Autonomy Without Tears

Research paper I just finished for a college course, enjoy. Blogger makes some of the formatting weird, so some of this might look a little "off."

**********************************************

Polycultural Agriculture: How Agroecological Systems Yield Greater
Benefits to the Environment, Human Health and Social Justice

Jonathan Storvick
Prescott College

Abstract

Since the early post-World War II era, modern agriculture has become increasingly based upon monocultural (one crop species) systems and practices that have a negative impact upon both environmental and human health, and upon social justice issues. Ecological alternatives to modern agriculture exist – the most potent difference being the use of polycultures (systems utilizing multiple crop, non-crop, and/or native species in conjunction with each other) to more closely model natural ecosystem processes. These practices of necessity include methods vastly different from those utilized by industry-standard monocultural farming systems, and yield greater benefits to the environment at large, to human health and to equitable social justice. This paper examines the effects of monocultural agriculture on these three areas of focus, and polycultural alternatives and their effects in the same areas.

*************************************

Polycultural Agriculture: How Agroecological Systems Yield Greater
Benefits to the Environment, Human Health and Social Justice

In addition to being one of the oldest occupations of the human race, agriculture has been the key factor in humanity’s survival and prosperity throughout history. Agriculture attempts to bring natural processes of plant growth and production under human influence for the purposes of providing food and other products for humans. Every living human being ultimately depends on the consumption of vegetation, whether directly (consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts and other plant products) or indirectly (consumption of animals which rely on a vegetable diet). Unfortunately, agricultural systems and methods since World War II have contributed to increasing environmental pollution and degradation, chronic degenerative diseases and other ailments in humans, and have supported a global system that exploits indigenous and poverty-stricken communities while filling the pockets of multinational corporations (Horrigan, Lawrence & Walker, 2002). These agricultural systems, while incorporating a number of different techniques and practices, can generally be characterized by the use of monocultures – systems in which one crop is grown in isolation from other plant species. The vast corn, wheat and soybean fields we associate with modern farms are typical of this monocultural approach to agriculture. Luckily, alternatives to these types of systems exist and continue to be developed. These alternative agricultural systems also vary widely in their methodologies and techniques, but can generally be characterized by a different and key feature – the use of polycultures (mixed species stands of vegetation). While this distinction (one crop species vs. multiple species) may not seem like much, the differences in methods, techniques and effects on a wide variety of areas are vast. It is our position that polycultural agriculture systems provide greater benefit to the environment, to human health, and to social justice.

Industrial agriculture - monocultures

Modern industrial agriculture since the “Green Revolution” of the post-World War II era has enabled humanity to boost its food production (and in correlation, its population) to previously unknown levels, using artificial inputs to boost monocultural production. However, these high-yielding systems come at a large cost. “Land degradation, salinization, pesticide pollution of soil, water and food chains, depletion of ground water, genetic homogeneity and associated vulnerability, all raise serious questions regarding the sustainability of modern agriculture.” (Altieri & Rosset, 1996, p. 165) Perhaps the largest problem with industrial agriculture is a matter of philosophy: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (quoted in Horrigan et al., 2002), industrial agriculture “views the farm as a factory with ‘inputs’ (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and ‘outputs’ (corn, chickens and so forth). The goal is to increase yield (such as bushels per acre) and decrease costs of production, usually by exploiting economies of scale.” (p. 445) Growing crops in large monoculture plots typically require large amounts of external inputs (fossil fuels, agrochemicals such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, and water), and use other techniques which also can have devastating effects on our areas of focus – environmental health, human health, and social justice.

Environmental effects of monocultural agriculture

One of the greatest negative environmental effects of monocultural agriculture is the loss of biodiversity. Ecosystems depend on a variety of species – floral, faunal, fungal, bacterial , etc. – to provide a number of functions which contribute to ecosystem stability. Planting monocultures reduces the species in a given area to one – which means that excluded species no longer provide necessary ecosystem services, as described below. Monocultural crop systems clear native non-crop species from the land (and with them a rich variety of animals, insects, birds and soil life), replacing them with vast tracts of the single crop to be grown. In the realm of food crops, monocultures also destroy diversity. Approximately 15,000-20,000 plant species have been used by humans for food (Facciola, 1998), yet only about 150 species are currently considered commercially viable (Thrupp, 2000). Monocultural practices even destroy genetic diversity within species by relying solely upon single varieties (usually hybrid or genetically modified species). Many traditional varieties of crops are now extinct or headed in that direction. Even a plant as simple as lettuce has suffered massive loss in genetic diversity of varieties: over the last hundred years the number of commercially-grown varieties of lettuce has dropped from 497 to 36 – a 92.8% loss in diversity. (Thrupp, 2000)

