Research To Find Out What Works – Or What Doesn’t – Not To Get Us To Politically Correct
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The concept of sustainable agriculture, as defined by a special committee from the National Academy of Sciences, portrays an interesting possible future for production agriculture. That working definition for sustainability:
The report “Toward Sustainable Agricultural System in the 21st Century” starts from the perspective that in spite of the advances made in agricultural output – “Farm output in 2008 was 158 percent higher than it was in 1948, and farmers today are producing more food with less energy per unit output than ever before.” – things just aren’t all that fantastic. Without actually providing scientific evidence to back up their claims…the report says that the gains have come at the expense of the environment, “polluting rivers and waterways.”
I’m not trying to say that various polluting events haven’t occurred or that there aren’t water bodies which are impaired from a variety of pollution sources – I do think however that it is quite common to make sweeping assertions that are taken as factual (especially when made by folks linked to the National Academy of Sciences) that might not be quite as prevalent as the impression given.
Most of the report, from reading the “Report in Brief” summarizes the idea that agricultural research and agricultural policy need to adopt a broader set of objectives than simply more production at lower costs. “Innovative policies and new farming approaches based on a strong scientific foundation are needed to tackle the challenge of increasing production while also meeting environmental, economic and social goals.”
It would seem that research and development programs which incorporate this dogma into their approach could assist in providing benefit for farm and ranch families as long as the strong scientific foundation doesn’t devolve into social change as being the foundation with “science” becoming the justification.
Agricultural research should be concerned with a multi-discipline focus that works to determine the best way to accomplish production with proper attention to protection of natural resources and providing for not only human needs, but also recognizing societal interests. To the extent that making the research information available, even promoting the positive attributes of adopting best management practices which are discovered – this science with an agenda – might yield very good results.
When (and if) the mission evolves to a religious-like, central planning and control model (easily perceived to be interwoven into some of the context of the report) – we will then have problems which go far beyond (and in a much different direction) being too concerned about how productive American agriculture is. From their ivory towers and focused perspective on ways in which individual business enterprises (also known as farms and ranches) could be improved to better serve their Utopian visions it would be good for the sustainable agricultural elitist could come to grips with the concept… “Research To Find Out What Works – Or What Doesn’t – Not To Get Us To Politically Correct”
The concept of sustainable agriculture, as defined by a special committee from the National Academy of Sciences, portrays an interesting possible future for production agriculture. That working definition for sustainability:
“…not as any particular end state, but rather as progress towards four goals: (1) producing enough to satisfy human needs; (2) enhancing environmental quality and protecting the natural resource base; (3) being profitable; and (4) increasing the quality of life for farmers, farm workers, and society as a whole.”
The report “Toward Sustainable Agricultural System in the 21st Century” starts from the perspective that in spite of the advances made in agricultural output – “Farm output in 2008 was 158 percent higher than it was in 1948, and farmers today are producing more food with less energy per unit output than ever before.” – things just aren’t all that fantastic. Without actually providing scientific evidence to back up their claims…the report says that the gains have come at the expense of the environment, “polluting rivers and waterways.”
I’m not trying to say that various polluting events haven’t occurred or that there aren’t water bodies which are impaired from a variety of pollution sources – I do think however that it is quite common to make sweeping assertions that are taken as factual (especially when made by folks linked to the National Academy of Sciences) that might not be quite as prevalent as the impression given.
Most of the report, from reading the “Report in Brief” summarizes the idea that agricultural research and agricultural policy need to adopt a broader set of objectives than simply more production at lower costs. “Innovative policies and new farming approaches based on a strong scientific foundation are needed to tackle the challenge of increasing production while also meeting environmental, economic and social goals.”
It would seem that research and development programs which incorporate this dogma into their approach could assist in providing benefit for farm and ranch families as long as the strong scientific foundation doesn’t devolve into social change as being the foundation with “science” becoming the justification.
Agricultural research should be concerned with a multi-discipline focus that works to determine the best way to accomplish production with proper attention to protection of natural resources and providing for not only human needs, but also recognizing societal interests. To the extent that making the research information available, even promoting the positive attributes of adopting best management practices which are discovered – this science with an agenda – might yield very good results.
When (and if) the mission evolves to a religious-like, central planning and control model (easily perceived to be interwoven into some of the context of the report) – we will then have problems which go far beyond (and in a much different direction) being too concerned about how productive American agriculture is. From their ivory towers and focused perspective on ways in which individual business enterprises (also known as farms and ranches) could be improved to better serve their Utopian visions it would be good for the sustainable agricultural elitist could come to grips with the concept… “Research To Find Out What Works – Or What Doesn’t – Not To Get Us To Politically Correct”
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/1/2010 4:03 AM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: National Academy of Sciences Agricultural Research Sustainable Agriculture
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: National Academy of Sciences Agricultural Research Sustainable Agriculture
Comments