|
For
global agriculture to be
sustainable it needs to meet
several criteria. It should:
-
provide a reasonable
living for those working
in agriculture and
contribute to the
viability of rural
communities.
-
reduce as far as
possible its negative
impact on the
environment and
particularly the
climate.
-
protect biodiversity in
all its aspects
-
protect the welfare of
farm and working animals
-
produce the kind of food
which will contribute to
healthy and affordable
diets for both humans
and farm animals.
1.
Providing a reasonable
living for those working in
agriculture and contributing
to the viability of rural
communities.
The trend in global
agriculture has been to
enlarge agricultural units
in the interests of
productivity and
profitability. This has led
to monocultures of cropland
and large, industrial
livestock farms. This trend
is usually at the expense of
small farmers, who cannot
make such investments
themselves and whose
products cannot compete in
the market place due to
lower volume of output and
inability to ensure regular
supply (e.g. of pigs for
slaughter). Indeed, a
World Bank report has
stressed that industrial
livestock production
presents “a significant
danger that the poor are
being crowded out”.[i]
Many small farmers have been
forced to work off the land
to sustain their families.
Often they drift to the
cities, where they increase
the number of poor urban
citizens, unable to afford
proper housing and living in
shack-type accommodation,
with a likely lack of both
sanitation and drinkable
water supply.
Governments and
international agencies
should support sustainable
agriculture by helping small
farmers and pastoralists to maintain and
improve their holdings,
should invest in training
programmes to upgrade
farming skills and should
encourage co-operatives for
sharing the costs of
equipment, such as
harvesting equipment, and
for marketing their produce.
Farmer field schools are a
good example to emulate.
When local farmers can make
a decent living from their
land, then rural communities
will benefit from their
economic viability and from
the personal enthusiasm and
energy which they can then
share with others.
Sustainable agriculture must
aim to achieve vibrant rural
communities.
2.
Reducing as far as possible
its negative impact on the
environment and particularly
the climate
Agriculture can have a
significant impact on the
environment, some of it
beneficial, some of it
damaging. Animal agriculture
is responsible for 18% of
global anthropogenic
greenhouse gases (GHGs).[ii]
Tilling the soil in itself
produces GHG as does the use
of nitrogen fertilizers –
widely used throughout the
world. Nitrogen fertilizers
can cause eutrophication,
(nutrient enrichment of
ecosystems), resulting, for
example, in growths of algae
and bacteria in water.
However soils can act as a
sink for carbon and for
methane.[iii]
There are a range of methods
to reduce the environmental
impact of agricultural land
use, and which may have
added benefits in promoting
soil fertility, such as:
conservation or
zero-tillage, mixed
rotations with cover crops
and green manures to
increase biomass in the
soil, applying composts and
manures to the soil, using
agro-forestry, especially in
marginal lands, to increase
the standing biomass of
carbon, cultivating
perennial, rather than
annual grasses as they have
more biomass below the soil
and use of soil conservation
techniques to prevent
erosion.
[iii]
Pretty J (in press).
Agricultural
sustainability:
concepts, principles
and evidence.
Philosophical
Transactions of the
Royal Society B.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2163
PAGE 2
The use of inorganic
nitrogen fertilizers
(which are
energy-intensive to
produce and used
widely in growing
crops for human
consumption and
animal feed) should
be reduced and
replaced with
targeted and
slow-release
fertilizers.
Integrated pest
management should be
adopted rather than
pesticides, as these
are also
energy-intensive to
produce and should
be restricted, as
far as possible, to
emergency use.3With
60 billion farm
animals used
globally every year,
and global meat
production predicted
to double by 2050,
NOTEREF
_Ref197832812 \h \*
MERGEFORMAT
2
there is an urgency
to address the issue
of production of
animal protein. As
Henning Steinfeld,
chief author of the
FAO’s “Livestock’s
Long Shadow” report
says, “Livestock are
one of the most
significant
contributors to
today’s most serious
environmental
problems. Urgent
action is required
to remedy the
situation”.2
The current rates of
livestock production
are already
responsible for 9%
of total
human-induced CO2
emissions, 37%
of human-induced
methane emissions
and 65% of total
human-induced
nitrous oxide
emissions - both the
latter gases having
a much higher global
warming potential (GWP)
than carbon dioxide
(methane 23 times
the GWP of CO2 and
nitrous oxide 296
times).[i]
Animals also excrete
nitrogen in urine
and faeces,
contributing to
water pollution. The
resulting manure,
which is not
absorbed by plants,
produces large
amounts of nitrous
oxide and ammonia.
