Mispeceptions of Farming
 

Ag Briefs: Here are the facts to some common misperceptions of farming today.

LINK

Perception: Agriculture increases greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to global warming.

Fact: The entire U.S. agricultural sector accounts for only about 6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; livestock production is just over 2%. Fossil fuel combustion contributes to about 79% of all GHG emissions. Additionally, billions of pounds of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere are captured in conservation-tilled soils.

Source: U.S. EPA "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratories 2006 report

Perception: Biotech food is not necessary or safe.

Fact: Biotech crops have been commercialized for nearly 15 years, and today are grown by more than 10 million farmers in 22 countries. The higher yields from biotech crops will help feed a global population expected to surpass 9 billion people by 2050. Biotech foods are non-toxic to animals and to humans. The meat, milk and eggs from farm animals fed biotech feed are exactly the same as those from animals eating conventional feed. Future biotech crops are expected to address production issues related to drought, enrich vital nutrients, remove natural toxins and help solve such problems as vitamin A deficiency and allergies. Biotech feeds also may help decrease phosphorus and nitrogen excretion in livestock, total manure excretion and offensive odors.

Source: Chris Leaver, Professor of Plant Science at Oxford University


Perception: Livestock antibiotics and growth promotants are bad for animals and for humans.

Fact: Antibiotics protect animal health. What's more, no meat sold in the U.S. can contain antibiotic residues that violate Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards. Growth promotants improve an animal's ability to gain more lean muscle from less feed. Growth promotants help reduce the total cost of beef production by $50 to $80 per animal and lower the cost of retail beef by 20 to 30 cents per pound. Without growth-promoting hormones, beef supplies would shrink and the average retail price would rise 10 to 15%. Growth promotants are thoroughly tested by FDA. Since 1967 the Federal Meat Inspection Act has required USDA to test for product residues. Through 2005, the most current data available, zero residue violations were reported.

Source: USDA, FDA, Rick Rasby, University of Nebraska animal science professor


Perception: Manure is a threat to water sources and to the environment.

Fact: Properly managed manure systems will not contaminate groundwater or surface water. Studies show groundwater nitrate concentration is high in heavily populated areas even though nitrogen loadings from commercial fertilizer and manure may be low. Likewise, phosphorus concentrations exceed limits in 75% of sampled urban streams versus 25% of sampled agricultural streams.

Source: EPA and U.S. Geologic Survey


Perception: Ethanol production takes more energy than ethanol use saves.

Fact: The amount of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol has decreased an average 30% within the past decade. Cleaner, more efficient dry mill plants use 28% less thermal energy and 32% less electricity to turn corn into ethanol. The EPA notes for every BTU of gasoline replaced by ethanol, total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) that would have been produced from that BTU is reduced nearly 22%.

Source: University of Illinois at Chicago's Energy Resources Center


Perception: Agriculture increases greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to global warming.

Fact: The entire U.S. agricultural sector accounts for only about 6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; livestock production is just over 2%. Fossil fuel combustion contributes to about 79% of all GHG emissions. Additionally, billions of pounds of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere are captured in conservation-tilled soils.

Source: U.S. EPA "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratories 2006 report


Perception: Farmers' use of chemicals harms the environment.

Fact: Better product formulations in the past 20 years have made products less toxic and more degradable. In addition, the introduction of herbicide- and insecticide-tolerant crops has decreased herbicide active ingredient use by more than 47 million pounds in soybeans and cotton and insecticide active ingredient use by nearly 9 million pounds in cotton and corn.

Source: "Facilitating Conservation Farming Practices and Enhancing Environmental Sustainability with Agricultural Biotechnology," Conservation Technology Information Center


Perception: Large corporate farms produce most U.S. food.

Fact: While it's true that less than 10% of all farms grow 62% of the U.S. crops, most are family farms. Specifically, 99% of U.S. farms and ranches are owned by individuals, family corporations or partnerships. More than 2 million farms are family owned compared with about 7,000 non-family-controlled corporate farms.

Source: USDA


Perception: Commercial farming practices increase soil erosion.

Fact: Cropland soil erosion from rainfall, field runoff and wind has declined more than 40% since 1982, representing a yearly savings of more than 1.2 billion tons of soil. The dramatic drop is attributed to less highly erodible land (HEL) and greater attention to conservation practices. From 1982 to 2003, HEL acreage decreased by nearly 28%, and non-highly erodible cropland (NHEL) declined by about 13% as land was converted to other uses like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Total soil loss on cultivated cropland during that time fell 39%. The amount of U.S. cropland that utilizes related residue management practices has grown by nearly 50 million acres since 1982.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2007 National Resources Inventory (NRI) Report, a statistical survey of land use and natural resource conditions and trends on U.S. non-federal lands

I feel very sorry for the American (and European) farmers. They have to put up with a lot of misinformation and uninformed people who don't really know where there food comes from or how it is produced.

Too many people have become anti-science and think they want to return to the dark ages.

