Media Clipping — Fall 1999, Between The Issues
a publication of the Ecology Action Centre

Are we making “Genuine Progress” in agriculture?

By Jennifer Scott

Using soil organic matter as her example, Jennifer Scott shows us the sort of background information we need to build a Genuine Progress Index.

Food production is a hot topic. Beyond the headlines, issues such as drought compensation, pesticide use, and the introduction of genetically modified organisms can be confusing and overwhelming. Yet although everybody eats, a well informed and inclusive discussion about what kind of agriculture would be best for society is not happening. In Nova Scotia, there are important choices to be made— choices that will determine whether the few remaining farms survive. Will the art and science of producing food become vibrant and resilient part of the rural landscape, or a race to achieve a "bottom line" that depletes both soil and people?

What does progress look like?

"The official definitions of progress confuse more with better, costs with gains, borrowing with earnings, and means with ends. To achieve real progress we must learn to distinguish these again.¹ How true this has been of agriculture over the past 50 years.

Real progress would look different. It is widely agreed that a truly beneficial farm system must be sustainable ecologically economically and socially. Ideally the competitive edge would belong to those who produce food with maximum community benefits and minimal pollution or resource depletion. Farms would be viable, not overwhelming. Income would be secure, not variable or highly polarised. Stress would be low and satisfaction high. There would be meaningful interaction between farmers and wellinformed eaters, not fights over the smell of manure. Opportunities for meaningful learning would occur in the field, around the kitchen table, in community halls, and in classrooms. Young, bright enthusiastic people would be taking up farming, not leaving rural communities. Farmers would rather have neighbours than their neighbours’ land.

Measurements of things like work satisfaction, community vitality, or environmental quality are important to us as people, but they don’t show up in ledgers at fiscal yearend. The accretion or depletion of human and natural "capital" that makes food production possible in the first place is not tracked —not valued—in our accounting systems. If these fundamental building blocks are not valued and recognised front and centre, they may become casualties in the race to stay "competitive"—and this we all know instinctively to be selfdefeating.

In the Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index, several indicators of progress towards sustainable agriculture are being considered, including ecological, economic, social and institutional variables. It is a very complex story. Here, for the purposes of illustration, I discuss just one major indicator—soil organic matter.

Soil productivity

If we were to base our notion of successful agriculture on the productivity of the soil, one indicator of "progress" would be optimal levels of organic matter in the soil bank account. Organic matter is the dead and decaying plant and animal material that gives soil its spongy texture and nice smell. It’s the productive capital of agriculture. It’s what holds water in the soil in dry years and allows it to drain in wet years. It helps prevent soil erosion and reduces soil compaction. It breaks down gradually to provide nutrients for plant growth, and gets built up with additions of plant residues and manure. Organic matter can act as a filter, cleaning air and water. It exchanges gases with the atmosphere and thus influences global climate. It helps prevent erosion and holds on to nutrients.

Organic matter is good stuff, which makes it an excellent indicator of soil "health" and productive potential.

The amount of organic matter in ’ soils depends on the balance between formation and decomposition. Unfortunately, "more than 200 years of agriculture in the Atlantic Provinces has resulted in serious soil degradation in some areas of intense rowcropping, seen in the loss of organic matter and fertility, structural degradation, compaction, and erosion."² One study shows that the organicmatter content of soils in Eastern Canada has 40% since the 1960s.³

In our new ledger, we will count the cost of declining soil productivity as a loss. In the mideighties, Agriculture Canada attempted to estimate the on farm costs of soil degradation in Nova Scotia and came up with a very rough figure of $11.5 million per year, or about $2,685.00 per farm (20% of average net farm income at the time). The same 1985 study estimated that the offfarm costs of soil degradation (from, for example, loss of soil material, nutrients and pesticides from agricultural land) were roughly $46.00 per hectare of conventionally produced rowcrop area (examples of rowcrops would be corn, soybeans, potatoes, and some other annual vegetables).⁴

Longterm and comparison studies, however, show that soil organic matter can be improved or built up from original levels by two very simple farming methods: by growing longterm perennial hay/pasture (forage), and by additions of manure from livestock that are fed the forage. For the most common soil type in this region, growing perennial forage is estimated to increase soil organic matter by 50% from baseline levels over the longterm.⁵ In a study conducted at the Normandin Research Farm in Quebec, a stand of red clover and timothy (a typical forage combination) added three tonnes of carbon (organic matter) per hectare per year to the soil.⁶

