Biodiversity
is Key to Sustainable Agriculture
By
James S. Mastaler-Gutermuth
Foreword
(by Peter Schwartzman): James is an environmentalist that has spent much of his
recent life working to improve the quality of the environment. His ability to
see through the Òrows of cornÓ and find a solution grounded in ecological
principles is something that we should appreciate and learn from. I hope we can
derive wisdom and enthusiasm from JamesÕ dedication and heart.
Corn. How
much corn do you eat? Think about it. If youÕve ever driven the rural highways
of the American Midwest, you might guess that corn is all Midwesterners ever
eat.
If youÕre from the Midwest and you know that you
really only eat corn on the cob at an occasional summer Bar-B-Que or as a side at
most once a week, then you must wonder where all the corn goes—perhaps to
some far off land of great corn-eaters. This isnÕt such a strange thing to
think. The corn has to go somewhere because we grow lots of it—there are,
after all, acres of corn growing in all directions as far as the eye can see.
But does it matter?
Meanwhile, with all this corn production going on, Illinois
has lost all but 1/100th of one percent of our natural prairie
ecosystems, according to the Illinois Department of Natural ResourcesÕ Illinois
Nature Preserves Commission. This is an astounding figure. Imagine a peg board
with 10,000 pegs (each representing a plot of native prairie). Only one peg (or
plot) still remains. Illinois citizens ought to reflect on this observation and
consider agricultureÕs impact on our stateÕs ecosystems.
Agriculture uses
immense amounts of land and is likely to use more in the future. In the April
2006 issue of Conservation Biology, researchers
tell us that Ò[i]rrigated and pasture lands are both expected to double in area
by 2050, with a net loss of 10^9 ha [equal to 1,000,000,000 hectares or over 2,471,053,814
acres] of wildlands, thereby increasing the pressure on biodiversity in natural
ecosystems. At the same time, farmers are expected to intensify agriculture
with increased inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuels.Ó
These uses will take
their toll on the environment. The report goes on to say: Ò[a]side from the
loss of diversity of breeds, farm birds, beneficial insects, and soil biota in
agro-ecosystems, agricultural intensification puts wild biodiversity at risk
through gene flow from domesticated varieties to wild species, cross-species
transmission of potentially virulent pathogens, and adverse effects of
fertilizers and pesticides on non-target species in adjacent wild land
ecosystems.Ó Furthermore, these industrial inputs, Òchang[e] a wide range of
ecosystem services. These include provisioning services that support production
of foods, fuels, and fibers; regulating services such as pollination and pest
control; and supporting services such as nutrient cycling and water
purification.Ó
Monocultures of corn cover our Midwestern landscape
where bio-diverse prairie ecosystems, vast oak savannahs or dense woodlands
once stood. The effort needed to sustain these new, single species ecosystems
of corn is manifested in copious amounts of fertilizer, biocides, and tillage
resulting in polluted waterways, further losses of biodiversity, and fertile
soil runoff.
But somewhere somebody needs corn. And soybeans. And
wheat. And all those other crops that are needed to feed a growing world
population. How do we reconcile our social and moral obligations to preserve
biodiversity and still feed our growing societies in sustainable ways?
Research shared at the
Eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(COP-8) in Curitiba, Brazil and mentioned in the Summer 2006 issue of the Earth
Island Journal, concludes $26 million
of research with the following simple finding: Ò[t]he future of sustainable
agriculture around the world depends on diverse communities of soil organismsÉÓ
It continues, in sharp contrast with many industrial based solutions, Ò[i]mproved
crop yields are being enjoyed by some developing-world farmers who have turned
to soil bacteria and fungi rather than artificial fertilizers to boost
harvests.Ó
Okay. So after $26
million worth of research we know we can get rid of the fertilizers if we focus
on fungi and bacteria. All that research says the simple key to improved crop
yields and sustainability is building healthy, bio-diverse soils teeming with
macro- and microorganisms. ThatÕll improve our crop yields and give us more
corn—without expensive artificial fertilizers whose residues end up in
rivers, lakes and groundwater. Improved yields equal more corn in case you
missed that. ThatÕs just what we need more of here in the Midwest. Right? More
corn may be desirable in terms of sustainability and global corn needs, but is
anyone thinking about the benefits to other life forms and to the ecosystem as
a whole?
Andrew Heggenstaller, a researcher at the University
of Iowa in the Department of Agronomy whose research investigates the potential
for perennial crops and mixtures of crops more suitable for use on
environmentally sensitive parts of the landscape, suggested in my recent
interview with him that Ò[w]hat we need in this country as far as agriculture
is concerned, is policy that recognizes that agriculture is not just about the
production of food, feed, and fiber. Agriculture occupies more land in this
country than any other land use and provides many ecological functions. Not
many of these can be given a direct market value, but they are all vitally
important to our society. Agricultural land [can] filter water, cycle nutrients,
store carbon, protect the soil, provide habitat for wildlife, and provide food
and fiber to humans.Ó
When we replace acres
of biodiverse ecosystems, like the Illinois prairie evolved specifically to
suite the areaÕs location and geography, with acres of monoculture corn and
soybean, we run the risk of mucking up a system designed to maintain ecological
sustainability. The biological diversity inherent in prairie ecosystems provides
valuable ecological services that some agricultural systems can mimic but that
many monoculture systems fail to do.
Our friends at Conservation
Biology back this up when they say, Òbiodiversity
loss in agricultural landscapes also has an opportunity cost. It affects not
just the production of food, fuels, and fibers, but also a range of ecological
services supporting, for example, water supplies, habitat, and health.Ó There
appears to be a disconnect between agriculture and the environment and it is
essential that we develop (and implement) a way to do agriculture without destroying
our local ecosystems.