Loss of biodiversity in agricultural systems “…militates against the system’s ability to generate functional interconnection where different parts of the living system interact in a mutually supportive way.” (Jacke & Toensmeier, 2005, p. 29) In diverse, thriving ecosystems, many species fulfill a number of important functions and ecosystem services. Certain plants (especially legumes) are nitrogen-fixing – that is, in conjunction with soil bacteria, they absorb nitrogen (an important plant nutrient) and release into the soil for other plants to utilize for their own growth. Other plants (especially some species commonly considered as “weeds”) are dynamic accumulators – they have extensive and deep root systems that tap into the subsoil and bring nutrients to the surface for other plants to use. Other plant species provide shelter and food for pollinating insects (which aid other plants to produce fruit or seed), and beneficial predatory insects, which prey upon pest species (herbivores which attack crop plants). When monocultures eradicate these and other functional species from the mix (often using chemical herbicides), these functions must be provided in the form of external inputs – fertilizers, pesticides, and intensive disturbance regimes (cultivation, tilling, etc.). Chemical fertilizers, while releasing a quick “rush” of nutrients to crop plants, tend to kill off beneficial soil organisms, which would otherwise be keeping the soil healthy. The soil being thus degraded, the farmer quickly becomes locked in a cycle of addiction to fertilizers – fertilizers degrade the soil, which means nutrients have to be supplied in the form of fertilizer, and so on. Eventually the soil refuses to produce, the land is abandoned, and desertification begins. This cycle also applies to pesticide use: pesticides not only kill pests, but also beneficial insects which prey on pest species. Pests often develop immunities to pesticides and come back in full force – without any natural predators to keep their population in check. This prompts the farmer to use even stronger pesticides and more frequent spraying, which continues the cycle.

There are many other negative environmental effects of monocultural agriculture. The mechanization of agriculture (in response to the need to effectively plant and harvest large monocultural fields) and the use of monocultural farming techniques cause an enormous reliance on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, which are a main cause of global climate change, are used in the planting and harvesting of crops, in the manufacture of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and in the massive infrastructure of global food supply and demand (Murray, 2004). Large-scale tilling of fields in these systems leads to loss of topsoil from erosion and wind, in 1997 about 5 tons of topsoil per acre were lost in the US alone (Horrigan et al., 2002). Fertilizers (especially excess nitrogen from fertilizers) and pesticides leach from fields into the water supply, causing major pollution problems, and may be the major contributing factor in the occurrence of “dead zones” in the ocean (Potera, 2008). These practices also lead to large water consumption rates that cannot be sustained in the face of growing global water shortages (Horrigan et al., 2002).

Human health effects of monocultural agriculture

Industrial monoculture practices contribute to a variety of negative human health consequences. Nutrition is an area in which monocultural agriculture has left us severely wanting. Journalist and food researcher Michael Pollan (2008) explains that “…the chronic diseases that now kill most of us can be traced directly to the industrialization of our food: the rise of highly processed foods and refined grains; the use of chemicals to raise plants and animals in huge monocultures; the superabundance of cheap calories of sugar and fat produced by modern agriculture; and the narrowing of the biological diversity of the human diet to a tiny handful of staple crops, notably wheat, corn and soy.” (p. 10) Industrial agriculture’s reliance on techniques that damage the soil food web and use varieties bred simply to increase yields has dramatically decreased the nutrient value of commercially available crops. “Government data from both America and the United Kingdom have shown that the concentration of a range of essential nutrients in the food supply has declined in the last few decades, with double digit percentage declines of iron, zinc, calcium, selenium and other essential nutrients across a wide range of common foods.” (Halweil, 2007, p. 1) This loss of nutrients (and replacement by superabundant yet non-nutritious calories) has contributed to the rise in chronic degenerative diseases in humans over the last 60 years (Pollan, 2008).

