Sustainable
Agriculture:
Cooperative Extension Service
The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
PDF
Sustainable
|
|
What It Means for Georgia |
U.S. agriculture is an efficient producer of food and fiber. About 10 percent of our disposable income is currently spent for food, the lowest of any country in the world.
And agriculture is an economically important industry. Georgia farmers annually generate more than $6 billion cash receipts. This income plus that resulting from the marketing and further processing of these commodities accounts for more than 15 percent of the total economic activity in the state. This amount is even higher when we consider agricultural related commodities, for which there is no official estimate.
The Georgia Cooperative Extension Service is using information provided by the entire college to ensure that farmers in the state use the most efficient and resource conserving production techniques. Ideally, we want to achieve a high level of productivity while leaving our natural resources no less productive than when we began.
Georgia farmers take pride in contributing to a food supply that is inexpensive and safe. And they recognize that we must make certain this supply is socially acceptable by preserving our resources.
Helping farmers in Georgia achieve this goal is the intent of Extension's effort to maintain a sustainable agriculture.
American farmers have been asked to provide food that is
They have done this successfully by achieving a high level of efficiency.
Today, U.S. farmers work essentially 10 percent less land than they did in 1980 but produce 40 percent more output. Further efficiency is achieved by using 7 percent less energy and farm chemicals and 20 percent less labor. Farm output per hour of labor has increased 22 percent since 1987.
The result is that one farmer feeds himself and 130 other people.
This efficiency has caused an uneven distribution of farms. In Georgia, 20 percent of the farmers produce 80 percent of all farm commodity sales. The state has 50,000 farmers, down from 100,000 in 1960. The biggest decrease in numbers came during the 1960s and 1970s.
To be sustainable, farming must be profitable, which means producing what the consumer demands.
About two-thirds of the world's food supply is three grains -- rice, wheat and corn -- all either consumed directly or fed to livestock and poultry. And these crops are a major determinant of how farm legislation is written. About 50 percent of all federal commodity program benefits go to grain producers. Adding the cotton program brings the total to near 60 percent of all benefits.
Georgia is not a major grain producer because of unsuitable climate and higher incidence of insects and diseases. But commodities associated with some type of government program account for 25-30 percent of all measured cash farm receipts in the state. And the state's poultry industry benefits from relatively stable grain prices -- a result of the farm program.
Concern has been voiced that Georgia farmers can profitably produce only a few commodities. Broiler production accounts for 37 percent of the farm receipts and cotton accounts for 7 to 8 percent.
But this is not uncommon. In 1940, almost 40 percent of the state's farm income was from one crop -- cotton. And other states have specialization. Among them are Texas (cattle, 50 percent of income), Iowa (hogs, 30 percent), Wisconsin (dairy, 65 percent) and Florida (oranges, 25 percent).
Georgia's total farm cash receipts, however, have increased 23 percent since 1990 and net income has increased 82 percent over this time.
We must demonstrate that farmers are good stewards of our resources -- leaving them better than when crop production began.
Surveys show that 75 percent of the people are concerned with food safety, and they are concerned about the environment -- water quality, environmental and farm worker safety, and how the product is produced.
A Gallup poll recently indicated environmental protection as the most deeply and widely held value in America. The report stated:
The public is becoming more informed and more alarmed at the same time it is becoming less trusting of science, industry and governmental spokespersons.
But while people continue to be concerned about non-organic inputs, the Food and Drug Administration recently reported that less than 1 percent of domestic food samples had illegal pesticide residues. In contrast, import samples averaged 4 percent violations.
In addition, research has shown that micro-organisms in food are a bigger threat to health than are pesticide residues.
But as we move into a more "instant" society, consumers want more processed foods -- more services. This usually means less fiber in the foods and more fat and added salt -- items they reportedly don't want.
This trend in further prepared foods has caused a decline in the farm share of the consumer's food dollar. Each dollar represents a farm share of 21 cents, an off-farm labor share of 47 cents and packaging, advertising, fuels and transportation, 32 cents.
In the world of policy-making in a democratic society, there is no such thing as "truth" -- only the public perception (according to Kiplinger). Over time, perception becomes reality in the minds of consumers. One current public perception of agriculture is that it pollutes ground water and produces unhealthy products.
As a result, legislative bodies continue to impose new environmental and safety regulations on agriculture. There is contention that these new laws have the potential to adversely affect the profitability of farming and threaten its long-term survival.
... our present system of production be totally changed. But it is imperative that it be evaluated for both short- and long-term effectiveness.
Some have accused farmers of following the theory, If a little chemical is good, then more is better.
These inputs (such as fertilizer) are tools -- like antibiotics. They are no better or worse than the person using them. While farming without chemicals sounds good, and while it may be practical to pick bugs off plants on small farms, this is impractical for large-scale agriculture.
So it isn't likely we will see chemicals abandoned. A study by Knutson & Associates (Texas) indicates that the removal of chemicals from farming has the potential for slashing yields by 53 percent for corn, 78 percent for peanuts and 37 percent for soybeans. The study further projected that each U.S. family would pay $228 more each year for food because of the loss of chemicals.
Changes are occurring in the industry. Programs implemented include rotational grazing, soil conservation, water conservation, use of cover crops, nutrient management, agro-forestry and IPM.
Since 1993, Georgia farmers have spent less for fertilizers and lime and rents. But they have spent more for fuel, feed, labor and repairs.
Many groups are involved in these changes: farmers, city dwellers, suburbanites, farm input industries. All have a vested interest.
So, in the long term, a potential conflict exists between individual producers and society. In the short term, the most profitable and financially manageable systems for individuals may not be sustainable over time. Conversely, sustainable individual farming systems may not be profitable in the short term. Some interests advocate government involvement to moderate any conflict of these goals.
Many farmers and agribusinesses, however, contend that there is no evidence our current system is not sustainable. At the same time, others point to chemical residues in water and soils as evidence of excessive use of these inputs in current agricultural systems. These groups also assume that other farming practices negatively impact endangered plants and animals.
Adjustments to these issues are complex and will not be made quickly. For example, surveys have shown that consumer demand doesn't support a large organic market at prices likely to come with this system. But still, people want to know how the product was produced.
Many in agriculture don't believe the situation is as bad as some groups contend. These issues, however, make it necessary that the Cooperative Extension Service give its objective, expert attention. The organization helps evaluate whether or not farming alternatives can sustain agriculture both economically and ecologically into the foreseeable future.
Not much is known about the overall effects of the adoption of alternative systems and the economic tradeoffs involved. But the Extension Service is responding by developing educational programs from research that are focused on the issues in the sustainable agriculture arena.
Here's a sampling of the programs in place by the Georgia Extension Service.
These individual educational programs have the potential to be a part of whole farm demonstrations -- a project to recognize all the resources and aspirations of a farm by addressing environmental and profitable activities.
Some demonstration farms are currently being used. Others can bridge the gap between research findings on sustainable agriculture and their practical applications under farm conditions.
The Land Grant University System has developed and taught the basis for the most efficient agricultural system in the world. Public concern mandates a constant evaluation of new systems.
The Extension, Research and Teaching arms of the University of Georgia's College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences are working together and with other agencies and industries. We're striving to develop integrated crop and animal programs that will continue to be efficient without harming the environment.
Prepared by the Sustainable
Agriculture Critical Issue Committee
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Coordinator: William Givan, Extension Economist
Special Bulletin 32/Revised September, 2002
The University of Georgia and Ft. Valley State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service, the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences offers educational programs, assistance and materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability.
An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Organization Committed to a Diverse Work Force
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.
Gale A. Buchanan, Dean and Director