Who is worn out on folks who feel entitled to tell farmers how to farm?
Yeah, me too.
But to get past that to productive conversations, let’s take a short walk in their shoes. Or, maybe a long walk. To get a view from outside the tractor cab, I slogged through “We Are Eating the Earth” by New York Times bestselling author Michael Grunwald. I also interviewed Grunwald, who might have been offended when I shared that I was “slogging through” his book.
Sorry, Michael. It wasn’t your book. It’s me. Really.
Reading a nonfiction book on environmental issues and agriculture is not on my list of top 10 best beach reads. That said, I learned a few things.
Here’s a general feel: Grunwald starts by saying that farmers are an environmental mess. You must read past that. But neither he nor his sources are entirely wrong, and ag folks can mine several points of agreement as well as a few nuggets to help farmers build trust with those who don’t understand their business.
In those 334 pages of complex prose, one particular message that farmers can use to their advantage stands out: land use efficiency. What that means is: Large U.S. farmers are using the least amount of land to produce the most food.
In other words, they are “eating” less land. Large U.S. farmers are putting the land to its highest and best use by using modern tools and harvesting higher yields. Here’s how Grunwald and other sources in the book came to believe that large U.S. farmers are easier on the environment than some others, even those in organic production.
The primary source in this book, Tim Searchinger, is a senior research scholar at Princeton University’s Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment. Searchinger’s concern — one that Grunwald seems to share, hence the book’s title — is that we need to use less land to grow food, fuel and fiber.
“Food and agriculture is a third of the climate problem. It’s 70% of our fresh water. It’s the leading driver of deforestation, of water pollution, of wetland drainage, of biodiversity loss,” Grunwald said.
The way to slow, if not reverse, that trend is to be more productive on the land used for agriculture.
“When we make less food per acre, we need more acres to make food. We eat more of the Earth,” Grunwald said. “Trying to decarbonize the planet while you’re continuing to vaporize trees is like trying to clean your house while smashing your vacuum cleaner to bits in the living room, right? You’re making a huge mess.”
And that’s where large U.S. farms ring the bell. U.S. farmers top the chart — and continually outdo themselves — on maximizing production per acre, almost regardless of the crop.
“We need high-yield agriculture,” Grunwald said. “We’re going to need 50% more calories by 2050, and we can’t keep tearing down trees to make them.”
For some, this may be a Captain Obvious comment, but I’m not sure many environmental activists have considered that maximizing land use is an important element of stewardship. And that could be why U.S. farmers aren’t getting credit for the environmental efficiency that’s a hallmark of high-tech, high-yield farming.
“I want the carbon markets to give efficient farmers and ranchers credit for that because right now, they’re not,” Grunwald said.
That’s a message for U.S. farmers and ranchers to hang their hats on — whether they’re the cowboy or the baseball sort.
So, the question becomes how large U.S. farmers can use this connection point with leading environmental activists, especially those who see higher efficiency as the path forward.
Change the messages
Consider what to start, stop and do differently to improve your standing as land stewards.
Start. Lean into the environmental advantages of farming efficiently, such as planting GMOs, judiciously applying pesticides, and using technology and equipment to vigorously engage in precision farming techniques that squeeze efficiency out of every input dollar.
Stop. Don’t promote homespun traditional work ethics, values and generational dedication as the reasons farmers deserve to call the shots and the rest of the population should simply trust them. It’s not resonating. “Just because they’re in the heartland and they have good values does not mean that they get a free pass,” Grunwald said.
Do different. Stop preaching to the choir. Talk about sustainability efforts outside of the agricultural community. Explain the advantages of GMOs. Lean into the need for pesticides. “GMOs are not a problem. They are not a health problem, and they are not an environmental problem,” Grunwald said.
Where I cringed was on the pages where the writer — or the source — most obviously didn’t know what farmers already are doing. Many environmental activists stridently object to the way farmers do their jobs without knowing one iota about standard on-farm practices.
Grunwald tried. I give him credit for that and for respecting farmers. It’s a start for a productive conversation.
Just remember, I read this massive tome so you don’t have to. You’re welcome.