Isaac Article Review

Marcus Hollman, a professor of Animal Science from Michigan State University, wrote an article on issues currently facing animal agriculture. In particular, Hollman focuses on the unsettled matter of sustainability and food production.  In his article, Hollman attempts to define sustainability, how it is perceived by society, and what forms sustainability takes. The following review will outline the main points of Hollman’s presentation and evaluate his given possible solutions to alleviate the strains on agricultural sustainability.

I find this topic very interesting due to its incredible relevance in today’s animal production industry. Society is currently holding producers to higher standards of environmentalism, and this movement has both economic and environmental consequences. As a future veterinarian, I may find myself advising producers to use more “green” methods of production.

As Hollman points out, the current state of agriculture is under question for its ability to be a sustainable, environmentally-friendly, method of feeding the world’s people. As of 2012, our current world population is around 7 billion people, and it is projected to reach 9 billion people as soon as 2050. Knowing this, animal agriculture is under pressure to be sustainable in the long term.  One of the principle methods of sustainability is nutrient recycling. As animal production occurs, nutrients used in production are moved from their places of origin. Nutrient recycling ensures that some of the nutrients depleted from one area are eventually returned through methods such as fertilization, nitrogen-fixing planting, and other such practices.

Hollman outlines different viewpoints, or dimensions, that seek to create long-term stability in animal agriculture. The first dimension is market based; driven mostly by the pursuit of efficiency and minimal waste by producers hoping to increase profits and eliminate wastage of nutrients. This has been the prevailing viewpoint for most of the 20^th century. This perspective utilizes market-based solutions to drive inefficiency down and also promotes the use of byproducts of the animal agriculture industry. This viewpoint is the most profitable to producers and is the most successful in producing large amounts of food to feed the world’s populace. However, this method is also contingent on the unlimited supply limited resource. It also lacks accountability for the proper recycling of nutrients and avoiding pollution, often causing nutrient depletion and pollution in some areas.

The second viewpoint, as proposed by Hollman, is that of farmers being “environmental stewards”, who are responsible for the proper use of available local resources. This includes minimizing possible soil and water pollution, while at the same time doing their best to recycle nutrients. This method promotes sustainability by recycling nutrients and reducing possible environmental hazards. Production of food is maximized, with the condition that maximization does not negatively affect the local environment. While this method does encourage sustainability, it is restricted by local nutrient flow, and does not produce as much food as efficiently as conventional methods.

The evidence shows that in the United States, environmental friendliness has been more and more a concern for consumers. This has, in part, driven many producers to adopt a role as an environmental steward. The results have been promising, with many new state-of-the-art facilities being produced with environmental stewardship in mind. So far, it is not possible to tell whether these policies will be beneficial in the long term, but the enactment of these environmentally-friendly policies have led to improved public perception of animal agriculture.

I find that this topic often comes up when discussing commercial agriculture. In my opinion, it is true that producers have a responsibility to the planet and to local ecosystems to be environmentally friendly. In most situations, producers are happy to comply with society’s demands. However, producers also have a responsibility to themselves, their families, and consumers to make a low-cost product that will put food on the table for both consumers and producers. It seems to me that the best option is somewhere in the middle. Total environmentalism would be ideal, if not for the continually growing human population. To feed everyone, some form of large, commercial agriculture needs to take place, which will result in some nutrient depletion and environmental side-effects.  While Hollman gives two opposing perspectives as possible solutions, I believe a happy medium is the best option. Today’s market provides for people who are more willing to buy “environmentally-friendly produced” products. This allows some producers to be environmental stewards and still be competitive with more conventional producers. All in all, I am very interested in this discussion, and I look forward to further developments in this area. 

#platypus