Describing this
disconnect, Andrew Heggenstaller says, Ò[agriculture] is based on everything
being the same and the [environment] is highly heterogeneous. What I mean is
that it is simply not appropriate to dedicate all parts of the landscape to the
same land use, the same crop, or the same management practice. Nevertheless,
this has been, and continues to be the general approach that we take in
agriculture. Even here in Iowa, where the land appears to be relatively
homogenous, different parts of the landscape have different ecological
functions and limitations. Imagine for example, the land along a stream, or on
a steep slope. Plowing this land and planting annual crops on it is going to
lead to environmental consequences.Ó
This isnÕt to say that
we canÕt still grow our crops of corn. Heggenstaller concedes, Òthere are many
parts of the landscape where corn production is far from the worst thing that
could be done from an environmental perspective, especially if we employ conservation
practices like cover crops, crop rotations, and no-till planting. The problem
is that right now thatÕs not what we are doing. Rather, we are gearing up for a
big push of corn and soybeans into those parts of the landscape that are not
suited for this use. Farmers need to have more options because we can't grow
the same thing everywhere.Ó
Heggenstaller points
to agricultural policy as one major hindrance that keeps farmers locked into
corn and soybean production to the exclusion of other crops. He says, ÒÉwe have
a false agricultural economy. Our government subsidizes farmers to produce corn
and soybeans, subsidizes the construction of corn and soy biofuel conversion
facilities, provides tax incentives for blending corn ethanol with gasoline,
and provides major tax breaks to investors who choose to get into the ethanol
and biodiesel business. The result of all of these subsidies is that the price
of corn, soybeans, ethanol, and biodiesel has little if any connection to what
these products would actually [be] worth in the market. Irrespective of
biofuels, but equally important to the discussion, are the persistent direct
government subsidies to farmers who grow corn and soybeans. No matter what
happens to the corn crop or the price of crop in the market, our government
pays farmers just to plant corn and soybeans. The point is, as long as our
government subsidizes the production of corn and soybeans on one hand, and
inflates the value of these crops on the other by creating new markets, our
farmers have but one rational economic option: grow more corn and soybeans.Ó
And grow more corn and
soybean is exactly what agribusiness is planning to do. Heggenstaller notes
that, ÒThis year for example, it is projected that US farmers will plant 90.5
million acres of corn. This would be 12 million acres more corn than was grown
last year, and more corn than has been grown in the US since 1944. Worse, some
of this increased corn production will take place on land that is currently
dedicated to conservation (i.e. CRP land: Conservation Reserve Program).Ó
It doesnÕt look like
Illinois will ever again see Òprairies verdant growing,Ó as the official state
song goes, and it looks like Illinois farmers and agribusinesses will have
their work cut out for them if they choose to swim upstream against the trends
and bring agricultural biodiversity back to the Midwestern landscape.
But it also looks like
farmers and agribusinesses are not forced by any laws of nature to choose
between feeding our growing societies and preserving biodiversity. In fact, it
looks like the key to feeding our growing societies in a sustainable way
actually requires the inclusion of maintained biodiversity into our
agricultural practices. The question is whether society can offer farmers and
agribusinesses the political and economic incentives to do so.
How this more
biodiverse form of agriculture can and ought to be applied to our Midwestern
landscape by farmers and especially the agribusinesses that own thousands of
acres and acres of corn is something time and research will reveal. Yet,
solutions seem to exist when we look.
Local Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms or subscription farms where ÒshareholdersÓ
buy a farm ÒshareÓ in the spring in return for weekly seasonal produce is a
great place to start. Supporting your local CSA farm encourages family farmers
to grow acres of all sorts of fruits and vegetables, usually delicious heirloom
varieties grown without pesticides and fertilizers.
Shopping at your local
farmerÕs market is another great route consumers can take to help give local
family farmers an opportunity to earn a decent living without relying on
government subsidies to produce acres of corn and soybean.
Be sure to talk to the
farmers at the market and ask where they farm and how they farm. DonÕt be
tricked into buying a melon grown down in Arkansas on an agribusiness farm and
shipped to Illinois. Also, try and buy from organic growers when possible.
DonÕt forget about
your meat sources as well. Buying your meats locally from free range and grass
fed animals makes for a better tasting, more nutritious meat and encourages
local biodiversity since it was grazed on a landscape more similar to our
native prairie grasslands than a muddy feedlot with food shipped in from some
monoculture field of grain somewhere.
Though each of these
suggestions support local family farmers and give them the opportunity to
incorporate more holistic and biodiverse farming practices, it may not sway
multinational agribusiness owning much of IllinoisÕ farmland to stop growing
all those acres and acres of corn shipped off to who-knows-where. Yet each will
contribute to a growing trend that is more in line with a healthy and
sustainable future. What more could we ask for?
I wish that we all
knew where all the corn goes and why we grow so much of it. I suspect that if
we knew—and it isnÕt some far off land of great corn eaters—people
would begin to think more seriously about how crops are grown throughout the
state of Illinois.
James
holds his BS in Environmental Studies from North Park University and has
studied sustainable agriculture on Educational Concerns for Hunger
Organization's (ECHO) experimental farm in Florida as well as ecology and
sustainability in South India. He is certified as both a Field Naturalist and
Environmental Analyst by AuSable Institute of Environmental Studies and is
currently working toward the completion of his MA in Social Justice at Loyola
University Chicago—a program designed to prepare graduates to work in
systemic change, social advocacy and community organizing from a faith and
values based perspective.