We took a look last week at some details of the 2008 tax return filed by the deceptive Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The filing shows that HSUS paid out less than one-half of one percent of its $99 million budget to hands-on dog and cat shelters. Meanwhile, a large portion of the kitty – tens of millions of dollars – went to employee salaries and animal rights lobbying. And all this expensive chicken-hugging has a hidden price. To find it, try visiting your local unemployment office.

In 2008 HSUS spent more than $2.3 million on a political committee called “Californians for Humane Farms,” which campaigned for the “Proposition 2” ballot initiative in the Golden State. In 2007, it gave over $1.3 million. HSUS also made donations of $200,000 in 2007 and 2008 to the “Committee to Protect Dogs,” a Massachusetts organization that pushed for a statewide ban on greyhound racing with the “Question 3” ballot initiative.

Both ballot campaigns were successful. And both had human costs. In California, a UC Davis study estimated that Prop 2 would destroy the state’s egg industry by adding 20 percent to the cost of egg production and causing companies to move to other states or to Mexico. In real numbers, the study found, Prop 2 was expected to cost more than 3,000 jobs and take more than $615 million out of the state’s already precarious economy. In Massachusetts, 1,000 people were expected to lose their jobs after the racing ban took effect last week. We love dogs too, but when people lose their jobs, who’s going to buy them kibble and flea collars?

All told, HSUS’s leaders spent more than $4.1 million on two political battles, and put an estimated 4,000 workers out of business. And that doesn’t include similar political “committees” HSUS has bankrolled in Michigan, Colorado, and Arizona. Who knows how many jobs HSUS will kill this year in Ohio alone?

Sure, HSUS claims it does everything “for the animals.” But what about people? How many American workers and their families are left unemployed in the wake of animal rights campaigns? And why doesn’t HSUS put a serious amount of money into pet shelters, where animals can be helped and jobs created?

There are human costs to HSUS’s crusades. But when cows and pigs are all you care about, people can get lost in the shuffle. Today’s overfed animal activists are clearly willing to put Americans in the bread line. Just don’t expect any chicken soup when you get there.

I have spent the last few weeks attending many Holiday celebrations and receptions.  A key component of these fabulous gatherings has been all of the delicious food.  In addition, I have received many food gifts from family, friends and colleagues.

We are deeply fortunate to live in a country where there is “food galore”. This reflects the impressive nature of our food system, from farm to fork, and the many science and technological advances that allowed this “to happen”.   However, I wish to remind my readers that there are many in the World that suffer from too much food, as well as too little food.  Both of these “bring” pressing social and health issues.

I have written about the economic and health costs of the overweight/obesity epidemic in the United States in a previous blog, “Land of Plenty - Overweight and Obesity in America“.   More than 66% of Americans are overweight or obese.  This reflects the reality that too many people eat too much food!  The fact that this epidemic is ongoing even though there are nutrition and health care intervention programs that could work indicates how difficult this problem is to “fix” on a population-wide basis.

The other “food issue” is hunger in the World. Based on estimates from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, there are more than one billion hungry people in the World!  This is about one-sixth of the World’s population.  It is incredulous to think about this especially given the wealth and agricultural scientific expertise in the developed countries of the World that could be brought to bear on solving the problem.

A very simple question follows:  What do “we” do about it? There is no easy “fix” for this.  Moreover, the “answers” are profoundly difficult to implement world-wide, especially given the poverty and geopolitical strife that exists in developing countries that contribute to the problem.

My encouragement is that as you enjoy all the food over the Holiday Season you consider what you might do to help address the problems that surround “too much food” and “too little food” in the global village.  And, consider providing a comment to this blog with your ideas for solutions.  In the New Year, this will be a theme of some of my blogs–i.e., what we all can do about food excesses and hunger in the World.

All the best for a Happy Holiday Season!

With so many stories to choose from, it was hard for us to determine the top agricultural biotechnology story of 2009. Therefore, we turned to the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) experts and let them choose the top three stories that stood out in terms of their significance and impact on the future of agricultural biotechnology worldwide. CBI experts include the nation’s leading scientists in plant genetics and food science, among other disciplines.

