[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Some Fallacies of the Averys' High-Yield Farming



An Alernative Perspective on the AVERYS' HIGH-YIELD FARMING

by:
John Ikerd
University of Missouri


The Averys' paper contributes significantly to the sustainability
debate.  In my opinion, they voice positions in agreement with the
vast majority of those in the "agricultural establishment," and for
that reason, their points are worthy of pondering.  We can't blame
the Averys' for telling those in the conservative, agricultural
establishment the things they want to hear.  They work for the
Hudson Institute, a conservative "think-tank."  That's their job. 
The puzzling thing to me is why so many people, including some
obviously informed and intelligent people, seem so willing to buy
into the Averys' concept of "High-Yield" farming as "the" system of
the future.

Joel Barker, in his book PARADIGMS, claims "when a paradigm shifts,
everyone goes back to zero."  Perhaps those with great intellectual
investments in the "old" paradigm of the Averys' "high-yield"
farming are no less reluctant to "go back to zero" than are those
with large financial investments in the "high-yield," high-input,
industrial approaches to agriculture.  We can't criticize people
for reading or listening.  We should all listen to and read a wide
range of opinions and ideas, even when they differ greatly from our
own.  But can we so easily excuse intelligent people for believing,
if it is simply because doubting might force them to "go back to
zero" and start thinking all over again?

Then again, maybe its the Averys' advocacy of a high-tech, bio-tech
research agenda that keeps the scientific establishment in their
camp.  The focus on maximum possible production not only supports
the agribusiness agenda by keeping input sales high, but it
supports the current bio-tech, info-tech research agenda of the
scientific community as well.  However, this emphasis on maximum
production does not create a "window of opportunity" for the
future, it closes one that is already open.  The relative abundance
of current food supplies -- as evidenced by the fact that we pay
U.S. farmers less to produce the food that we pay to package and
advertise it --  already provides the window of opportunity.  We
have an opportunity to find ways to increase production levels
without degrading the environment, or degrading the people who
produce the food, if we don't blow it by bowing to the current
agricultural power structure.

Scientists and farmers alike need to be exposed to a wide range of
viewpoints on important issues -- of which the Averys' is but one. 
But, there are at least as many fallacies in their arguments
advocating "High-Yield" farming as there are in the arguments
supporting the "low-yield" systems they attack.


Fallacy #1:  A sustainable agriculture won't sustain people.
     
          The Averys begin by outlining a broad definition of
     sustainable agriculture, but quickly dismiss all credible
     definitions of sustainable agriculture as empty rhetoric. 
     They claim "sustainable agriculture" is just a code word for
     "low-yield farming."  They infer that sustainable agriculture
     advocates would consider starvation of half the human
     population to be an acceptable strategy for sustainability. 
     They are simply wrong.  All of the many credible definitions
     of sustainable agriculture include statements such as: "a
     sustainable agriculture must be productive, must provide for
     the food and fiber needs of society, must meet the needs of
     the current generation, must be economically viable and
     socially just, or must be capable of maintaining its
     productivity and value to human society."  The Averys choose
     to ignore all these credible definitions of sustainable
     agriculture and instead attack "low-yield farming," their
     sustainability "straw man."

Fallacy #2. High-yield technologies have no limits and organic
     technologies have no potential.

          The Averys see "sustainable" as a euphemism for
     "organic."  Again, they are wrong.  Organic farming may or may
     not be sustainable.  The sustainability of organic farming, or
     any system of farming, depends on whether it is ultimately
     found to be economically viable, ecologically sound, and
     socially responsible.  They have stated, without any credible
     supporting evidence, "the best yields on field crops grown
     using organic methods are roughly half those of mainstream
     high-yield farms."  They consider documented cases of organic
     farmers who attain yields equal-to-or-higher than their high-
     input neighbors to be aberrations rather than examples of what
     can be achieved even with today's knowledge of organic farming
     methods.  They seems to have a blind faith in the ability of
     high-input farming methods to expand production, seemingly
     without limits, but will not concede that organic farming
     could ever be any more productive than it is today.  Neither
     position is consistent with either current scientific evidence
     or good common sense.

