An Interview with John E. Ikerd
With a wealth of recent media attention focused on the concept of sustainable agriculture and the wild success of like-themed literature, such as Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, some of us may be left wondering, what is sustainable agriculture and why does it matter to me? John E. Ikerd, author of the eye-opening book Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture was kind enough to answer this agricultural amateur’s questions on the definition, importance, and implications of a sustainable form of food production.
What is sustainable agriculture? How does it differ from our current agricultural system?
A sustainable agriculture must be capable of maintaining its productivity and value to society indefinitely. It must meet the needs of the present without compromising opportunities for the future. All productivity comes either from nature or society. Thus a sustainable agriculture must be ecologically sound and socially responsible in order to sustain its productivity, and thus be economically viable over time. Nothing lasts forever, so continual renewal and regeneration of both natural and societal resources are necessary for long run agricultural sustainability.
The conventional industrial approach to agriculture is very efficient in using both natural and human resources to produce things of economic value. But it does nothing to renew or regenerate the productivity of either nature or society needed to ensure that those of future generations will have adequate resources to meet their needs as well. Agriculture is currently depleting the natural and human resources upon which its productivity ultimately depends and thus is neither economically viable nor ecologically and socially sustainable over time.
Pardon the pun, but where does sustainable agriculture have its "roots?" Where, when, and how did it originate?
The modern concept of sustainable agriculture evolved from the natural foods movement, which was part of the "back to the earth" movement of the 1960s. The back to earth movement was basically a rejection of environmental pollution and human degradation associated with over-industrialization in all sectors of the economy and society. The rejection of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and the establishment of intentional communities that grew and marketed their own food were natural consequences of the rejection of industrial agriculture.
The organic food movement evolved from the earlier natural foods movement and is currently evolving into the local foods movement, in response to the "industrialization of organics." All of these food movements are part of the larger sustainability movement, which rejects industrialization because it lacks social, ecological, and economic integrity.
What are the major benefits of practicing sustainable agricultural methods?
People obviously benefit personally from reduced exposure to agricultural chemicals and biological wastes in their food, air, and water. There is also growing evidence that sustainably produced foods are more nutritious and healthful. In addition, the current trend toward sustainably grown local foods reduces fossil energy use, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports local economies and communities, in addition to providing fresher and more flavorful foods.
However, the greatest benefit for both producers and consumers is that sustainable agriculture helps restore integrity to our relationships with each other and our relationship with the earth. We need healthy food because we are material beings, but we also need healthy families, communities, and societies because we are social beings. We need the sense of purpose and meaning in life that comes from stewardship of the earth because we are ethical and moral beings. The things we do to promote sustainable agriculture enhance the material, social, and spiritual dimensions of our quality of life.
What are the drawbacks/major costs?
Sustainably produced foods cost more than industrially produced foods because industrial producers don't pay the social and ecological costs associated with their production practices. It's simply cheaper to extract from nature and to exploit society than it is to renew and regenerate the natural and human resources that are used in the process of production. That being said, some sustainable producers today can create as much or more food at an equal or lower cost than can their conventional neighbors. And over time, as the productivity of resources in industrial farming operations are depleted, their productivity will fall and their costs will rise. So, the costs of sustainably produced foods in the future will actually be far lower than the costs of foods produced by industrial farmers on depleted and eroded soils with unskilled farm workers using fertilizers and pesticides made from high cost fossil energy. In the meantime, however, producers and consumers of sustainably produced foods must be willing to pay the full ecological, social, and economic costs of sustainable agriculture.
Another challenge of sustainable agriculture is to find enough people who are willing to learn to farm in this manner, which requires far more knowledge and understanding of soils and biological systems as well as more innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship than industrial agriculture. However, we have more than enough bright, young people who would like to pursue a life in sustainable farming if they thought they could find a way to make a decent living. As the market for sustainably produced foods continues to grow, better economic opportunities will become more common, and there will be enough farmers to create a sustainable food system.
In your view, who can we look to as a model of a successful, sustainable agriculturalist? Is there an archetypal farm we can look to as a positive test case for this kind of system?
There are literally thousands of successful sustainable agriculturalists scattered all across the U.S. and around the world—and they are all different. There is no archetypal sustainable farm. Sustainable farming is a matter of farming according to fundamental ecological, social, and economic principles, rather than using any specific set of farming enterprises, methods, or practices.
Fortunately, it isn’t very difficult to find information on individual sustainable agriculture enterprises. A good place to start is the USDA SARE program’s New American Farmer publication, which profiles more than sixty sustainable farmers. It’s available at http://www.sare.org/publications/naf2/index.htm. Another good source is the New Farm Magazine’s “1000 Stories of Regenerative Agriculture” at http://www.newfarm.org/archive/1000_stories/1000_stories.shtml. Also, many states have developed profiles of local sustainable farmers, most of which can be found online.
Who seems most resistant to this type of farming? Who, on the other hand, seems most eager to adopt its methods? Why?
Those most resistant to sustainable agriculture are those who have benefited the most from industrial agriculture. This includes the agribusinesses that sell fertilizers, pesticides, fuel, and the other commercial inputs that industrial agriculture depends on for its productivity. Most commodity organizations are opposed to sustainable agriculture because sustainability requires enterprise diversity, rather than specializing on one particular commodity. Some of the major farm organizations, such as the Farm Bureau Federation, oppose sustainable agriculture because of their close political ties with agribusiness and commodity organizations. Many large-scale industrial farm operators oppose sustainable agriculture because it would force them to change the ways they farm, and industrial farming is still working for them.