Dr. Norman Borlaug’s Legacy
The loss of Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and father of the Green Revolution, was cited by several experts as the biggest story of 2009 because of his work to alleviate poverty and hunger. In his obituary, The New York Times praised Dr. Borlaug’s advances in plant breeding, which allowed countries like Mexico and India to become food self-sufficient and as a result, saved one billion lives.

According to Dr. Ronald Phillips of the University of Minnesota, “Norman Borlaug was one of the greatest humanitarians to ever have lived and he achieved this through hard work, impeccable ethics, a belief in training, and a vision as to what can improve the human condition.”

Reflecting on Dr. Borlaug’s legacy, Dr. Peggy G. Lemaux of the University of California, Berkeley wrote “far and away the year’s top story is Norman Borlaug. Biotechnology lost a strong and influential voice with his passing. One that cannot be filled by any other shoes.”

China Begins Approval Process for Biotech Rice
Many CBI Experts also chose the recent story about China declaring genetically modified rice safe to produce and consume as one of the year’s most significant ag biotech developments. The Wall Street Journal reported that with this decision the Chinese government takes a “major step toward endorsing the use of biotechnology in the staple food crop of billions of people in Asia.”

According to Dr. Kenneth G. Cassman of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, “this announcement is a game-changer because China produces about 30% of rice in the world… Therefore, I believe this approval will create an overwhelming pressure to approve biotech crops in most developing nations.”

Dr. Chris Somerville of the University of California, Berkeley also chose China’s announcement as his top story of the year because “it is the official opening of the largest food market in the world to GMO.”

Mapping of the Corn Genome
Other CBI experts suggested that the mapping of the corn genome qualifies as the biggest ag biotech story of the year because of what can be achieved when we understand the genome sequence of this hugely important crop. The Washington Post wrote, “…many agronomists hope the information buried in corn’s 32,000 genes and 2.3 billion letters of DNA may help sustain the century-long improvement in yield and hardiness into an era of climate change and, possibly, food shortage.”

Dr. Larry Heatherly of the University of Tennessee chose the mapping of the corn genome as the story of the year because “this achievement will lead to new/improved quality traits, enhanced genetic pest resistance, and increased production with fewer inputs resulting in lower cost of production and a more sustainable economic production system.”

Agricultural Biotechnology Makes Headlines
Other agricultural biotechnology stories made headlines during 2009. These stories include Bill Gates’ speech endorsing the expansion of technology in agriculture at the 2009 World Food Prize Symposium, and the increased acceptance and approval of biotechnology crops due to the pressures of growing population and climate change.

Below are quotes from national opinion leaders about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology from 2009.

_________________________________________

“Genetically modified crops are proving to be an unmitigated environmental miracle… Within a decade there may be crops that are no-till, insect-resistant, omega-3-enriched, drought-tolerant, salt-tolerant and nitrogen-efficient. If they boost yields, then the 21st century will see more and more people better and better fed from less and less land.”

— Matt Ridley, The Economist, The World in 2010 Issue

_________________________________________

“We have global warming problems, we have health problems. And many – not all, by any means – solutions can be found in agricultural biotechnology.”

— Michael Specter, author of Denialism and New Yorker reporter

_________________________________________

“We believe that biotechnology has a critical role to play in increasing agricultural productivity, particularly in light of climate change. We also believe it can help to improve the nutritional value of staple foods.”

— Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Biotech Crops Help Reduce Agriculture’s Pesticide Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PG Economics Research Summary (The UK)
December 7, 2009

In light of ongoing debates on global food security, agricultural sustainability and climate change, it is important to recognize the benefits biotechnology brings to world agricultural production.

According to several research summaries released by PG Economics in the UK, those impacts are significant.

Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year (see Table below).

The greenhouse gas emission reductions are derived from two principle sources: reduced fuel use from less-frequent herbicide or insecticide applications and reduced energy usage in soil cultivation from the use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems.

From 1996 to 2007, pesticide spraying was reduced by 359 million kg, which is equivalent to 125% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union.

The fuel savings associated with making fewer spray runs (relative to conventional crops) and the switch to conservation, reduced-till and no-till farming systems have resulted in permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions. In 2007, this amounted to about 1.144 billion kg (attributable to reduced fuel use of 416 million liters).