Aside from nutrient losses, a range of negative health effects are caused by monoultural practices. The fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides used in monocultural agriculture pose dangerous risks to human health. Synthetic fertilizers are often manufactured by reusing toxic industrial wastes, including heavy metals, which can be absorbed by plants and therefore consumed by humans (Goldstein, 1997). Chemical pesticides are a leading contributor to health problems worldwide. The United Nations (cited in Horrigan et al., 2002) estimates that pesticides cause 2 million poisonings and 10,000 fatalities per year. Health effects of pesticides also include “elevated cancer risks and disruption of the body’s reproductive, immune, endocrine, and nervous systems.” (Horrigan et al., 2002, p. 450) Pollution (air, soil and water) from industrial farms effects people for miles around. Reliance upon genetically modified crops (GMO’s) poses the threat of immune system damage, the generation if new allergens, and a host of health risks that researchers are only now beginning to study (Horrigan et al., 2002). Foodborne pathogens are often caused by industrial factory farm practices, as we have seen in recent years (Johnson, 2009). As we all depend on agriculture for our survival, it is imperative we find ways to produce food without adding such major health risks to the equation.

Social justice issues and industrial monocultural agriculture

Social justice is an area often ignored by critics of modern agriculture, and by those who support advances in sustainability. Yet, an agricultural system in which human rights, respect for indigenous traditions, and equitable access to food and economic opportunity, is a system which is not sustainable and can only contribute to further degradation of the environment, natural resources, and increases in social and geopolitical instability (Brundtland, 1987). While monocultural agriculture has “…dramatically expanded… the human food supply, and in turn helped increase population,” (Halweil, 2007, p.5) it suffers on the social justice front by failing to “…meet the fundamental criteria of social justice such as freedom from want, freedom from oppression, and access to equal opportunity.” (Allen, 2008, p. 158) People are still going hungry (being denied one of their most fundamental human rights and needs for survival) in an age of unprecedented food production, which implies that the system itself is not equitable. All of the techniques described above, including monoculture itself, have led to the aggregation of much of the world’s agricultural producers into large, multinational corporations. This in and of itself leads to cultural decline, which includes the loss of family farms and degradation of rural communities, loss of indigenous/traditional farming methods and knowledge, loss of landraces - traditional or “folk” varieties of crops unique in genetic composition and diversity, and confined to distinct geographical or ecological populations, conversion of public and wildlands to large-scale monoculture farms, and inequities in labor, opportunity and pay due to corrupt business practices (Allen, 2008; Clements & Shrestha, 2004; Thrupp, 2000, 2004). It is apparent that there is much about agriculture and the way it is practiced that needs to be drastically rethought if we are to create a more healthy and equitable environment for humans and for the biosphere at large.

Polyculture as an alternative

In contrast to industrial agriculture and its reliance on monocultures, ecological agriculture can be characterized by its use of polycultures – multiple species growing and existing together. Many different methodologies and strategies for implementing ecologically-based agriculture have been developed over the last several decades - agroecology, permaculture, biodynamic farming – as well as the many indigenous and traditional methods which have informed modern attempts. These diverse practices share a common philosophy – understanding agricultural systems as ecosystems, and modeling farming techniques after natural ecosystem properties and functions (Altieri & Rosset, 1996; Cox, Picone, & Jackson, 2004; Clements & Shrestha, 2004; Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 2004; Jacke, 2005; Menalled, Landis, & Dyer, 2004; Mollison, 1988; Pearson, 2007; Thrupp, 2000, 2004). Polycultures, which are the natural state of ecosystems (nature rarely if ever produces monocultures), are a natural starting point for agricultural systems based on ecological principles. Growing crops and other species in polyculture leads to several other ecological strategies (and effects) which also characterize the agroecological approach: increased biodiversity, regenerative & semi-closed systems (organic material, nutrient and waste recycling), integrated pest management (IPM), sustainable water use, and so on, practices which will be discussed below in the context of their effects on our areas of foci. These practices, by their implementation lead directly to positive effects and benefits for the environment, human health and social justice.

