Where do we see farming in 50 years?

[Feldspar]

Thanks for the homework. Just started on The Master and his Emissary by Iain McGilchrist which is about the two halves of the brain and is completely fascinating.
I was wrong to bring rationality into this, you're right. (or left if we're talking brain sides)

That's in the same area. Danny Khaneman is one of my most influential thinkers. I think his System 1 and System 2 explanation is beautifully constructed. You can cheat and watch a summary of the book here:

.

 

[orchard]

I don't think there will be a direct industrial technological solution that's sustainable. We need to change tack

That is a very interesting historical question. It might have been because they ran out of bronze, but not the leading explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse#Possible_causes.

The relevant point here is that it might be that technology might not come in time to save us, in which case we could run out of soil.

 

[Philip Hedeng]

This is something I think of a lot lately. Accelerating climate change, not nations, might become the common, and hopefully uniting, "enemy". Whether that will lead to escalating conflicts of resources or a leap of progress by innovation and collaboration remains to be seen. I tend to think of the better, so I'm speculating:

- Agriculture and forestry will be more diversified and mixed to maximize carbon sink effects and climate change resilience. The ability to pull carbon from atmosphere combined with food and raw material production will be more recognized by the general population than now. In the history books of 2060, this adaption will be credited as the most crucial change in memory for the survival of mankind.
- Technology advancement have enabled artificial carbon sink facilities, and pollution from industry will be very low. Biggest pollution problem (already is?) will be from consumers, not producers. Clean energy dominates.
- A lot of resources goes to mopping up previously polluted areas on the planet. Farmers work closely with authorities to minimize any negative impact from their operations, through mutual collaboration and guidance, not imposed regulations.
- Feedlots and crowded livestock operations will be less common in favor of pasture/silvopasture. Antibiotics resistance will be one reason. Maybe horse meat will become big business as they are grass fed, but won't release methane. All the stuff about polycropping and perennial cropping will have a big place in agriculture. Food will be labeled by sustainability, and was the big commercial leap of progress for environmentally sound farming practices.
- Taxes will have to pay for development of new antibiotics. Almost everything we use today will be useless even if the use of antibiotics will fall dramatically in livestock sector coming years.
- Looking back, people in the 2060's will scratch their heads and wonder how so many could believe all the nonsens that made them vote this way or that way and risk everything that's been accomplished this far. Of course we didn't have a international web of false-news filters to keep people from believing dumb a* headlines on the Internet. Some will still rage at everything they can.

I attended a workshop last week about climate change adaption. They'd run a simulation of the coming 100 years using the worst case scenario from IPCC using data from a farm in southern Sweden. Temperature would go up 3 degrees C, much fewer days -5 degrees or colder and more 20+ degree days. Precipitation almost the same. The result said higher yields in almost all crops in the rotation, but a continued decline in soil C. Pests and pathogens not included in the model, nor breeding advancement, so that will impact projected yields. I did not see the projections from farms in Spain, France and other countries further south, but they said that their yields did not look very promising.. worst case scenario being that we continue our pollution of air as we do now. This is geoengineering happening right now, only not to our advantage.

 

[balbirniefarm]

I'd like to see our farm producing food rather than commodities. I'd like the fertility to come from mixed covers and mixed livestock. I'd like the amount of machinery to be significantly smaller and hopefully my kids' relationships with the fertiliser and spray companies of the future will be non existent.

 

[Kevtherev]

I see more biomass biofuel and environmental schemes becoming more prevalent in this country.
Solar and wind farms as well.
All the smaller family farms will be consumed by the big units.

 

[mikep]

What we want and what we can get are vastly different. Some lucky ones will find a niche but the rest will have to carry on much as before, consider.
Globally
World prices will be dominated by lagely free trade arrangements so commodities will be king not 'food'.
The population is rising.
The middle class is expanding in China and the third world.
Europe.
The lunatics are getting control of the asylum, greens are making growing more expensive but cannot use protectionism to support prices.
UK
We will never get a government who support more expensive food.
So put them all together and it blows everything to hell.
The world can produce x calories of plant food material, at present we use/waste x minus 2-5%.
The population is growing as is the expectation of the rising classes so we need more plant food this can only come from another agricultural revolution unlikely, more deforestation probable or more vegetarians which with rising wealth is unlikely.
So we will continue to bugger up the planet and the richer cou tries will be able to afford to eat meat and the poor starve. Not a nice picture but how many will not have a bit of beef because of some poor bugger in a hot place?
Coming back to more diverse farming, yeah great idea but this takes more land but may make production cheaper. Running a short on production is good for us but bingo some poor bugger goes hungry.
Increase the number of livestock on farms is good unless you consider the inefficiency of meat production which will reduce surplus crops the price will go up and many will go hungry.
Its a sh!t scenario and unfortunately the old motto of wars and famine are good for farmers rings very true.
Now i have pee'd on the parade let me say i have decided that i am not spending much on any crops in future and getting my dog and stick polished up.