From 1996 to 2007, the cumulative permanent reduction from fuel use was estimated at 7.09 billion kg of carbon dioxide (arising from reduced fuel use of 2.578 billion liters).

The use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems has increased significantly with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops because the technology has improved growers’ ability to control competing weeds, which reduces reliance on soil cultivation and seed-bed preparation as means for getting good levels of weed control.

As a result, tractor fuel use for tillage has dropped, soil quality has been enhanced and levels of soil erosion have been cut. In turn, more carbon remains in the soil, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Based on savings arising from the rapid adoption of no-till and reduced-till farming systems in North and South America, an estimated extra 3.57 billion kg of soil carbon were sequestered in 2007 (equivalent to 13.103 billion kg of carbon dioxide that have not been released into the atmosphere).

Cumulatively, the amount of carbon sequestered is probably higher due to year-over-year benefits to soil quality. However, due to the lack of data on the crop area in continuous no-till systems, PG Economics said it is not possible to confidently estimate cumulative soil sequestration gains.

Herbicide-tolerant biotech soybeans have also facilitated the adoption of no-till production systems, which shorten the production cycle.

This advantage enables many farmers in South America to plant a crop of soybeans immediately after a wheat crop in the same growing season. This second crop, additional to traditional soybean production, added 67.5 million metric tons to soybean production in Argentina and Paraguay between 1996 and 2007.

For more information visit PG Economics.

Some groups still continue to spread information about animal cloning and whether food from clones is safe to enter our food system.

Groups opposed to cloning use communication tactics that are designed to scare consumers about the safety of food from cloned animals.  These attacks continue even though in 2008 the Food and Drug Administration published Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment, a lengthy document that concluded (based on the burden of scientific evidence) meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones are as safe as food we eat every day.

I find it remarkably interesting that there seems to be little concern by these activist groups about the use of cloning in the wine industry (by the way, the fact is that there is no basis for any concern).  My point, however, is simple.  How come the science of cloning is attacked in animals but not when applied to grapes?

Ever been to a vineyard and looked at the grape varieties?  They are clones!!  And, many vineyard owners proudly put up signs touting the particular clone(s) that are planted in each “block” of their vineyard.

To get a perspective about the incredible number of different grape clones used in the wine industry please visit the National Grape Registry, which is based at the University of California-Davis.  One example illustrates my point about the prevalence of grape clones–there are 49 different clones of Cabernet Sauvignon listed!

Interesting paradox, isn’t it?  Cloned grapes are “okay” whereas some believe that cloned animals are “not okay”.

My encouragement..enjoy your steak with a wonderful red wine (produced from cloned grapes) and think about more pressing societal issues than the application of cloning to the food system.

If Activists, Government, and Global Business Unite

I got my first bumper sticker (for my bicycle) as a 10 year old kid showing cows at the county fair. It said “Farmers Feed You Three Times a Day” and it resonated with me because, even at that age, I understood that those who feed the rest of the world are often not held in high regard. I got some of my first exposure to those who don’t like animal agriculture at the same fair when a stranger asked me how I would like my head brushed with that those stiff bristles.

Animal rights activists have long exaggerated, misunderstood and misrepresented farm practices. Their underlying philosophy that we have no more inherent worth than livestock is simply evil and makes a better argument for cannibalism than for the welfare of animals. Nevertheless, they’ve had success in state ballot initiatives. Many of the practices they’ve targeted are ones that I’m not all that fond of, frankly, and it’s understandable why people would vote to eliminate them. However, the leaders of the animal rights movement want animal agriculture to end, and the success they’ve had so far is simply one step along the path toward that ultimate goal.

Environmentalists are no fonder of animal agriculture. Livestock are bad animals that exhale carbon dioxide and emit methane. We’re being told that continuing to grow them for food will ruin the planet, especially as the world’s population grows. Revelations from stolen e-mails that global warming evidence has been manipulated gives me little confidence that the environmental impact of agriculture will be given a fair hearing. The activist movements have always been a thorn in the side of our farmers, but they weren’t a threat to our existence because they haven’t convinced the general public that animal production is an inherently evil enterprise. The game might change if heavy-handed government and big business interests enable the animal activist movement.