In fact livestock
production produces
64% of total
human-induced
ammonia emissions.
Ammonia, although
not a greenhouse
gas, is highly
damaging as it
contributes to the
production of acid
rain.4
Another serious
environmental
problem is
over-grazing.
Already 73% of the
world’s dry
rangelands are
degraded and
pastures are under
threat.4
If numbers of
livestock increase
as predicted, their
environmental impact
will be severe
indeed. Sustainable
agriculture must
therefore reduce
large concentrations
of livestock, where
the potential for
environmental damage
is heightened, as
well as reducing
overall numbers of
animals. Ideally
farms should grow
their own animal
feed and absorb
their own animal
wastes. If farms are
not large enough or
well placed to do
so, then
co-operative
grouping of farms
may be the best
solution.3
Methane digesters
and biomass
cook-stoves are
useful ways in which
to harness animal
and other waste
materials, but they
cannot possibly
provide a solution
to the total impact
of livestock
farming.
3
3.
Protecting
biodiversity in all
its aspects.
Already industrial
farming, with
tendency towards
mono-cropping and
industrial animal
factory farms, has
devastated local
biodiversity,
causing reduction or
loss of wild species
of plants, birds,
animals and insect
life. Trees and
bushes have been cut
down, the very
places where many
creatures live and
eat.
In addition the
genetic diversity of
both farm animals
and crops has been
reduced, with
efforts being
concentrated on
those varieties or
genotypes reckoned
to be most
productive. Nearly
all broiler (meat)
chicken breeding
globally is now
based on stock
produced by just
three companies.[ii]
Dairy farming is
hugely biased
towards the use of
Holstein cows,
although their
stamina, climatic
adaptability and
longevity are
problematic. Around
a third of livestock
species are deemed
under threat[iii]
and some fear that
valuable genetic
inheritance of
beneficial traits
may be lost.[iv]
On-farm solutions to
maintaining and
promoting
biodiversity include
minimising or
abandoning use of
toxic pesticides,
maintaining or
planting hedgerows
and wide borders
around crop-land,
and planting trees,
which can also be
used to provide
shelter for free
range pigs, cattle
and chickens,
promote better air
quality and are
vital to bird life.
[ii]
Scientific
Committee on
Animal
Health and
Animal
Welfare
(2000). The
Welfare of
Chickens
Kept for
Meat
Production
(Broilers).
European
Commission,
Health and
Consumer
Protection
Directorate-General,
March 2000.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf
[iv]
Food and
Agriculture
Organisation
of the
United
Nations
(undated).
Protecting
Animal
Genetic
Diversity
for Food and
Agriculture:
Time for
action.
Animal
Genetic
Resources
Group, FAO.
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/pdf/angr.pdf
Page 4.
Agricultural
wetlands
should also
be preserved
and farmers
compensated
for
maintaining
them. They
provide a
haven and
often a
breeding
ground for
certain
species.
There is
evidence
that organic
farming can
have a
beneficial
effect in
maintaining
and
promoting
biodiversity.[i]
At the
other end of
the
spectrum,
the IAASTD
Report
(2008) says
that the use
of GM crops
is
“contentious”
and that
data based
on some
years and
some GM
crops
indicate
highly
variable
10-33% yield
gains in
some places
and yield
declines in
others.[ii]
However,
this has yet
to be
proven.
GM crops may
as the
technology
improves be
a
breadbasket
for the
world.
Farmers
should be
encouraged
to rear
traditional
or local
breeds of
animals, who
are often
hardier and
well suited
to local
conditions.
In the
transition
phase
(towards
sustainable
farming),
farmers
should be
assisted in
finding
premium
markets for
products
from such
animals.
 Scientists
should also
be
encouraged
to explore
humane
cloning
sciences
(cloning is
not yet
humane) and
the use of
stem cell
research to
grow meat in
factory
situations,
vs growing
live
animals.
Much
progress has
been made in
this area in
Holland over
the last
three years,
where
scientists,
see left,
have grown
pork in a
dish.
"Bernard
Roelen, a
veterinary
science
professor at
Utrecht
University
prepares a
petri dish
for growing
pork in a
university
lab in
Utrecht May
23, 2007.
Dutch
researchers
are trying
to grow pork
meat in a
laboratory
with the
goal of
feeding
millions
without the
need to
raise and
slaughter
animals."
5.
Protecting
the welfare
of farm and
working
animals.