Environmental benefits of polycultural agriculture

By definition, polycultures include more diversity than monocultures. As mentioned above, biodiversity is essential to maintaining healthy ecosystem functionality. This is especially important in agriculture when viewed as a managed ecosystem (Thrupp, 2004). Including a variety of species in crop stands contributes to ecosystem health on and off the farm. This is most apparent when viewing the input-output cycles of agricultural systems. By including species that provide essential ecosystem services (nitrogen-fixing and dynamic accumulator plants, plant species that provide food and habitat for beneficial predatory and pollinating insects, etc.), agricultural systems can be transformed from open, wasteful systems to regenerative, semi-closed systems which recycle nutrients and waste, provide their own fertilization, and utilize natural processes to control pest populations (Jacke, 2005; Pearson, 2007). Examining these practices even further, we see that by reducing and/or eliminating external inputs, pollution from these inputs decreases correspondingly. Integrated pest management (IPM) utilizes polycultures for reducing attacks on crops by pest insect species in a few different ways: By growing crops in polyculture, pests find it more difficult to find the plants they feed on in the mixed-species stands. Also, by providing food and habitat for predatory insects, pest populations are kept in check by their own natural enemies. The increased diversity in species also enables the system as a more resilient whole to more quickly recover in the event of a pest outbreak or any other disturbance (Jacke, 2005; Menalled et al., 2004). Polycultural agroecosystems are typically smaller-scale and locally based, which offsets much of the carbon emissions generated by the global food system, and also eliminates the need for large-scale destruction of wildlands for agricultural expansion (Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 2004; Thrupp, 2004). Water is sustainably used and managed through the use of rainwater harvesting for irrigation and the use of earthworks to decrease surface runoff and leaching of nutrients, and to allow water to percolate into the subsoil and recharge water tables (Jacke, 2005; Mollison, 1988). All in all, the negative effects of industrial agriculture can not only be ameliorated by the use of polycultural and ecologically-based agricultural techniques, but the net effect overall tends to be beneficial to the biosphere as a whole.

Polycultures and positive human health benefits

Human health increases and benefits from polycultural agriculture in a number of ways. The lack of artificial fertilizers and pesticides dramatically reduce the risk of cancers, degenerative diseases, and other ills that exposure to these chemicals typically cause (Horrigan et al., 2002). Health harms due to pollution and runoff are eliminated nearly entirely from farms utilizing polycultural techniques. Diverse varieties of “wild foods” (native plants allowed to grow in polycultures and sometimes harvested as crops) and ecologically grown crops are healther and provide a wider base of nutrients, especially when locally grown. Healthier diets based on these agricultural methods promote disease prevention and optimum individual health (Pollan, 2008). Virtually all of the negative health effects cause by monocultures as described above can be lessened or eliminated simply by farming in semi-closed systems and using ecological and polycultural methods.

Ecological agriculture and social justice issues

Agroecological farming leads to greater social justice and equity, in direct opposition to industrial farming. Polycultures require farming on a much smaller scale, which opens up economic opportunity to a greater number of individuals in a given area, and promotes healthy competition in local economic systems. Profits generated by these systems are local, and tend to be re-circulated locally rather than passed up the corporate chain, which tends to “…create multiplier effects in the local economy.” (Horrigan et al., 2002, p. 453) Polycultural systems also value and protect indigenous and traditional farming methods, knowledge (especially that of rural women), and unique varieties of crops, which contribute to agricultural progress worldwide (Francis, et al., 2003; Thrupp, 2000, 2004). Altieri and Rosset (1996) elaborate:

…Sustainability is not possible without preserving the cultural diversity that nurtures local agriculture… Peasant knowledge about ecosystems usually results in multidimensional land-use productive strategies, which generate, within certain ecological and technical limits, the food self-sufficiency of communities in particular regions. For agroecologists there are several aspects of traditional knowledge systems that are relevant: knowledge of farming practices and the physical environment, biological folk taxonomic systems, use of low-input technologies, etc. By understanding ecological features of traditional agriculture, such as the ability to bear risk, production efficiencies of symbiotic crop mixtures, recycling of materials, reliance on local resources and germplasm, exploitation of full range of micro-environments, etc., it is possible to obtain important information that may be used for developing appropriate agricultural strategies tailored to the needs, preferences and resource base of specific farmer groups and regional agroecosystems (p. 169).