Government officials see in agriculture two things that excite them: revenue and the opportunity to protect ourselves from ourselves. America is too fat. Our expanding waistline is a needless medical expense. Previous efforts to control our weight have failed - who knew that introducing the food pyramid would be followed by people shaped thus? To some, it’s time for more draconian actions like a fat-tax. The current director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has advocated taxes on sugary drinks, and taxes on fattening animal products won’t lag far behind. Emission taxes for livestock have been proposed as a way to help control greenhouse gas production. Once a government mandated national animal ID system is in place, such a tax will be easy to administer. Increase tax revenue, save on health care costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions – animal agriculture is simply too great a political opportunity to go untouched!

Our protection has always been that consumers still want our product. We’ll continue to exist as long as that does not change, correct? Some high tech businesses might have other plans. Scientists have developed methods to grow meat in a Petri dish. It is “soggy” at this point, but they think they can improve the system and provide something edible in 5 years. Dairy protein substitutes have also been created to facilitate cheese production. Consumers might just be able to get the animal protein they desire without actually needing animal production. Animal rightists and environmentalists think this development is fantastic. Meat and dairy without methane and with less carbon has already been suggested as a key piece of meeting greenhouse gas emission goals, and business leaders who want to sell fake meat are not likely to advocate on our behalf.

What can animal producers and their supporters do to prevent this perfect storm of activism, government regulation, and global business from taking hold? We have to provide something that consumers want, need and are willing to fight for. It will have to go beyond simple nourishment, because other food sources will be available and probably be less expensive. Family farms are held in high regard by the public, and I believe consumers are comfortable knowing that family farms spread around the country provide a food supply that is secure and less open to manipulation by a few large business conglomerates. We need to protect that image and build on it. To do so, consumer attitudes toward animal and environmental stewardship practices, farm consolidation, government farm subsidies, and immigration should be taken more seriously than they are currently.  Farmers also need more control over what they are paid and what their products cost consumers because the farm-to-retail price spread is growing. Many folks are lining their pockets at the expense of farmer and consumer.

We are likely a long way from the end of animal agriculture as we know it. But, its continued existence should not be a foregone conclusion. Will we take these threats seriously, or are current business interests just too entrenched to change? I hope not, because “Lab Techs Feed You Three Times a Day” bumper stickers might not be far behind.

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, PORTLAND, Ore., GOTHENBURG, Sweden, November 23, 2009 – Popular thinking about how to improve food systems for the better often misses the point, according to the results of a three-year global study of salmon production systems. Rather than pushing for organic or land-based production, or worrying about simple metrics such as “food miles,” the study finds that the world can achieve greater environmental benefits by focusing on improvements to key aspects of production and distribution.

For example, what farmed salmon are fed, how wild salmon are caught and the choice to buy frozen over fresh matters more than organic vs. conventional or wild vs. farmed when considering global scale environmental impacts such as climate change, ozone depletion, loss of critical habitat, and ocean acidification.

The study is the world’s first comprehensive global-scale look at a major food commodity from a full life cycle perspective, and the researchers examined everything — how salmon are caught in the wild, what they’re fed when farmed, how they’re transported, how they’re consumed, and how all of this contributes to both environmental degradation and socioeconomic benefits.

The researchers behind the study sought to understand how the world can develop truly sustainable food systems through the lens of understanding the complexities associated with wild and farmed salmon production, processing and distribution. They found that decision-making for food must learn to fully account for the life cycle socioeconomic and environmental costs of food production. How we weight the importance of such impacts is ultimately subjective and in the realm of policy and culture, but using a comprehensive approach provides a more nuanced process for informed decision-making. Even food has a lifecycle, and the world must learn to comprehend the full costs of it in order to design reliable, resilient food systems to feed a world population that’s forecast to grow to 9 billion in less than 40 years.

The researchers chose salmon as their focus as it exemplifies important characteristics of modern food systems, yet offers unique opportunities for comparison. It is available around the world at any time and in any location, regardless of season or local ecosystem, it is available in numerous product forms, and it is distributed using a variety of transport modes. Unlike many other food systems, however, it is available from both wild sources and a range of farmed production systems.