In
industrial
farms large
numbers of
animal are
kept in
conditions
which
adversely
impact their
welfare and
their
health. They
may live
long enough
to yield a
profit, like
the broiler
chicken who
will be
slaughtered
at around 6
weeks of
age, or the
dairy cow,
usually
culled by
the time she
is 5 or 6
years old,
but their
fundamental
health and
longevity
are no
longer
sustainable.
If not
slaughtered,
the broilers
would have
difficulty
in living
even to
their
puberty at
around 18
weeks, as
many would
have died as
a result of
lameness or
heart
failure.[iii]
After two or
three years
of intensive
milk
production,
many cows
are culled
for failure
to get
pregnant or
due to
frequent
bouts of
mastitis or
lameness.[iv]
In
industrial
conditions
the fact
that each
animal is a
sentient
being,
capable of
emotional
and physical
feelings, is
largely
ignored. The
animals are
often unable
to carry out
normal
behaviours,
such as
rooting in
the soil for
pigs,
ground-scratching
and nesting
for hens.
Sometimes
the physical
space is so
limited that
even basic
behaviours
such as
walking and
turning
round are
prevented,
as in narrow
crates for
veal calves
or pregnant
sows. In
addition the
animals
endure a
series of
damaging
psychological
events, such
as the
separation
of cow and
calf at a
day old (in
the dairy
industry),
isolation
from their
peers, as in
the keeping
of sows in
sow stalls
(gestation
crates) and
over-crowding,
as with hens
kept in
battery
cages and
broilers or
pigs being
fattened for
slaughter in
crowded
sheds.
Working
animals,
whilst often
incredibly
important to
farmers, are
frequently
worked too
hard, are
fitted with
ill-fitting
harness or
badly
balanced
carts. They
often suffer
from hunger
or thirst
and may not
be fed or
watered
throughout
the working
day.
Parasitic
diseases and
sores are
common and
many farmers
can ill
afford to
seek
veterinary
treatment
for them.
Sustainable
agriculture
must be
sustainable
for the
animals too.
For farm
animals this
means
keeping them
in
conditions
which
promote
their health
and welfare.
Ideally they
should have
an outdoor
range for
grazing or
foraging and
for
exercise,
fresh air
and play and
carrying out
grooming
behaviours.
Where
outdoor
access is
absolutely
impossible
due to the
size of
holding or
severe
climatic
conditions,
they should
at least
have an
exercise
yard. Indoor
housing must
be kept
clean, but
also
requires
provision of
material
such as
straw, wood
shavings or
rice husks
as bedding
material to
encourage
foraging and
play
behaviours
and to
provide a
comfortable
place to
rest and
sleep. Large
groups
should be
avoided, as
should
isolation,
except in
cases of
illness.
Schemes to
allow
farmers on
low incomes
to access
veterinary
care for
livestock
and working
animals
should be a
priority for
governments.
Schemes
should also
help with
provision
and
maintenance
of
equipment.
In certain
areas a
shared
tractor may
have less
adverse
impact on
the
environment
than a
couple of
working
bullocks.
[iv]
Webster
J
(2005).
Chapter
3.
Animals
for
Food:
Cattle
and
Other
Ruminants.
In
Animal
Welfare:
Limping
towards
Eden.
Blackwell
Publishing,
Oxford,
p135
5.
Producing
the
kind
of
food
which
will
contribute
to
healthy
and
affordable
diets
for
both
humans
and
farm
animals.
Animals
kept
in
industrial
type
farms
eat
mostly
cereal
and
soya-based
rations.
In
fact
over
a
third
of
the
world’s
cereal
harvest
and
over
90%
soya
is
used
for
animal
feed.[i]
This
land
could
be
used
to
grow
crops
for
human
food.
In
addition,
feeding
cereals
to
animals
is
an
inefficient
way
to
feed
people.
The
2008
IAASTD
Report
says
that
it
takes
for
example
4.5
plant
derived
calories
to
produce
one
calorie
of
egg
or
milk
and
9
plant
derived
calories
to
produce
one
calorie
of
beef
or
lamb
meat.9
Not
only
is
this
use
of
what
could
be a
vital
food
source
for
humans
a
waste
in
many
ways,
it
is
often
a
profoundly
unnatural
diet
for
the
animals.
With
a
further
use
of
cereals
for
biofuel
production
(being
encouraged
by
governments
afraid
of
the
forecast
falling-off
of
oil
supplies),
there
is a
looming
global
crisis
as
the
price
of
cereals
is
becoming
unsustainable
for
the
poor.
