What is it that we want our agriculture to do?
Australia agriculture continues to put food on the tables three times a day. It continues to innovate and contribute to the nation's prosperity. It continues to eke out efficiencies in the production system. Though much is to be lauded, much needs to change.
And it's more fundamental than support for drought ravaged businesses.
Modern agriculture is
grounded on the belief that the primary objective of the industry is to
produce as much food and fibre as possible for the least cost.
These
twin goals have long shaped farming, and underpinned agricultural research. But with evidence
that food is wasted in developed countries, that food security is a now
accepted as a major global issue, and issues of environmental
degradation and health problems such as obesity, we need to define what
it is that we want contemporary agriculture to do. Social media abound
with comment, much ill-founded on food and food security issues. At the
same time we see heightened interests in food and cooking, and in urban
agriculture/vegetable growing. There is a sense we are missing the big
picture. Then there is health - over consumption of energy rich food, imbalance diets and obesity.
Is
modern agriculture about producing cheap food? What other values might
apply to agriculture, such as preserving landscape and countryside? Can
we change the profitability of the system? What should the drivers be
for a new agriculture? What is prosperity in contemporary agriculture?
Engaging
in public debate on these issues and acknowledging their complexity
will help define the shape of future agricultural research and our farm
and food systems.
I
was reminded that none of this is new when I came across a recent paper
by David Fraser, an animal welfare researcher at the University of
British Columbia. This paper reminded me of two earlier contributions
of David’s:
- Fraser D (1999) Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65: 171-189, and
- Fraser
D (2001) The “New Perception” of animal agriculture: legless cows,
featherless chickens and a need for genuine analysis. Journal
of Animal Science 79: 634-6411
The
second title relates to an often cited quote in animal welfare
literature about a (disputed) claim by an animal geneticist that his
organisation was attempting to ‘breed animals without legs and chickens
without feathers’.
The
quote highlights, however, concern felt in some quarters over the
direction of modern agriculture. While gene technology is poised to
deliver many benefits to agriculture in the fight against disease,
reduced environmental impact and enhanced food nutrition and quality, it
could fancifully be argued that the technology might one day be equally
capable of delivering a legless cow. Nowhere in modern agriculture is
the polarisation of different viewpoints on the direction of animal
agriculture more evident than in the fields of gene technology and
animal welfare.
In
these debates and others, such as the growing divide between production
and sustainability science, a far better analysis is required of
complex issues in order to answer the questions of what we want
agriculture to do.
David
Fraser describes the polarised views on modern agriculture in terms of
the ‘new perception’ and the ‘neotraditional portrayal’. In the new
perception, agriculture is regarded as detrimental to animal welfare,
controlled by large corporations, motivated by profit, causing world
hunger, producing unhealthy food and harmful to the environment.
At
the other end of the spectrum, Fraser defines the neotraditional
portrayal of the industry as beneficial to animal welfare, mainly
controlled by families and individuals, motivated by traditional animal
care values that lead to profit, augmenting world food supplies,
producing safe and nutritious food and not harmful (often beneficial) to
the environment. Literature from both ends of the spectrum tends to
provide information that supports one of these polarised viewpoints
while often failing to acknowledge the complexity of the debate, or
attempting to establish a middle-ground.
Research
undertaken by the International Food Policy Research Institute in
Washington indicates that the demand for animal protein will double
within 20 years. This demand is been propelled by urbanisation and
increased income, particularly in the developing world.
However,
if we are going to increase livestock production, for example, to
double protein production, major changes will be required in how we
produce our product. If we increase per animal productivity two or three
fold, then we would also have to reduce environmental impact by a
similar amount. While this may be technically possible within a
reasonably short timeframe, is this what we want agriculture to do? How
do we want to use the resource?
The
agricultural production sector is often criticised for not meeting the
triple bottom line (social, economic and environmental) yet by the same token we, in the developed world vote in the supermarkets for cheaper food. This not only challenges the viability of farming, it also means that much of what we do as societies is at cross purposes. There are many questions to be asked.
Will we accept that profitability of farm enterprises, and especially family businesses, is a legitimate aspiration?
Will
consumers accept the harvesting of native species, such as the Red or
Grey kangaroo in countries like Australia, as an ecologically
sustainable source of meat?
Should we be paying more for food and consuming less? What is food? Rather
than seeing beef just as a staple in the food system, could our mindset
change so that we also think of beef as producing zinc and iron that
can be injected into diets at critical times in human development – for
example, in early childhood for brain development and early teenage
years to combat iron deficiency. (Zinc and iron deficiencies appear to
be two major nutritional issues in both the developed and developing
worlds.) In doing so, we change the whole value proposition for meat,
and better returns to producers, and enhanced benefits to consumers.
These
are just a few examples of the challenging questions to be asked, questions that cannot be answered with a
simple “yes” or “no” but must be debated vigorously by a range of
stakeholders in the public arena. An effective response will be systemic.
Consumer
confidence in science has been shaken in recent times by issues
relating to food safety and diseases, such as bird flu. In order to
avoid misrepresentation, scientists have at times been reluctant to
acknowledge any potential risk to food safety for fear that such an
admission will distort the debate. Yet, with uncertainty comes awareness
and planning for any potential unforeseen consequences.
Risks
can be managed effectively without raising public concern if potential
risks to the food chain are acknowledged and a system of surveillance,
monitoring and detection put in place that enable quick remedial action
to address any problems that may arise.
Scientists
should not be isolating ourselves from controversy because the
technical complexity of issues we are dealing with in the community now
is such that we need to participate in the public debate. Nor should
other members of the community ignore the requirement to engage openly
and responsibly in that debate.
Undoubtedly,
we need more simultaneous research at all levels – from sub-cellular to
ecological – in order to develop a greater understanding of issues at
the boundaries of science and social and community impacts.
We need to public debate too. An informed debate and based on genuine analysis.
What is it that we want our agriculture to do?