While it isn’t easy to balance people, profit and planet, the world must do much better. Food production, in aggregate, is the single largest source of environmental degradation globally. Impacts vary dramatically depending on what, where and how food is produced. For example, early results of the study found that growing salmon in land-based farms can increase total greenhouse gas emissions ten-fold over conventional farming depending on how and where the farming is conducted. Similarly, while organic farming of many crops offers benefits over conventional production, organic salmon production gives rise to impacts very similar to conventional farming due to the use of resource intensive fish meals and oils. Beyond the farm, it’s important to also consider the total impact of food preparation. Driving to the store alone and then cooking alone at home has a big environmental impact. Going out to dinner more, or just eating more frequently with friends and family at home, has huge benefit.

For concerned consumers, it’s important to think about how food was produced and transported — not just where it was produced — when making food choices.

Initial Findings from the Study (More Due with the Final Report in 2010):

• Fish should swim, not fly. Air-freighting salmon, and any food, results in substantial increases in environmental impacts. If more frozen food were consumed, more container ships would be used to ship food. Container ships are by far the most efficient and carbon-friendly way to transport food. Globally, the majority of salmon fillets are currently consumed fresh and never frozen. In fish-loving Japan, which gets much of its fish by air, switching to 75 percent frozen salmon would have more benefit than all of Europe eating locally farmed salmon.
• The choice to buy frozen matters more than organic vs. conventional or wild vs. farmed.
• A full life cycle assessment approach to research provides a more nuanced process for informed decision-making. Even food has a lifecycle, and we must comprehend the full impact to make meaningful improvements to food systems. Tradeoffs may be inevitable.
• Contrary to what is widely perceived, the vast majority of broad-scale resource use and environmental impacts (energy inputs, GHG emissions, etc) from conventional salmon farming result from the feeds used to produce them. What happens at or around a farm site may be important for local ecological reasons but contributes very little to global scale concerns such as global warming.
• Across the globe, what is used to feed salmon and the amounts of feeds used vary widely. As a result, impacts are very different. Norwegian salmon farming resulted in generally lower overall impacts while farmed salmon production in the UK resulted in the greatest impacts.
• Reducing the amount of animal-derived inputs to feeds (e.g. fish meals and oils along with livestock derived meals) in favor of plant-based feed inputs can markedly reduce environmental impacts.
• Growing organic salmon using fish meals and oils from very resource intensive fisheries results in impacts very similar to conventional farmed salmon production.
• If not planned carefully, technological fixes aimed at addressing local environmental challenges associated with conventional salmon farming can result in substantial increases in global-scale environmental impacts. In general, salmon fisheries result in relatively low global-scale environmental impacts. However, substantial differences exist between how salmon are caught. Catching salmon in large nets as they school together has one tenth the impact of catching them in small numbers using baited hooks and lures.

Across salmon production systems — and all food systems — the world is often swimming against the tide. Instead of working with nature, people work against it, chasing fish in the open ocean with big diesel engines or substituting energy demanding pumping and water treatment for free ecosystem services in salmon farming. We can and must do better than this and start to swim with the tide.

More information on this study and related publications is available at www.ecotrust.org/lca. The most recent published paper from the study can be seen in the journal Environmental Science & Technology: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9010114.

I stop at the end of the lane to retrieve the day’s mail and folded around the usual stack of bills is my latest issue of TIME magazine. Before driving into the farm I take a quick look at the cover. What’s this? A package of bright red hamburger is center stage with a label across the package: “WARNING: This hamburger may be hazardous to your health. Why the American food system is bad for our bodies, our economy, and our environment- and what some visionaries are trying to do about it.” Immediately below the package in huge bold print are the words “ The Real Cost of Cheap Food”, by Bryan Walsh, Time’s  “Energy and Climate” writer. My immediate thought is “Here we go - some pseudo- expert who knows next to nothing about agriculture, has decided to trash our way of life once again”. I read the article right then and there and my first impression is certainly correct!

