Hot Topics
The Future of Agriculture
U.S. agriculture has bright future in spite of challenges
By J. Scott Angle, University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
It is crystal clear that rising population and growing nutritional demands will require food production to double by 2050. Yet, available land for food production is unlikely to increase.
In fact, as reforestation removes land from agricultural production, land used for food production may decline. The amount of food produced per acre will have to double by 2050.
Just where this increase will occur depends upon geopolitics, climate and climate change, and environmental considerations. Europe isn’t likely to adopt new technologies to increase food production.
In the United States, agricultural patterns are changing as our climate changes. Climate change will likely exacerbate drought conditions of the western U.S. California’s current drought may become permanent as the climate warms.
The eastern half of the U.S. must produce more food than it does today. The Southeast has a long growing season, abundant sunlight, good soils and reasonable amounts of rainfall and groundwater for irrigation. So, it’s clear that agriculture in region must continue to grow to meet world food demand.
Recent history shows it’s certainly possible to increase crop production on static land resources in this country. For years Malthusian predictions were that mass starvation was inevitable as populations increase and food production couldn’t keep up. The evidence has been just the opposite.
Food production has kept up with population and improving nutrition of those living in less-developed societies. In fact, there is a worldwide food surplus. Of course there are still starving populations in the world. Most often the situation isn’t lack of ample food, but an inability to move food to where it’s needed. Food delivery is often impeded by local political instability.
There is every reason to believe that rising yields and improved nutrition in agriculture will continue for many years to come. Most yield increases have come from new technologies. Many of these advances have come from the U.S. system of agricultural research and education through public land-grant universities.
As someone who works in the area, I’m certain this vital system will continue to produce the incredible discoveries that have driven the success of American agriculture for the past century.
In Georgia, for example, farm production continues to increase. Strong evidence is shown in changes from 2007 to 2008 -- 2008 was a terrible year for Georgia farmers. One of the worst droughts on record played havoc on nearly every aspect of agriculture. Some commodities like the green and landscape industries were decimated when watering bans assured new plants wouldn’t survive. But, despite the drought and emerging economic downturn, 2008 was better, in terms of farm-gate value, than 2007.
This is a testament to the tenacity and creativity of farmers who can still make money in the face of so many problems. For 2008, the total value of farming and processing in Georgia was $55 billion. The industry generated 356,000 jobs for the state – a source of jobs that has remained relatively stable even as the economy continued to deteriorate.
This confirms what we have known for many years; agriculture, while not immune from economic downturns, is less impacted than most sectors of our economy.
There is also a general perception that we have fewer farms than in the past and that farms are getting larger due to consolidation. The opposite is true. We have more farms than we did 10 years ago, and farms are smaller than a decade ago. More and more farming families are working off the farm to support their weekend work on the farm.
I remain optimistic about U.S. agriculture for two additional reasons:
I believe there is an inherent, lingering appreciation for the rural lifestyle, the values held by our rural citizenry, and the cultural heritage that exists only in these areas of the country. These are vital components of our culture that no one wants to lose.
And, I believe our political leaders understand that food production is an issue of national security. We can’t always count on other countries to produce food for us. Previous food safety incidents have shown how a single accident can close imports of an entire commodity. Intentional contamination of the food supply wouldn’t be difficult and could paralyze an entire product’s entry into the U.S. for some time.
For this reason, no one wants our food production shipped overseas. We have seen clearly with imported energy supplies how easily we can be at the mercy of others who may not always like us. It’s bad to be dependent on imported fuel. It would be disastrous if we depended on other nations for our food. Remember, we have only an 11-day food supply in our food chain. If that chain is broken, critical problems arise almost immediately.
We never want to be in a position where food can be used as a political weapon against us. We must not forget the lessons the French learned during World War II when Germany stopped imports of food into France. That single act helped to pacify the French population with relatively little effort by the Germans.
Unlike other industries that you can revive after prolonged inactivity, agriculture is different. It’s not just training workers in the science and practice of agriculture. Agricultural knowledge is location-specific, learned over generations and part of the ingrained heritage of a farming community.
It may be impossible to ever bring this knowledge back once lost.
There is a crucial need for agriculture to continue to grow and there are unique opportunities in the southeastern U.S. to meet this demand.
Despite the long-term, positive potential, we’re facing several significant, complicated challenges that will make the next few years quite difficult for U.S. agriculture.
While agriculture is in relatively good shape over the coming years, there are a few sectors of agriculture that traditionally, and certainly in the current downturn, won’t do well.
The green industry and high-priced foods won’t do well. These items tend to fall within those areas that consumers can do without when disposable income declines.
Meat sales are also likely to further decline as the U.S. dollar strengthens -- a high dollar hurts exports and aids imports. This is especially important for the poultry industry, the largest segment of Georgia agriculture, where exports are a large part of the overall market.
We expect to see some commodities perform better than others. Forecasters say in 2009 soybean and grain sorghum acreage will increase in the Southeast, while corn, peanut and wheat acreage will decline. There will be no change for cotton and tobacco.