You know, I've actually met extremely few people who are truly anti-science. Most are actually very pro-science, they just happen to be looking at different scientific evidence and drawing different conclusions.

As in any debate, the most foolish thing one can do is characterize the other side as a bunch of ignorant heathens who would prefer a negative outcome (e.g., "returning to the dark ages.") No one prefers a negative outcome. Everyone, in fact, believes they are trying to avoid one.

I don't really have the energy to discuss the points in the OP at length, but here are a few tidbits that I have a problem with:

This whole paragraph is merely about how great biotech crops are. It doesn't actually address the safety issue one bit.

Antibiotics protect human health, too. There are also countless studies that show the dangers of antibiotic overuse, in both humans and animals. One can favor limits on the use of something without being in favor of eliminating it altogether.

Right. It's only allowed to contain as much as we say it's allowed to contain. And we test it thoroughly, we promise.

If you start with the fundamental belief that the FDA is a useless, corrupt organization run by industry lobbyists, then the fact that the FDA has put a stamp of approval on things doesn't mean a lot, you know?

WTF is a "family corporation?" Like how all those TV ads tell me that Johnson & Johnson is "a family company?" A family farm is one in which the owners of the farm are in the sun working the fields, and nothing else.

Current Reality:
Amish Farmers Play a Large Role in Polluting the Chesapeake

Like what else is there?

The general gist of Nirvana's post is that farmers are not evil greed-heads who carelessly trash the planet for profit, and that is, IMHO, pretty much true. Well, 99% of the time.

However, they are often under awful financial risks and pressures. This will often force them to do things they'd rather not, else they face bankruptcy.

Some of the particular claims in Nirvana's post are supported by doubtful statistics. For example:

Is that per ton of GHG, or per ton of CO2 equivalent? Methane (produced, among other sources, by cows and pigs) is much more powerful than CO2 as a GHG. And in which category are the fossil fuels used for agricultural purposes counted?


Biotechs ... thanks Clod.

Antibiotics - strawman argument. The problem isn't antibiotic residue, but breeding anti biotic resistant bacteria through overuse.

Ah, you might reply, they use different antibiotics in animals than in humans.

Nay, I rejoin, they often differ by a single molecule -thus justifying the different name - but function by the same molecular pathways, and resistance to the animal antibiotic has been shown (in at least one case I've read about) to give automatic resistance to the human version too.


That first sentence ... does that "most are family farms" mean "most of all farms" or "most of the 10% that produce 62%..."? I suspect it is the first, but it is written to make us think it is the second. :eyebrow:

And how do they count this? By registered farm business? Or by acreage? Imagine this scenario: 100 x 50-acre family farms, and one x 100,000 acre agri-business farm. Is that 99% family farms, or 33% of acreage farmed by family-farmers?


Which means that farming does cause erosion, only less so than it did in 1982. I'm too busy lazy to look it up, but I wonder if 1982 was a bad year - drought, dust-bowl type conditions. Measuring from a known high-point is a well-known trick to twist statistics. Wasn't that when Farm aid was going, John Cougar Mellencamp singing Rain on the Scarecrow, that stuff?

Well, all that said, thanks to the farmers who feed me. The only food of my own I produce is coriander (cilantro) and a little spinach. And if there is a problem with the way we feed ourselves, the solution lies with consumers and their purchasing power.

But don't forget, without farmers there would be no farmer's daughters.:joylove:

Absolutely. The market will always provide the products we (collectively) demand.

With regard to the 'family owned' question, I'm not sure what it's like in the US or anywhere else, but I can say a bit about Australia.

Most of the stations or farms that i know of personally are owned by either the farmer or maybe perhaps be owned by a family trust for taxation purposes. But, at the same time, many of the small crop farmers have contracts with large retailers such as woolworths or coles for example, so it might seem like they're 'owned' by a large corporation, when in actual fact it's only the yield that's owned by the corporation, but the actual farm and land etc is owned by the farmer or family trust. Additionally, some regional groups of farmers may incorporate a co-op whereby they pool their product in order to expidite sales etc. Again, the farms are still individually owned, but the produce is supplied to another entity.

It may be different in the US, but over here, farms are still mostly a family business.

Well Zen, but what are you actually saying? What's your alternative to farmers?

There's always the various flavors of Soylent, I suppose.

We have a lot of that here, and the problem is that the corporation dictates how the farm must be run. Certain chicken farmers, for example, have been told they must cram the chickens wing-to-wing into windowless sheds 24 hours a day (because it's more efficient,) feed them specific processed feed (because it's cheaper,) etc., or else they will lose their contract with the corporation. Even if the farmers don't want to raise unhealthy, tortured animals, they basically have to or they won't be able to sell them to the small handful of companies with a monopoly on the market.

Evil Farmers! Obama wants your taxes! Pay up!

Now the Pelosi scumbags want to take your land and money when you die...

Nice...

So that whole story about sex with farm animals is just that a Myth ??

what are you on about?