Yep, it’s become as predictable as fall follows summer; someone is going to bash our farming systems, especially livestock production, on a regular basis. If we may digress for just a moment, do you remember a book that came out in 1993 entitled “ Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture” by Jeremy Rifkin? It was a ridiculous account of how every problem known to mankind could be traced back to the beef industry. I remember one reviewer stating, “This book doesn’t cite a single scientific reference, not even a bad one”! Well thankfully the public seemed to recognize nonsense when it saw it, the book was soon forgotten, and Mr. Rifkin has since moved on to criticize a number of other industries.

Now I can’t say for sure if Mr. Walsh read Mr. Rifkin’s book or not but it sure follows the same old issues of the book and other more recent condemnations like the “Food, Inc” movie currently making the rounds in theaters. All the usual tirades against animal agriculture that we have come to expect from the pseudo-experts are in the article- animal confinement and cruelty, meat laced with antibiotics, meat as the cause of our human obesity and other medical problems, farm animals causing global warming and cropland fertilization and use of animal manure polluting our waterways.

Now let’s be fair, no one could expect Mr. Walsh to be an expert in all things agricultural, right? But one would think that if you knew you needed more information you would search out a knowledgeable source, correct? Well apparently not if the goal is sell magazines!! Yes, Walsh reportedly approached the NCBA for their help a few days before the deadline and was given a half-dozen beef industry experts to interview and fact sheets on modern beef production. And what was the result of all this information that would have equipped him to objectively look at both sides of the issue? A dozen words from Kristina Butts, the manager of legislative affairs for NCBA, who refuted the development of antibiotic resistance in humans from their use in farm animals. That’s right, 12 total words in an article of seven pages!! When challenged in an interview by the AgriTalk radio station as to why he chose to ignore the other side of the story Mr. Walsh noted that “this is the story we decided to do and this is the angle we’ve been taking” and that Time magazine now will “allow the writer to look at it and make some of his own judgments’”. In other words, at Time magazine, there is no longer even a pretense of balanced reporting and truthfulness!

Understandably there have been many public comments on the article from various individuals and agricultural groups since this issue reached the public. The usual sentiments expressed are 1) the story is full of bias, half-truths, and outright lies; and 2) The once proud Time Magazine publication has decided it is no longer interested in balanced reporting of the news but rather in negative sensationalism that sells magazines regardless of the truth. It occurs to me the people of this country should consider a third viewpoint: Let’s be thankful we live in a country where the majority of our people can relax on full stomachs and take the time to criticize the hands that feed us!!! That’s a luxury much of the world doesn’t have! I suspect the estimated one billion people in the world who go to bed hungry have other priorities on their minds than finding fault with the most successful agricultural system in the history of mankind.

Is this to say, “All is well” in our food system and we must not question and continually re-evaluate it? Of course not! On the livestock side, there are obviously careless farmers out there who don’t properly care for their animals or land just as there are thousands of careless pet owners!  But overall, the system is working and most thinking individuals know it. Even Mr. Walsh admits in the article, “You’ve never had it so good, at least in terms of what you pay for every calorie you eat. According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966”. Of course he presents that fact as a negative, i.e., we should pay a lot more for food by demanding it be produced “organically”!

The subtitle of the article proclaims in big bold print “America’s Food Crisis and How to Fix It”. So what are Mr. Walsh’s solutions to fix it all? All we have to do is 1. Have a lot more small farmers who produce organically, and 2. Eat more greens and less meat. He notes that organic methods can produce as much yield as conventional but will take far more labor, a good thing in times of scarce jobs. More farmers and more farm labor sounds good but does anyone really think we can feed the world by returning to pre-1950’s methods? And I wonder if Mr. Walsh has seriously tried to find competent farm laborers lately? Simple solutions to complex problems; what else would you expect from someone lacking the real facts?

I carefully reviewed the letters to the editor in the two issues that followed the one containing the article. I was surprised the tally was six letters supporting today’s farmers and only one agreeing with the “down with modern agriculture” emphasis of the piece. You would have to assume this is reflective of the overall response generated from the public; it’d hard to imagine Time would selectively print responses disagreeing with the article.

So perhaps there is hope after all that most reasonable Americans see through the opinionated one-sided reporting so prevalent in our press today.

Personally I’ve always had a fondness for that cap that was popular a few years back that was inscribed with the words “If you criticize farmers don’t talk with your mouth full”.