Those most eager to adopt sustainable farming methods are those to whom industrial agriculture never made sense or never quite seemed to be socially or ethically right. This includes some conventional farmers, but far more operators of the small farms that have been marginalized and largely ignored during the industrial era of agriculture. Sustainable farming also appeals to many people who grew up on a farm, but left to find a better job and now would like to return to the farm. Perhaps most important, sustainable farming appeals to many young people who would like to make their life in farming. Unfortunately, many of these young people don’t have access to land, don’t have a lot of money, and are having problems finding a way to get started farming.
Is the key to sustainable agriculture a return to the small family farm? Has the American agricultural system simply become too industrial? Would it even be possible to do away with big "agribusiness?"
It probably is not impossible to farm sustainably on a large farm and certainly all small farms are not sustainable—regardless of how we might define large and small. That being said, it is easier to farm more sustainably on a smaller farm, other things being equal. Sustainable farming requires an intimate knowledge of the land and the biological systems that function on the particular farm being operated, as well as an understanding of what can and cannot be done sustainably in a particular climate, community, market area, etc. Sustainable farming is about maintaining healthy relationships with the land, one’s neighbors, and customers. It is difficult to really know, understand, and care about a whole lot of land or a whole lot of people, which effectively limits the size of truly sustainable farms.
In addition, most farms today are large because they have followed the standard industrial strategies of specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control, becoming bigger and bigger farms. If they abandoned those industrial strategies, as they must to become sustainable, they would have to become smaller in order to survive economically. As farms reduced their reliance on commercial fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil energy, agribusiness would become far less significant. In fact, significantly higher costs of fossil energy could foretell the end of big agribusiness.
How does your book, Crisis and Opportunity, compare to Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, which also delves into the importance of and challenges to a sustainable American agricultural system?
Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma is an excellent book and I recommend it to everyone who is interested in sustainable agriculture. Pollan is an excellent writer, reporter, and story teller and he uses these talents to convey an important message. He explains how we have encouraged the industrialization of America agriculture through government programs, including public research and education, and focuses on the unintended negative consequences for the American food system and American consumers.
Crisis and Opportunity is broader in scope, focuses more directly on sustainable agriculture, and uses a very different format. The book is a collection of essays, written over the span of more than a decade, that address the most important questions of the sustainable agriculture movement: Why did it begin? What is it about? How can it succeed? Sustainable agriculture is diverse and thus cannot be captured in a few examples, stories, or studies. Over the past twenty years, I have made hundreds of presentations at various public events related to sustainable agriculture. In preparing for these events, I wrote several hundred papers. Over time, I refined my themes and messages, based on what seemed to communicate with my audiences and what seemed to make sense, particularly to farmers. This book presents a significant number of those essays, each addressing the whole of sustainable agriculture, but within a specific context and oriented toward a specific audience. Together, the essays tell a united, holistic story of a dynamic and diverse sustainable agriculture.
What are the immediate and long-term risks should we fail to adopt sustainable agricultural practices in this country?
The immediate risks involve threats to the natural environment and human health associated with industrial agriculture. The longer term risks are depletion of the productivity of the soil and other natural resources and the demise of family farms, degradation of rural communities, and continued disintegration of both rural and urban society. We risk destroying the ability of the earth’s biological and social systems to produce enough food—enough biological energy—to support the future of our society and of humanity. Over the long run, we simply cannot afford the cost of cheap, industrial food.
Lately, there has been a great deal of media attention on the increasingly important role of organic, local agricultural products in the consumer market. But, as a consumer, it's often hard to determine which products to buy to support the quest for sustainable agriculture. How do we navigate the grocery store aisles to find the products that are best for us, our families, local communities, independent farmers, and the environment?
When shopping in conventional supermarkets, organic foods are probably a more sustainable choice than most conventional foods. If the supermarket features “locally grown” foods, check to see if there is any indication that they have been produced using more sustainable methods, such as organic, natural, pesticide free, hormone and antibiotic free, or humanely raised. Most local growers know their customers are looking for foods fundamentally different from industrial foods. Claims made for local foods are more likely to be valid because customers have the opportunity to check up on local growers, and local growers know it. The same basic reasoning holds for finding sustainably produced foods in restaurants. However, the fact that pictures of local farmers are hanging in a store or are on a menu doesn’t mean that the products offered for sale that day necessarily came from those farmers. You have to check the labels or ask the chef for verification.
The best way to know that you are buying sustainably produced foods is to buy from people you know personally, or at least know a lot about—from people you know and trust to produce foods that have ecological, social, and economic integrity.
*****For more information on Crisis and Opportunity, please visit http://nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Crisis-and-Opportunity,673343.aspx.
New from the University of Nebraska Press is, Bad Fruits of the Civilized Tree by Izumi Ishii. This book “examines the role of alcohol among the Cherokees through more than two hundred years, from contact with white traders.” Chronicling the socially destructive aspects of the beverage, Ishii how the brew was integrated into the native community and how this event impacted their economic escalation. This week Tuesday Trivia is going to take a look at this wonder we call alcohol, and see if we can determine just why its history is so pervasive. 
