 |
| Duane A. Lienemann |
March 8, 2013 Edition
I was reading through my usual agriculturally related magazines and came across an interview with someone that I have a lot of respect for concerning the animal agriculture industry. Dr. H. Russell Cross, former administrator of USDA FSIS and currently head for Animal Science at Texas A&M, is a wonderful advocate for all of us that are involved in the animal industry and especially for the meat that we eat. In this interview he projected a real concern that could come back to haunt the United States in general and agriculture specifically. He points out something that all of us that work in Extension have seen --- the erosion in research in agriculture, and particularly in animal agriculture research, which should be recognized as a concern by everyone in animal agriculture, not just the academics. It could have far reaching consequences for our future as an industry and the future of how we provide enough protein for a rapidly growing world population.
Public funding of research for U.S. animal agriculture has been shrinking for years and now is at a critical level. When you consider the demands of the future and the stance of other countries, the U.S. situation looks desperate. My guess is that by now you should be aware of the projected population increases and the demand that will put on agriculture to nearly double its production in the next few decades. Animal agriculture is a very important part of that, as the need and demand for protein will be a big part of the equation. It will not only be needed, but demanded --as what used to be called “developing” or “third world” countries are now “developed” countries with a rising influence level and huge demand.
If you are not aware, it is projected that the world’s population will likely reach 9.2 billion in 2050, with virtually all new growth occurring in the developing world. By 2050, the world’s farmers will need to supply almost twice as much food as they do today. Put another way, we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as have in the last 8,000. The $64,000 question is: Where will the food come from? Let’s look at some facts and some needs.
Today, we use about a third of the planet’s land surface for agriculture. But when you subtract the areas that are already “taken” – deserts, mountains, lakes, rivers, cities, and highways – the figure rises to about 58 percent of the land. Take out the national parks and other protected areas, and food production already consumes 70 percent of available space. At current growth rates we will be nearing the planet’s capacity by 2050. At some point, the amount of land devoted to agriculture must stop expanding, because there is only so much land. What we must do, then, is find a way to roughly double the productivity of farming, so that we can produce twice as much food on the same amount of land or on land that can’t produce grain. It is a daunting technological and social challenge, and one that does not have a single solution.
The tools of modern biology have brought tremendous improvements in crops and animals by breeding in traits like faster growth and increased resistance to drought and disease in crops and feed efficiency, growth and carcass quality in livestock. I am of the persuasion that this increase can only come through advancements in technology, since land for agriculture is limited as are natural resources such as water. Something that I think will be as important to this country as oil. In the past, science has provided information that has helped agricultural industries to respond to problems, improve quality, quantity and safety of our food supply. All of this is necessary to secure food for the future.
Here comes my concern. Dr. Cross notes that animal-health companies invest 25 to 35 percent of their profits in research and development, while commodity companies invest less than 0.5 percent. And more troubling is the fact that Land Grant universities, the Ag schools, only receive 10 to 20 percent of their animal science funding from the states. USDA research funding, through competitive grants, is about $262 million with only $22 million go to food-animal research. The rest of the world is out investing us in agriculture research. For instance, Brazil invests $3 billion and China $45 billion in agricultural research compared to the $1.4 billion in the U.S. Today, animal science departments are decreasing faculty, which means fewer scientists and less research. If nothing is done to reverse this trend, over-regulation, coupled with a decrease in scientific knowledge, will likely result in the U.S. becoming dependent on food imported from other countries. I would just as soon have a good Nebraska steak as a steak from who knows where, fed who knows what!
I am glad to say that the University of Nebraska - Institute of Natural Resources is being progressive and our state is trying to get in line for these challenges, and I applaud our University for taking the bull by the horns and our Unicameral for helping UNL in its endeavor. Even in this time of uncertainty my alma mater is expanding its role in research and education in agriculture. I think that most everyone is aware of the Innovation Park that now presides where the State Fair use to be located. We are in the process of a commitment to a Rural Futures Initiative, and now UNL is ‘doubling down’ on its investment in agriculture with 36 new faculty positions-- and we all should be pumped up for all of these significant decisions. Dr. Ronnie Green, IANR Vice-Chancellor, has issued a statement that I agree with fully. ”As one of the world’s leading agricultural producers, Nebraska is the epicenter of these issues, and its land-grant university must be there too. All of the needs out there indicate that we need to expand our efforts to meet the challenges that are ahead. The move to more faculty positions will allow UNL to emerge as one of a handful of land-grant universities that will lead the way in solving the food-production needs of the future.” Amen! ---- I am proud to be a part of it!
The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home
No comments:
Post a Comment