The Land :: www.TheLandOnline.com

Commentary

December 31, 2009

Commentary: Farmers at forefront of making ‘new economy’ successful

Originally published in the Dec. 25, 2009, print edition.

Recently, I participated in a conference where one speaker stated that in 50 years the world will need 100 percent more food to feed the world, and 70 percent of this food must come from efficiency and improved technology.

If those numbers are accurate, farmers need to continue their production of good, high-quality food, but we also need to take advantage of the impending new economy right in front of us.

In agriculture, the old economy may indeed be the new economy.

During a University of Minnesota conference, it was stated that by 2030, we will have a perfect storm in which the demand for food, water and energy will outstrip the supply. For farmers, this presents us with both a challenge — and an opportunity — to create a new economy based on our ability to feed the world, protect water and land resources, and provide energy.

We can only meet this challenge and this opportunity if we seize the moment to adopt new technologies and use our creativity in food production.

Farmers have always been the stewards of land and water, those precious resources necessary for high quality and quantity food production. Now, we will see a new demand for conservation of water, and it will come about both in policy discussions and adoption, and in real-life practice.

This perfect storm, made more complicated by the ever-increasing world population, means that farmers and rural areas must now look at real answers and real solutions to meet the needs this storm places in our path.

The new economy will demand an independent domestic food supply for the United States, and a robust export economy to feed the world.

In the energy aspect of this new economy, we have taken steps to address the need with biomass, solar, wind, ethanol and biofuels. These, too, must have a solid independent supply for domestic use, and a potential for export as well.

The United States has a large rural land base and a significant farmer base to provide these critical resources of food and energy for this new economy. At the same time, we will be charged with an increased guardianship and stewardship for water resources.

It will mean new technology development and implementation; and potentially new growing, cropping and harvesting systems. It may demand the creation of new jobs, underpinned by the conservation of water, and increasingly sustainable and measurable energy production.

Moving toward this new rural and agricultural economy requires investment at both the public and private levels. Much of the groundwork to do this has already been created in past Congressional farm and energy legislation with biofuels, wind and with the renewable electricity standard and renewable fuels standard requirements.

Our rural areas are the foundation of this new economy. It will take hard work, cooperation and leadership from everyone: from elected leaders, to land owners, to conservationists, to all of us. We each have a role to play to bring this new economy to maturity.

To succeed, there will be requirements on how we produce the energy, how we conserve and protect water, and how we grow and produce food. These requirements must be science-based and common sense-based, forged and developed in transparency and open dialogue and debate. While moving toward a new economy with a new jobs model may test the patience and dedication of all involved, it is not only worth it, it may be our only choice.

As farmers and rural people, we must insist on being at the table as this new economy evolves. Independent farmers and rural citizens should control the direction of food production, energy and water conservation.

The bottom line is that we as farmers will do our part. We have always done so. That is why the new economy, with its dependence on the full and active participation of the agricultural sector, will look a lot like previous economies — it will be food-based, water and land protection-based, with the participation of rural people. It will succeed because in the end result, farmers will do our part.

Without full farmer and rural participation, we would just have production without profit, production without protection, production at the expense of a socially and financially disadvantaged rural area, and a failing economy.

To have a real, new, rural, agricultural economy, means we will take the reins, we will insist on helping create and drive this new economy, and we will, as Minnesota Farmers Union, fight for the economic interests and quality of life for family farmers and rural communities.

•••

This commentary was submitted by Doug Peterson, Minnesota Farmers Union president from Madison.

 

Text Only
Commentary
  • Commentary: HSUS - wolves in sheep's clothing

    In 2008, Dan Mathews, vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said, "when you consider any movement for social change, it's really got to be seen as a generational one.

    June 18, 2010

  • Commentary: Species safe even if world warms

    Biologists are again predicting massive species losses as the world warms. But where are the corpses?

    June 18, 2010

  • Commentary: So-called efficiencies creating 'ag disconnect'

    "If we as eaters insist on food being a smaller and smaller percentage of our spendable income by continuing to separate ourselves from the source of that food, it will become a race to the bottom for agriculture, for rural communities, and for everyone's quality of life."

    May 21, 2010

  • Commentary: Ag needs to toot its own horn

    Agriculture is a dynamic industry full of growth and change, and yet unlike many other industries, it remains blessed with an abundance of small family-run businesses.

    April 8, 2010

  • Commentary: Losing jobs with green technology

    As Obama’s energy taxes force reductions in coal and oil production, the price of U.S. energy will double and triple — and so will the costs of the things we buy.

    April 8, 2010

  • Commentary: A chill hits wind power’s production

    The cost of the “free wind”? Projections are about 17 cents per kilowatt-hour — far higher than other energy sources. One of my neighbors has just invested $100,000 in a wind turbine. I think he’s wasted his money — and some of yours.

    February 26, 2010

  • Commentary: Greenpeace opts for millions of blind children

    The earthquake in Haiti was a devastating blow — but we don’t know how to prevent earthquakes. On the other hand, we do know how to prevent 500,000 kids from going blind every year, and even dying, due to severe Vitamin A deficiency. But we’re not preventing the blindness or the deaths.

    February 12, 2010

  • Commentary: EPA’s atrazine review must be open

    Public deserves science-driven review of pesticide’s health, environmental impacts.

    January 29, 2010

  • Commentary: Let’s examine impacts of externalities on ag

    It is increasingly important to remember that almost any human activity of any size or consequence will have both negative and positive externalities. Perhaps the reason for little acknowledgment of the positive externalities is that they are the raison d’être for the activity in the first place.

    January 29, 2010

  • Commentary: USDA misleads on farming’s climate future

    The USDA seems to expect serious climate-related farming problems ahead, but the recent changes in global climate have been tiny — and in the “wrong” direction.

    January 29, 2010