The
result
is a
situation
in
which
the
hungry
cannot
afford
to
eat,
the
animals
suffer
health
problems
from
eating
foods
which
are
not
natural
to
their
species
and
the
wealthy
drive
their
cars
on
clear-conscience
fuels!
This
is
clearly
an
unsustainable
way
in
which
to
organize
our
world.
Farmers
should
be
encouraged
to
allow
their
ruminants
to
graze
where
grass
is
available
and
crop
residues
such
as
straw
and
stalks
can
also
be
fed,
to
reduce
reliance
on
often
imported
cereal
and
soy
feeds.
Ideally
animal
feeds
should
be
grown
on
the
farm
or
at
least
locally.
However
the
bigger
lesson
to
be
learned
is
that
current
levels
of
global
livestock
production
are
unsustainable.
The
IAASTD
Report
says
that
“the
rapid
growth
in
demand
for
meat
and
milk
is
projected
to
increase
competition
for
land
with
crop
production
and
to
put
pressure
on
the
price
for
maize
and
other
grains
and
meals.”[ii]
Reducing
livestock
numbers
would
free
up
food
crops
to
provide
food
for
the
swelling
human
population.
Livestock
production
is
also
water-intensive,
especially
the
indoor,
intensive
systems.
Already
8%
of
global
human
water
use
goes
towards
animal
production:
7%
on
feedcrops
and
the
remainder
for
hydrating
the
animals
themselves
and
at
slaughter
and
food
processing
plants.4
Wise
diets
depend
partly
on
wise
land
and
water
use.
The
world
is
undergoing
an
obesity
crisis,
as
the
“western”
diet,
with
its
high
proportion
of
meats
and
dairy
products,
spreads
globally.
Related
conditions
such
as
type-2
diabetes,
certain
heart
conditions
and
cancers
are
also
on
the
increase,[iii]
causing
much
human
suffering
and
a
massive
strain
on
medical
and
health
resources.
The
perfect
diet
may
not
have
been
invented,
but
there
is
sufficient
research
to
show
that
a
plant-based
diet
high
in
fruits
and
vegetables,
with
minimal
red
meats
is
best.[iv]
Wealthier,
health-conscious
western
consumers
are
already
adopting
such
diets,
but
rapidly
developing
nations
are
undergoing
the
same
damaging
nutrition
transition
that
the
west
underwent
in
the
twentieth
century,
and
meat
consumption
is
rapidly
increasing.
Public
health
researchers
are
now
promoting
contraction
and
convergence
policies,
where
those
on
western
diets
cut
back
their
consumption
of
meat
and
dairy,
whilst
allowing
those,
e.g.
in
sub-Saharan
Africa,
to
increase
their
consumption
with
both
converging
at a
level
which
is
sustainable
for
human
health
and
for
the
planet’s
resources
and
the
environment.[v]
Meat
and
dairy
are
expensive
commodities
to
produce,
though
at
the
same
time
it
is
clear
that
many
cultures
will
not
transfer
to
soy
as
an
alternative,
so
instead
of
eliminating
this
market,
it
is
important
to
develop
humane
processes
or
perhaps
expand
on
the
Dutch
model.
Certainly
traditional
and
can
have
adverse
impacts
on
global
food
and
water
resources,
can
damage
the
environment,
including
the
climate,
and
can
end
up
contributing
to
high
rates
of
certain
non-communicable
diseases
in
humans.
In
addition,
large
concentrations
of
animal
numbers
in
intensive
farms
provide
ideal
conditions
for
transmission
and
mutation
of zoonoses
(diseases
transmitted
from
animals
to
humans)
and
viruses.[vi]
[i] Steinfeld H et al. (2006).Chapter 2. Livestock in geographic transition. In Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Rome http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
[iii] World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research (2007). Chapter 1. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective, p4 www.dietandcancerreport.org
[iv] World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research (2007). Chapter 12. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective, p380-383 www.dietandcancerreport.org
[v] McMichael A .J. et al (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet 370: 1253-1263.
[vi] Greger M .J. (2007). The Human/Animal Interface: Emergence and resurgence of zoonotic infectious diseases. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 33:243-299;
Page 5
Some experts have argued, including in developing the initial draft of this paper that in the future, cereals and soya should be grown primarily for human consumption, with animal farming being undertaken in smaller farming units where farmers can take care of and pride in their livestock and where environmental and human health can be protected and promoted. More than likely farming in the future will be a mix of practices. The key policy recommendation is that they be climatically responsible and humanee.
|