Note: First published in the November 2009 American Agriculturist magazine.

Much has been written about the “Food System” and how we should go about feeding the world.  To put “much” into context, I ran a Google search using the phrases “food systems” or food system; got 906,000 returns for the former and 759,000 returns for the latter phrase.

Why the keen interest in the food system?  One reason is that many scientists (including me) believe we need to apply science to make new discoveries in the food system that will help meet the food needs of the growing World population.  Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate, who passed away on September 12, 2009, and who is credited for launching the “Green Revolution” to feed the World was clear about this.  He passionately believed that science should be the most important tool to solve world hunger.

There is no dispute about the need to feed the world.  Many in society understand the scale of the challenge that lies ahead to feed 10 billion people by the year 2050.

The amount of food needed to feed the world over the next 40 years is equivalent to all the food that has been produced since our existence on this planet (see Metabolic Modifiers:  Effects on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals; National Academies Press; 1994)!

Our ability to feed the world assumes that climatic conditions will not be problematic for food production.  This is not a “given”.  In addition, not many individuals champion the idea that more wildlife habitat or tropical rain forest be destroyed to plant crops.  And, there is the assumption that a targeted bioterrorism strike on the food system will not occur with the consequences of up-heaving food production.  The latter assumption is problematic.  For example, The Lugar Survey on Proliferation Threats and Responses (Senator Lugar, 2005) estimates the probability of a major biological terrorist attack in the United States in the next 10 years to be about 33%.

Another challenge to food production and distribution is the ever-present impact of geopolitical strife.

Collectively, these issues add additional challenges to the problem of feeding the world that looms ahead.

Other Challenges

The challenge of feeding the world is one with many elements that extend beyond the application of science.  Science is important but other factors loom large.  There is the question of what countries or international agencies are going to pay for developing the science or providing the food?

Another key question is:  Will the “have” countries (i.e, developed countries) share technologies that enhance food production with developing countries?  The historical record for this is not encouraging.  Moreover, there is the question of whether the technologies be provided for free or a fee?  If the former, who “covers” the cost of research and development, as well as commercial application? The fee-based approach is daunting given that developing countries and their farmers, in many instances, can not afford the technology.

Another issue that is not discussed much in the public media relates to how will the public respond to an event where food availability is limited in grocery stores in the United States?

You might ask how could this happen?  One way would be the intentional (and targeted) release of a plant or animal pathogen (or both) that has the potential to upheave the food system.  The economic cost of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 is a good example of the impact that could occur.

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK has published a report (Cost-Benefit Analysis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies) that summarized the economic impact of the outbreak…it cost about $12.3 billion!

Beyond the economic impact of a possible disease outbreak on food production, is the question:  how will the American public respond to an situation where food availability is limited?  Not well.  There very likely will be a storm of public concern that reflects the extent of food shortages.  The degree to which the public is scared will determine to what extent the fabric of civil behavior tears.  Another reminder that in the absence of food security national security can not be attained.

I recently had the opportunity to make a short presentation to a mixed audience of local farmers and their neighbors in Perry County on the value of a dairy farm to a community. The organizers requested this topic primarily for the non-farm neighbors thinking it would give them a better appreciation of what a farm brings to the community and potentially “soften” some existing and future farm-urban conflicts. Based on the comments after my brief talk it became apparent that the farmers in the audience appreciated the information as much as their neighbors, reminding us once again that agriculture has a wonderful story to tell – but we must remember to tell it! With all the current bad news in the dairy industry, everyone appreciates hearing some positive things about the important work of producing dairy foods.

What a dairy farm brings to a community can be summarized into three main categories: Prosperity, People and the Planet.

Prosperity

Every farm is first and foremost a business. Typically when we think of local businesses we think car dealerships, grocery stores, manufacturing and maybe doctors’ offices, but probably not farms. The largest industry in Pennsylvania is agriculture and the same is true in Perry and most of our 67 counties. Statewide, dairy represents almost 45% of all farm income – collectively we are big business and important to the Commonwealth’s economy.

