National Geographic has a five-step solution to feeding the world. Step one is stopping deforestation, or, more accurately, stop expanding agriculture into the areas which are providing the ecosystem services which agriculture needs. Step two is increasing yields, or “Grow More on Farms We’ve Got.” All very logical. One looks avidly forward to finding out how:
Starting in the 1960s, the green revolution increased yields in Asia and Latin America using better crop varieties and more fertilizer, irrigation, and machines—but with major environmental costs. The world can now turn its attention to increasing yields on less productive farmlands—especially in Africa, Latin America, and eastern Europe—where there are “yield gaps” between current production levels and those possible with improved farming practices. Using high-tech, precision farming systems, as well as approaches borrowed from organic farming, we could boost yields in these places several times over.
Wait, what? No need for any further crop improvement at all? Hang on, step three is about using resources more efficiently. Surely we need at least some breeding for that? Ahem, apparently not. Compost and precision irrigation, sure. Adapted varieties, not so much.
…Many growers apply customized blends of fertilizer tailored to their exact soil conditions, which helps minimize the runoff of chemicals into nearby waterways… Organic farming can also greatly reduce the use of water and chemicals—by incorporating cover crops, mulches, and compost to improve soil quality, conserve water, and build up nutrients. Many farmers have also gotten smarter about water, replacing inefficient irrigation systems with more precise methods, like subsurface drip irrigation. Advances in both conventional and organic farming can give us more “crop per drop” from our water and nutrients.
For the record, step four is about eating less meat and five about reducing waste. As I say, all very sensible, as far as it goes. But do the authors of the article, led by Jonathan Foley, really believe that rethinking agronomic practices will be enough? Well, not quite, of course.
Those who favor conventional agriculture talk about how modern mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, and improved genetics can increase yields to help meet demand. And they’re right. Meanwhile proponents of local and organic farms counter that the world’s small farmers could increase yields plenty—and help themselves out of poverty—by adopting techniques that improve fertility without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. They’re right too.
But it needn’t be an either-or proposition. Both approaches offer badly needed solutions; neither one alone gets us there. We would be wise to explore all of the good ideas, whether from organic and local farms or high-tech and conventional farms, and blend the best of both.
Hard to argue with, I’m sure. And, of course, we would say here that diversity should have been given a higher profile, wouldn’t we. That’s what we do. After all (we would say, wouldn’t we) whichever approach you go for, you’re going to need agricultural diversity: it’s just a matter of how you use it. Yes, we would say that. And maybe National Geographic will also say it in future articles in this eight-month series. ((As part of this initiative, a lot of earlier stuff has been re-packaged. Though not, apparently, corrected. And yes, we’ve told National Geographic about this before.)) If not, we’ll point it out to them. As we do.