Broiler production will continue to decline, which is good for the overall industry because prices will increase to the point where many integrators will become profitable. Unfortunately, if you are one of the growers or factory workers affected by reduced production, the change is clearly personally devastating.
Red meat production is predicted to increase over the next few years. Whether producers make any money depends upon input costs, something that so far has been difficult to predict.
Dairy production is the one area where we remain relatively pessimistic. We see few scenarios where milk prices will improve and dairy will become more profitable.
Outside influences will also have an effect on agriculture.
Water is an overarching factor affecting the future of agriculture. The western U.S. has worked for years to develop good water policies and agriculture has responded to these policies in terms of growth, location and profitability. The Southeast, however, has always assumed that our water supplies were unlimited. Rainfall was deemed to be nearly adequate with abundant surface and groundwater supplies available for irrigation when needed.
Unprecedented drought over the past two years (which still is far from over despite recent rains) has clearly demonstrated water is not an unlimited resource. We have to better plan for its use if agriculture is to be sustained and grow.
States need to do a better job of planning and developing or deploying infrastructure, policies and technologies to meet future water demands in both agricultural and non-agricultural use. This issue is particularly critical during drought periods – there is no reason to dump millions of cubic meters of water into the Gulf at the expense of agriculture.
Water shortages in agriculture during prolonged drought can irreversibly harm agriculture. The current drought has done just that to the green industry in the Southeast. Close to half of landscape, nursery and horticulture businesses went out of business in the face of falling sales to homeowners who couldn’t water recently installed plants. Coupled with the region’s building bust, huge declines in sales to contractors, who weren’t building, crippled the industry.
Reported incidences of foodborne illness have increased in recent years. Two major steps need to be taken to stem this trend. First, we need to institute improved, science-based food safety standards. And, we need to establish audit-compliant programs that identify the gaps in the network that provides “field-to-fork” safety of the food supply. Both programs require an investment to understand the production, harvest and processing aspects of the food supply chain.
Animals and plants can be contaminated with human pathogens in many places along the food chain. The significance of food safety can be seen in the impact of the 2008 Salmonella-tomato debacle which had a $25.7 million negative impact on Georgia’s economy. Coordinated research and development efforts to explore the interactions of human pathogens with the plants and animals that become our food is paramount.
We can never compete with a number of lesser developed countries where labor costs are low, land costs are a fraction of that in the U.S., and environmental regulations are rarely enforced. Our only competitive advantage is for our farmers to be on the cutting edge of the technology curve.
The unique partnership of land-grant universities, the federal government through the USDA and private industry has allowed the American farmer to maintain the technological advantage for over 100 years. Yet, as other countries adopt the technologies we develop then modify these technologies for low-cost production, we are under constant stress to push farther ahead of the curve. This issue is particularly important for labor-intensive crops.
Labor is obviously an area that has been hotly debated for decades and one that still cries out for a solution. Whatever the solution, it is imperative that federal policies allow agricultural producers access to competent field labor at reasonable wages.
As the market for locally grown, sustainable food increases, more of our food is being grown within a few hundred miles of where it is consumed. The concept of “food miles” is also a driving factor that will assure increases in local production. However, without competent field labor, none of this will be possible and the potential increases in food and fiber production won’t be realized.
The U.S. needs to more aggressively promote sales of U.S. agricultural products around the world. Foreign sales of agricultural products remain one of the bright spots for U.S. trade. Future trade agreements shouldn’t benefit other sectors at the expense of agriculture.
In 2007, agriculture was one of the areas that alleviated our trade deficit. That year we imported $79 billion vs. $116 billion in exports. Don’t kill the golden goose.
A seldom considered issue, but one that will have a significant impact on the future of agriculture, is that we must consider supporting economic development of less-developed countries. Much of the future demand for U.S. agricultural products will come from rising incomes, and rising consumer demand, for our products. We can help agriculture while at the same time “do the right thing” for many of the world’s poor.
One of the brightest spots in our future is the new gold rush – the search for alternative energy sources. The southeastern U.S. has been labeled the Saudi Arabia of bioenergy. We have abundant sunlight, a long growing season, adequate rainfall and a long history of pine production.
The exact role plants will play in energy production remains to be seen. Nearly everyone agrees that energy production from grains, especially corn, is a short-term solution. Cellulosic ethanol is the long-term hope for energy production from plants, especially pine trees. However, important technological breakthroughs must be made before we can expect widespread cellulosic ethanol use in the U.S. Whether this breakthrough comes next year or 10 years from now remains to be seen.
There are serious issues facing U.S. agriculture today and in the future. Some we can control, others we cannot. There are few we can’t overcome. Farmers are good stewards of the land and natural resources. And, agriculture is a strong, stable segment of the nation’s economy. Given sound policy, strong support, solid investment in research and education, and stepped-up focus on food safety, security, science and trade, the U.S. agricultural industry is poised to meet the demand to feed and nourish the growing world population.
(J. Scott Angle is dean and director of the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. This testimony was given before the U.S. House Agricultural Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, April 1, 2009.)