|
The economics of Sustainable Agriculture
Once a farm has passed through the transition period, it is likely to be at least as profitable, if not more so, than under conventional practices. The principal reason for this is the decline in input costs, to, on average, 1/3 below conventional costs. Yields commonly decline in some crops (e.g., corn, potatoes) but increase in others (e.g., hay, soybeans, oats, barley), especially during dry years, when the better water holding capacity of the sustainably managed soil translates into a production advantage. Existing literature suggests that, when yields of commonly grown crops are averaged, there is an overall 10% yield decline compared to yields in conventional production systems. Total yield of all products on any individual farm, however, that takes place, and the addition of complementary animal and crop production systems. If a premium price can be obtained for the products, then the profitability of the operation may exceed that under conventional operation. Returns to labour are often lower, either because yields are somewhat lower or because labour requirements increase. However, labour needs are usually more spread out over the year. Work may also be more rewarding as a result of diversification and reduced risks to health.
On a regional or national level, it appears that more widespread adoption of sustainable agriculture can meet many of the government's stated policy objectives for agriculture. Studies done to date indicate that total net farm income would increase, government subsidy payments could decline, environmental damage would decline, food quality would improve, and rural employment possibilities rise. Potential problems that could develop include a decline in export of major commodities such as wheat (due to diversification of production), dislocations in the farm input supply sector, and a shortage of skilled labour, manure and sources of potassium.
The role of certified organic food and farming
Some producers have chosen to employ sustainable production practices that will permit them to market their produce as "certified organic". There are no national estimates yet of what percentage of production from sustainable practices is marketed in this way, but in Québec, the figure is estimated at about 30%.
Use of the label "certified organic" developed as a way to assure consumers that the food they are eating is, in fast, grown according to the practices that are commonly associated with the word "organic". Those involved in promoting "organic" food have seen what happened to the "natural" food market. Because "natural" was not clearly described it was easy for the work to be used to describe almost any kind of food product or process. The term "organic", was first used extensively in the USA by J.I. Rodale. Founder of Rodale Press, has continued to be used because it is the term most understood by consumers in the market place. Attempts to use other words that more accurately describe sustainable agriculture practices have failed to become established, principally because they had no meaning in the marketplace.
The certification process is useful in our food economy because consumers usually do not know the farmer whose products they are buying. Many organic growers are involved in inter-provincial and international trade. In some countries, such as Japan, certification has not been as important a development. The Japanese sustainable agriculture movement has instead focused on bringing consumers and producers closer together by creating consumer producer cooperatives and buying groups, thereby reducing the need for certification. In this kind of system, consumers may even be involved in farm management decisions. This approach is also being practiced in a few places in North America.
Certification standards have been developed for most provinces in Canada. Although they all have a common base, they often differ in details, depending on the ecological and economic conditions that exist in the region. Although based on "agro-ecological" principles, each set of standards is in fact a compromise between the ideal situation and the state of development of sustainable practices in each region. For example, in some standards, certain fertilizers and pesticides are permitted even though they may have detrimental effects on beneficial soil organisms, natural pest control agents and wildlife. In many cases, our understanding of the ecology of a pest or production system has not advanced to the point where we can assure a productive and profitable system without using such products over the short term. As described above, the sustainable agriculture movement is very diverse, so each set of standards is also a compromise between the different schools of thought.
|
|