The proof is in the pudding—or the yield. Longterm studies (lasting 15 years or more) in Eastern Canada show that yields of crops are maintained or improved with additions of manure, while they are gradually reduced with additions of synthetic fertilizer. Not surprisingly, the soil organic matter was higher for manured treatments than synthetically fertilized ones.⁷

A 15year study in the US confirmed these findings.⁸ For example, the difference in yields between synthetically fertilized and manure/foragefertilized corn was only 1%, and in the last 10 years of the study, economic profitability was comparable. But systems rotating forage with rowcrops had significant longterm advantages over conventional systems without forage rotation. Soil fertility increased, soil carbon (organic matter) was six times higher with manure additions, and three times higher with forage, than synthetically fertilized systems, and a significant amount of synthetic fertilizer leached into the groundwater in the conventional system. In addition, total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the two foragebased systems were lower than emissions from the conventional system because of a 50% reduction in energy use.

What does this mean for the consumer in Nova Scotia (that means all of us)? It makes a lot of sense to eat foragefed livestock products (beef, dairy, lamb), while rowcrops like potatoes and other vegetables are "costly" unless integrated with forage/ livestock systems.

Global benefits

There’s another twist. Besides keeping soil in top shape, longterm increases in soil organic matter act as a "carbon sink," i.e., they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and Canada has agreed to reduce greenhouse gas balances, suddenly soil organic matter is the subject of much interest. Soil organic matter is thus a valuable asset not just to farmers, but to all of us. Several recent studies have estimated that each tonne of carbon mopped up from the atmosphere is worth between $330 and $530.⁹

Thus in the new ledger, farms with longterm forages in their rotations are not only avoiding the costs associated with soil degradation, they are reaping additional benefits for society. If farmers were actually paid according to the balance in our new ledger, rotating row crops with forages and fertilizing with manure from foragefed livestock would become a more viable option for farmers.

There are many issues I have not dealt with in presenting this small example. l hoped to point out, however, that the keys to genuine progress are a matter of changing attitudes and a fuller appreciation for the value of the resources and solutions we already possess. Ted Zettel, an ecological dairy farmer in Ontario, has the last word:

"My own farm and many others managed [ecologically]’ achieve yields in line with the county averages. What is really encouraging is that our most precious resource, the soil, continues to improve. In the first five years after my transition, potash and phosphorus levels rose in every field, with [significant annual increases in] organic matter.... The improved soil condition is visible without analysis too. Earthworms abound, our land drains better in wet periods and holds onto water more effectively during drought. The soil structure is superior making it easier to work and more productive. I have helped many other farmers to go this route in the last few years and I am convinced that what we’re doing will work on any farm where the farmer wants it to. We live in a world of increasing consumption and diminishing resources. It doesn’t take a scholar to figure out that farms which make the best use of their own internal resources will be better equipped to respond to a changing, challenging world."

Jennifer Scott works for GPI but is happily eating organically produced raspberries right now.

Endnotes:

1. Redefining Progress, in Atlantic Monthly, 1995 (http://rprogress.org/).
2. Acton, D. and Gregorich, L. (eds).1995. The Heaith of Our Soils: Toward sustainable agriculture in Canada. Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research. Research Braneh Agriculture and AgriFood Canada Publication 1906/E. Ottawa, Ontario: Chapter 2, p.11.
3. Carter, M.R., Gregorich, E.G., Angers, D.A., Donald, R.G. and.Bolinder, M.A.1998. Organic C and N storage, and organic fractions, in adjacent cultivated and forested soils of eastern Canada. Soil Till. Res. 47:253261.
4. Agriculture Canada.1986. A Preliminary Economic Assessment of Agricultural Land Degradation in Atlantic and Central Canada and Southern British Columbia.
5. Government of Canada, 1991. The State of Canada’s Environment. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services: 91.
6. From the Ste. Foy research station web page
7. Cordukes, W., MacLean, A., Bishop, R.1955. The comparative eflects of manure and commercial fertilizer in a longterm soil fertility experiment. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Science 35: 229237; Papadopoulos, Y., Reekie, E., Hunter, K., and Gupta, U.1991. Changes in continuous timothy production with time in a longterm dykeland experiment: Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71: 761 769.
8. Drinkwater, L., Wagoner, R, and Sarrantonio, M.1998. Legumebased cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396: 262265.
9. From the web page of the David Suzuki Foundation 6047324228 7/97. International studies cited in the 1995 IPCC report estimate that these benefits alone will offset 30100% of the casts of emissions reductions. A recent Canadian analysis calculated the value of the benefits at $330 to $530 per tonne of carbon reduced or 21 to 35 cents per litre of gasoline not burned. Contact Jennifer Scott for the references for these calculations.

Copyright © 1999, Jennifer Scott