Fallacy #3. Nature can be protected only by segregating people,
     wildlife, and farming into separate spaces.

          The Averys' whole case for "high-yield" agriculture as a
     necessity for feeding people and protecting wildlife is build
     upon this fallacy.  It appears that in the Averys' world,
     specialization is "good," diversification is "old fashioned,"
     and integration is "impossible" -- by definition.  They would
     have us believe there is no alternative to setting aside space
     for agriculture and forestry, separate from spaces for
     wildlife, and presumably separate still from spaces for people
     to live.  They show no apparent realization that everything on
     the earth is ultimately connected.  We may well have to learn
     to farm, harvest timber, and live in harmony with wildlife all
     in the "same" spaces -- if we are to sustain the global
     ecosystem of which we are a part.  The necessity of separating
     people from agriculture and agriculture from wildlife may be
     a necessary condition for the Averys' "High-Yield" farming. 
     But, learning to live as part of nature, not separate from
     nature, is a primary goal of most who are working seriously
     toward agricultural sustainability.  We have no logical
     alternative.

Fallacy #4.  Population, consumption, and production are the
     results of separate and largely independent decisions of human
     societies.

          The Averys' project human population trends, consumption
     trends, and production trends as if there were no
     relationships among the three.  In fact there is abundant
     evidence that such trends are highly interrelated if not
     inseparable.  When people give no conscious consideration to
     future generations, history suggests they will exploit their
     resource base -- either through increased per capita
     consumption or increased population.  Agricultural failures of
     the past -- the Hanging Gardens and Mediterranean Basin
     included -- reflected failed societies, failed economies, and
     failed ecosystems.  The three are inseparable.  There is no
     conceivable way the earth can support as many people as
     humanity might choose to procreate at any level of consumption
     to which they might aspire.  No one can possibly know with any
     degree of certainty how many people the earth can sustain or
     what level of per capita consumption is sustainable.  The one
     thing we do know is that population and consumption cannot
     expand indefinitely.  The Averys' "high-yield" agriculture, at
     best, can do no more than delay the inevitable day when we
     must find acceptable ways to balance production, population,
     and consumption.  At that time, the earth may be capable of
     sustaining far fewer people than it could sustain with today's
     resource base.

Fallacy #5. Research on High-Yield Farming is the best bet for a
     sustainable agriculture.

     The successful pursuit of a "high-yield" agriculture might
     allow humanity to ignore its responsibility for conserving our
     resource base, protecting our environment, and building a more
     responsible society for another 50 years.  If so, at that time
     we quite likely will be faced with more than twice as many
     people, a seriously depleted natural resource base, and an
     exploding world population.  If we wait 50 years to get
     serious about agricultural sustainability, it just might be
     too late.  Desperate and starving people, historically, have
     destroyed their resource base and in so doing have destroyed
     their civilizations.  Apparently, such is the nature of being
     human.  The current period of agricultural plenty gives us a
     window of opportunity to develop new and better ways to farm. 
     We need to explore a wide range of alternatives for sustaining
     "people" through agriculture -- including the people who farm
     and live in rural communities.  We can't afford to bet our
     scarce public research dollars on any single approach to the
     future agriculture, certainly not on the fallacies of "High-
     Yield" farming.

Fallacy #6. Sustainability is mainly about "feeding" people.

          The Averys' high-yield approach to agriculture reflects
     an outdated industrial, materialistic, consumer-driven
     paradigm of global economic development.  Much of the rest of
     the U.S. economy is already moving into a post-industrial era
     of human progress-- an era which focuses on people as
     knowledgeable, productive, contributing members of society and
     not just "consumption markets" to be exploited for short run
     profits.  To consider people as anything other than consumers,
     to the Averys, constitutes "social engineering."  In reality
     the fundamental questions of sustainability are question of
     "social engineering."  Will we, as a human society, exercise
     our uniquely-human capability for self-discipline and make the
     ecological, social, and economic investments needed to sustain
     people on the land and human life on earth?  Or will be
     continue to contrive self-delusional scenarios of "the
     supremacy of man over nature" and, thus, justify our
     continuing greed?