeds for pasture raised animals and feed seems to be a major factor for methane emissions. A report by UCS (yet another one!) highlights several studies that assess this issue. They state: "Perennial pasture species typically sequester more carbon in soil than annual row crops used for feed grain concen- trates. On the other hand, cattle in CAFOs usually gain weight faster than cattle on pasture. The result is that feedlots may produce fewer methane and nitrous oxide emissions per unit of product, but pastures may offset that advantage by sequestering more carbon in the soil. However, best management practices can affect both the rate at which pasture soil sequesters carbon and the rate at which pasture plants grow—and thus the productivity of beef production—as well as other factors that influence methane and nitrous oxide emissions from pasture." http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/global-warming-and-beef-production-report.pdf
If that is the case, then I hypothesis that all the badgering by NGO and Gov will only move the needle a little bit.
The bold step is incorporating an ecological dimension into the existing economy. Okay, I hear you - that is folly, let's continue badgering - that too is folly, but NGO and Gov staff are well-trained in that.
Here is my money to my mouth: https://prezi.com/pvx9r5dykawt/the-role-of-shared-governance/
I have applied this six times and am fairly proficient in it.
Here is a point by point takedown of that Slate article: http://sheldonfrith.com/2015/12/14/why-the-slate-article-about-allan-savory-is-dead-wrong/