In an interview (Kawell, 2002), agroecologist Miguel Altieri takes this concept one step further: “Agroecology is not just a development method, but also a resistance to globalization, a tool for social movements to become much more autonomous… it is the technological flag of the resistance movement.” (p. 33) Industrial agriculture advocates often malign ecological practices, saying that polycultural practices cannot meet or exceed the high yields produced by monocultural agriculture (which are only possible due to high inputs). The data shows, however, that this is not the case. In multiple cases cited by Thrupp (2004), Gliessman (2004) and Jacke (2005), crops grown in polycultures generally took one of two approaches: Single crops, when grown in polycultures, often approached or exceeded monocultural yields (especially in indigenous practices); or, the net yield of multiple crops grown together in polycultures vastly exceeded yields of single crops grown in monoculture in the same size area. This shows that polycultural agriculture can significantly contribute to solving the problems of global hunger by increasing net yields of food crops.

Conclusion

Agriculture is a vast, diverse, and complex topic that obviously transcends the monoculture/polyculture dichotomy. However, it is our position that industrial agriculture and ecological agriculture can be characterized by the use of and reliance on monocultures and polycultures. The issues we face as a result of industrial agriculture practices over the last half-century are forcing us to take a deeper look at the ways in which we grow crops. Mounting evidence and data show that growing crops in ecological, polyculture systems provide a number of benefits that exceed those of monocultural systems, and can even eliminate negative effects of monocultural practices. By synergetically and holistically viewing agricultural systems in ecological terms and visions, we can create systems that will feed us while effecting positive change and stability in ecosystem and biosphere health, human health and vitality, and contribute to a more just and equitable global society.

References

Allen, P. (2008). Mining for justice in the food system: Perceptions, practices, and possibilities. Agriculture & Human Values, 25 (2), 157-161.

Altieri, M.A., & Rosset, P. (1996). Agroecology and the conversion of large-scale conventional systems to sustainable management. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 50 3/4), 165-185.

Brundtland, G. (ed.) (1987). Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clements, D.R., & Shrestha, A. (2004). New dimensions in agroecology for developing a biological approach to crop production. Journal of Crop Improvement, 11 (1/2), 1-20.

Cox, T.S., Picone, C., & Jackson, W. (2004). Research priorities in natural systems agriculture. Journal of Crop Improvement, 12 (1/2), 511-531.

Facciola, S. (1998). Cornucopia II: A source book of edible plants. Vista: Kampong Publications.

Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., et al. (2003). Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22 (3), 99-118.

Gliessman, S. (2004). Integrating agroecological processes into cropping systems research. Journal of Crop Improvement, 11 (1/2), 61-80.

Goldstein, J. (1997). Industrial waste as fertilizer: What’s wrong? What’s right? BioCycle, 38 (8), 63.

Halweil, B. (2007). Still no free lunch: Nutrient levels in U.S. food supply eroded by pursuit of high yields. Foster, RI: Organic Center. Retrieved from: http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Yield_Nutrient_Density_Final.pdf

Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (5), 445-456.

Jacke, D., & Toensmeier, E. (2005). Edible forest gardens, vol. 1: Ecological vision and theory for temperate climate permaculture. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Johnson, T.D. (2009). Food safety reform moves closer to becoming a reality. Nation’s Health, 39 (5), 1-33.

Kawell, J. (2002). For an agriculture that doesn’t get rid of farmers: An interview with Miguel Altieri. NACLA Report on the Americas, 35 (5), 29-34.

Menalled, F.D., Landis, D.A., & Dyer, L.E. (2004). Research and extension supporting ecologically based IPM systems. Journal of Crop Improvement, 11 (1/2), 153-174.

Mollison, B. (1988). Permaculture: A designers’ manual. Sisters Creek, Tasmania: Tagari Publications.

Murray, B.C. (2004). Overview of agricultural and forestry GHG offsets on the US landscape. Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm & Resource Issues, 19 (3), 13-18.

Pearson, C.J. (2007). Regenerative, semiclosed systems: A priority for twenty-first century agriculture. BioScience, 57 (5), 409-418.

Pollan, M. (2008). In defense of food: An eater’s manifesto. New York: Penguin Books.

Potera, C. (2008). Corn ethanol goal revives dead zone concerns. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116 (6), A242-A243.

Thrupp, L.A. (2000). Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. International Affairs, 76 (2), 265-281.

Thrupp, L.A. (2004). The importance of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Journal of Crop Improvement, 12 (1/2), 315-337.