Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Moving Forward - Reconciling
Multiple Sustainability Goals
farmers' greatest future concerns related to cli-
mate change were for regulations, fuel and
energy costs, and more volatile markets - not the
environmental impacts anticipated from changes
in temperature and water. In contrast, policy
makers and environmentalists have mostly
focused on agricultural sustainability related to
climate change in terms of the greenhouse gas
emissions created by agriculture or the potential
climate change impacts to agriculture that may
reduce yield. This mismatch in sustainability
goals or concerns suggests that there are multi-
ple goals to be achieved in animal agriculture
sustainability by different stakeholders.
Animal agriculture has reached a new era of
sustainability in which more opportunities are
available to ensure that animal products were
raised in a way that was socially, economically
and environmentally sustainable. Trends in con-
sumer demands suggest that some people are
willing to pay more money for products that can
certify that they have taken steps to be more sus-
tainable. Yet while some consumers are able to
afford what are sometimes more expensive food
costs for such products, other data show that
there are increasing numbers who are food inse-
cure and relying on food assistance. Farmers
and ranchers also face threats to sustainability
from economic impacts like loss of farmland to
development and decreasing farm shares over
time. In addition to rising costs of production,
farmers are often unable to implement sustain-
able practices because of their added cost in
labour, time or resources.
The role of policy in
sustainable animal agriculture
Despite these challenges, policies and regula-
tions do offer the potential to help blend
goals of sustainability in animal agriculture.
Government regulations such as the establish-
ment of a minimum wage have helped to raise
standards of living for all workers including
agricultural and food industry processors,
though others within the agricultural industry
likely experienced a loss in profits as a result
of these policies. Environmental regulations
and policies are also striving to increase
agricultural sustainability, often in concert
with agricultural producers. In 2009, USDA
announced an initiative with the dairy indus-
try to provide funding to establish anaerobic
digesters and energy audits across the USA.
Through government funding, 30 farms were
able to implement digesters thus reducing the
overall environmental impact of greenhouse
gas emissions as well as the societal impacts
of odours in rural communities (USDA,
2009b). One challenge of implementing vol-
untary agreements such as this one, is trying
to ensure that actual gains in sustainability
are achieved. Other policies that are manda-
tory such as regulations or performance stand-
ards (i.e. requiring a certain type of engine to
be used on tractors) can help to guarantee that
there are tangible environmental benefits
achieved. Including agricultural producers,
farm and ranch workers, food processors and
other stakeholders in the policy process can
assist policy makers in creating standards and
Sustainability goals of
multiple stakeholders
This potential discrepancy related to sustaina-
bility is complex as often the three pillars of sus-
tainability are at odds with themselves. For
example, a dairy farmer may wish to reduce
their overall greenhouse gas emissions and
odour from manures by implementing a manure
methane digester. A digester can also provide
economic benefits to the farmer because they
can co-generate electricity through the process
that can be used on their farm. However, the
average upfront capital cost of a digester on a
dairy farm can range from nearly US$500,000
to more than US$1 million (Giesy
et al
., 2009).
For most farmers, this cost puts the option out of
the range of possibility. Similarly, efforts to raise
wages in the agricultural industry may not be
possible if entirely covered by farmers whose
farm share continues to drop.
Recent research also demonstrates that
farmers' concerns related to climate change may
be fundamentally different than those of policy
makers, the public, or environmentalists. Jackson
et al
. (2011) and Niles
et al
. (2013) found that
