The other day I had a meal at the Coop in Bozeman. Outside was a huge banner that proclaimed “Support Farmers and Ranchers.” Such proclamations demonstrate the disconnect or mindless acceptance of myths by the largely well-educated urban dwellers who shop at the Coop.
There is no human activity world-wide that does more damage to the Earth’s functioning ecosystems, water, and soil than agriculture. Agriculture production usually involves the growing of a single crop, usually a non-native species to the exclusion of a diversity of native species.
Yet, for many people, including the well heeled members of the Coop, there is a disconnect between some of their other accepted priorities and what they support.
We see this in other messaging as well.
For instance, the Gallatin Valley Land Trust has put a “conservation” easement on a number of wheat and irrigated farms to protect “wildlife” habitat. Are the folks at GVLT brain dead? These farms destroyed wildlife habitat and aquatic ecosystems.
In terms of wildlife, it might even be better off as a subdivision as most subdivisions have landscaping, often with native trees and shrubs that support native insects, birds, and even mammals. A wheat or hay field is a biological desert.
Before anyone accuses me of advocating for more subdivisions, I am suggesting that farmland is typically a degradation of the landscape. If the GVLT were advocating for “restoring” the wheatfield to the native sagebrush steppe, perhaps this might have a positive outcome for wildlife. But instead they aim to maintain the status quo of land degradation activities.
I’ll be the first to admit that we all need to grow food. However, where, what and how it is grow is important to consider. There are better ways and worse ways to grow food. Organic food production is better than chemical food production. Growing crops or livestock in places where the climate, soil, terrain or whatever is more favorable to production can reduce the overall footprint that exists in marginal landscapes.
Montana, as a basically arid western state, is a lousy place to grow many of the crops and livestock being promoted by the Coop. Statistically, more than 5 million acres are in wheat production. After that, hay and alfalfa occupy 2.7 million acres of the Montana landscape.
By comparison according to a GAP analysis (somewhat dated) only 0.17% of Montana was developed landscapes which includes all homes, roads, and other human imprints. This is primarily for livestock forage. To grow these crops millions of acres of native vegetation have been destroyed.
Yet the focus of most land trusts and even most conservation organizations that suggest they are concerned about native wildlife and ecosystem is a focus on urban and ex urban growth, not agricultural land.
If one wanted to improve Montana’s ecosystems, a focus on limiting agriculture not supporting it as the Coop suggests would be the place for emphasis. This is not to suggest one should ignore urban and in particular, rural development. There are proven ways to reduce this impact including zoning and land use laws. Oregon, for instance, has state-wide zoning that requires all cities and towns to designate a growth boundary in which all new development must occur. This doesn’t stop development, but it does minimize the footprint of all new development.
Still if one compares the impact of Ag to urban development, there is no contest. Ag is the biggest source of water pollution. The biggest source of soil loss. The dewatering rivers for Ag production jeopardizes aquatic ecosystems. It is the reason predators from coyotes to wolves are killed as well as “pests” like prairie dogs. It is the major source of weed spread, and loss of native vegetation.
Throw in pesticide and fertilizer use, and the loss of cover for wildlife when crops are harvested, and there is not much that human do that is worse for the land than Ag.
What makes it particularly aggravating is that much of this Agriculture—at least in arid western states—is subsidized in multiple ways. Indeed, without subsidies most of this agricultural production would cease.
The subsidies include both economic and environmental. Taxpayer price support for crops like wheat and for dairy. Water is removed from rivers at no cost to irrigators even though the water is “owned” by the citizens of the state. There is no cost to the farmer/rancher for soil erosion. We taxpayers fund government agencies to kill predators and pests. Public lands are leased for rock bottom prices that are far lower than similar private lands. Methane from livestock rumination contributes to climate warming that is not accounted for. Low interest loans for Ag producers are supported by taxpayers. The list goes on and on.
Ag everywhere, of course, enjoys many of these supports. However, in arid states, the environmental costs are greater, and the actual production of food is lower. For example, it may take 250 acres of land to support a cow year-round in arid Nevada or Arizona. By comparison, you can raise a cow on an acre or less of land in a moist warm place like Georgia. And a farmer in Georgia, where it rains, doesn’t need to dewater rivers to provide irrigated forage. Because the cows are grazed on a smaller area, losses to predators are reduced, eliminating the “need” for predator control. That is not to say that a cow in Georgia doesn’t impact the land. It does. But the physical footprint is far lower.
Much of Montana (as well as other states) could be redesigned for ecosystem restoration. For example, the American Prairie Reserve in Montana is an ambitious plan to restore a significant portion of the Northern Great Plains with native wildlife and ecosystem function. However, this kind of restoration could be done on a much greater scale, if all those Coop members, land trusts, and conservation groups all united in limiting Agriculture to the best sites instead of promoting marginal production in places where Ag largely continues due to environmental and economic subsidies.
One other benefit of reducing the production of Ag in marginal regions is that nearly all crop and livestock production is sold on a national or even international market. Growing more bushels of wheat in say Montana undercuts wheat producers in Kansas where the average yield per acre is much higher due to soil and climate factors. If farm production were limited to the best locations, those ranchers and farmers might be earning more per acre effort, and may even be able to afford to implement environmental policies to reduce ecosystem degradation.
It is time to recognize that Agriculture is the real agent of ecosystem degradation and function, and an appropriate emphasis on these impacts should be the goal of all citizens who either support environmental protection or wasteful tax supports.
Leave a Reply