The farm we were visiting that day milks almost 500 cows and shipped over 10 million pounds of milk last year. It is estimated that every cow generates economic value to a community of over $13,700 per cow per year. That number includes not just the value of the milk she produces, but also the value of that money rolling through the community several times. For example, all the money from all the services the farm uses stays in the community, feeding the local economy. That includes money to the vet, to the local car dealer and feed supplier, health care for family and employees, school taxes – the list is almost endless This particular farm has a list of 40 vendors they typically make payments to during a month and close to 200 vendors a year. Their total expenses last year were over 2 million dollars!

As we drive down the road and see dairy farms, think of that $13,700 economic impact that each cow represents.  For a fairly typical 100-cow herd that is $1.3 million of economic impact; for a larger 300-cow herd it is $4.1 million and for a 500-cow dairy it is almost $7 million in economic impact to the community.

Dairy farms typically own a fair amount of land and in many rural communities the farms pay a large percentage of the property taxes. In a recent Pennsylvania study that compared various land uses and their respective use of tax supported services, farms and open space required from $0.02 to $0.91 per dollar of taxes paid, while residential use of services typically ranged from $1.02 to $1.48. Another reason to smile when you see a farm in your community.

The last “prosperity” or business issue is where dairy farm dollars come from and where they go.  Pennsylvania produces more milk that we consume – meaning a lot of milk is exported to other parts of the country. The dollars from that exported milk comes from outside Pennsylvania and returns to our local economy to become part of that $13,700 local economic impact. Compare that to many businesses where the profits and much of the economic activity exit the community. A dairy farm is a dollar pump – pumping dollars into the local economy.

People

Dairy farms represent jobs. The 500-cow dairy we were visiting had 11 people on the payroll. In rural Perry County the estimate of dairy-related jobs is 856, and in Pennsylvania that number is over 40,000. Those are not all “on farm” jobs, but include all the dairy-related jobs such as sales and service, transportation, processing and retailing. By the way, about 85% of their income from these employees stays within a community.

Dairy farmers and their families and employees are also very involved in their communities – providing leadership and resources to many kinds of organizations and charities. We have a wonderful legacy of volunteerism in this country – and that is particularly true in our rural communities. Our rural youth who have been involved in their churches, and 4-H and FFA have tremendous leadership abilities that benefit all of society. This leadership is a true community asset.

Planet

Our third “P” is for the planet, or the environmental contributions of a dairy farm. The initial public reaction to agriculture is that we are part of the environmental problem rather than part of the solution, but that is generally not the case. Remember that land is a valuable resource to be productively used. In the case of a dairy farm, food is being produced on that land, while the alternatives could be houses, highways, or other kinds of businesses.

Farms provide huge areas for groundwater recharge because they cover large areas with very little impervious surface. Open space performs the critical function of absorbing, filtering and returning rain water to replenish ground and surface water supplies.

Today we hear a lot about carbon. A recent national newspaper article noted a scheme to plant thousands of acres of trees in the US to sequester carbon – our farms with their croplands and forests are already hard at work in that regard.

Farms are the original recyclers of nutrients and invest heavily in technology to keep those nutrients on the land. Agriculture has always been conscious of the need for effective stewardship of the land and water. Currently the dairy industry is investing heavily in not only determining our carbon footprint but also developing ways to reduce it from the cow to the consumer.

Farms provide vegetative buffers to reduce pollutant entry into waterways.  Farms provide open space that we all enjoy and value in our communities. Farms provide wildlife corridors and edge effect which are important for songbirds and other field and forest species. And, farms provide nursery habitat for amphibians and birds and support diverse insect populations that are essential to many natural processes from honey production to pest control.

Before we leave these subjects of prosperity, people and the planet which are all tied to our farms and communities, we need to think of the base of all agriculture – food.

Our image of agriculture is biased by our personal experiences. I challenge each of us to be open to a changing and evolving image of agriculture. To be successful and profitable farm, the business must change as any business must change to remain viable and profitable.  Recently I heard a speaker talk about three important numbers – 50, 100 and 70. His point was that within 50 years we will need 100% more food than we produce today to satisfy the world’s needs. Because of land restrictions, 70% of that additional food must come from the use of agricultural technologies.  We must therefore embrace the changes needed to not only make successful businesses and neighbors, but also necessary to feed our children and grandchildren – and to keep our communities economically healthy.