 

[Spud]

I see more biomass biofuel and environmental schemes becoming more prevalent in this country.
Solar and wind farms as well.
All the smaller family farms will be consumed by the big units.

Do you really think so?
Over the last 30yrs, the largest units round here have been 'farmed' by more different companies than ever the smallest ones have. There are family farms that are in the 4th and fifth generations, having seen off whatever the world has thrown at them. A small farm, run by its owners (or tenants for that matter) can operate with older gear and low amounts of paid labour to see them through hard times. Large units have little choice but to replace worn out kit and pay its often significant wage bill. (ie management as well as workers need their brass).
Solar? On rooftops and moorland maybe
Wind farms - off shore is the place for these monstrosities imo, I can forsee a time when health and safety comes into play, and the maintenance of the things makes them unviable as they get older. If the population keeps growing, there wont be room for turbines!
Biomass may have a place, but as a haulier who has carted dried woodchip over a hundred miles to a power station, I cannot see how on this fine earth it makes any environmental or financial sense at all. Big adaptions are going to be necessary imo, like making it possible to run a power station on timber (as opposed to chip) delivered by train or river, not road. I struggle to see how burning wheat makes any more sense, on the same basis.
Anerobic digesters will probably continue, though need regulation to prevent the entire country being put down to beet and maize!
Enviroschemes may continue, focussed on water protection - strategic grass margins make sense - just tier it sensibly - basic payment for a grass margin that can be driven on, top up payment for a wildlife freindly/wildflower mix that must be kept off bar say an annual topping to prevent woody growth taking over.

One area I do feel needs more work and development is wave energy - there is tremendous energy in the sea, it must be possible to harness it somehow!!

 

[Kevtherev]

@Spud
In this area yes the older farmers have packed up sold or let their farms to other units.
There are some family farms going though and going ok[emoji106]

 

[Spud]

@Spud
In this area yes the older farmers have packed up sold or let their farms to other units.
There are some family farms going though and going ok[emoji106]

Thats the thing Kev, older farmers with no successor do get sold off/taken over by larger units (always did) but the family farms (ie those with a successor) much less so. I am fourth generation here, and I have two daughters, will I have a successor? Thats up to them! (I also have four nephews and a niece so anything is possible) At the present time, life as if your going to die tomorrow (dont miss an opportunity) and farm as if you're going to live forever!

 

[mikep]

Thats the thing Kev, older farmers with no successor do get sold off/taken over by larger units (always did) but the family farms (ie those with a successor) much less so. I am fourth generation here, and I have two daughters, will I have a successor? Thats up to them! (I also have four nephews and a niece so anything is possible) At the present time, life as if your going to die tomorrow (dont miss an opportunity) and farm as if you're going to live forever!

History teaches that those that throw away the cheque book in hard times are the better suvivors so yes smaller family farms have a chance. The biggest problem UK wise is that land prices bear no resemblance to land values (think about it) so no matter what happens to agricultural prosperity it will have little effect on them.
Land is bought as an investment, status symbol, tax efficiency, sporting/equine or because it's next door and very few other reasons.
If you look at buying land to farm then you cant afford it unless its a side show to another interest such as Mr Dyson.
With that 'problem' no owner can really say they farm as a business as selling is the only logical way to go at a time when we are realy benefit beggars with little chance of making a decent return on the value of our land.
So we farm because we either know nothing else or like it so why should we be supported?
With that logic i can see support going soon with maybe a residual bit of bunny hugging money to fight over.
So return to the question, if i had a really good idea I'm definitely not going to share it with all my competitors and thereby hangs a tale, we are individuals who cannot/will not cooperate and i think only by unity and cooperation is there any real future (bar a war or other political events) except as a niche enterprise or a tourist attraction as even with 2000+ acres you cannot fight the prairies.
In 50 years from now? It reminds me of the crap we were told 50rs ago that we were the leisure generation as machines would do all the work so our biggest roblem would be keeping ourselves amused!!! f**king good one that as not many can afford to retire let alone be wondering what to do next.
I would have a stab at guessing just more of the same with the Guardian reading f**kwits telling us Armageddon (from farming malpractice) is just around the corner, headlines that glyphosate may be banned next year, wondering what it will be like once the Brexit negotiations are finished and hoping that @Clive makes his mind up whether to plough his sodding field.

 

[martian]

So we will continue to bugger up the planet and the richer countries will be able to afford to eat meat and the poor starve. Not a nice picture but how many will not have a bit of beef because of some poor bugger in a hot place?
Coming back to more diverse farming, yeah great idea but this takes more land but may make production cheaper. Running a short on production is good for us but bingo some poor bugger goes hungry.
Increase the number of livestock on farms is good unless you consider the inefficiency of meat production which will reduce surplus crops the price will go up and many will go hungry.

I think maybe we're looking at this all backwards. Meat production isn't necessarily inefficient, just the way it's done now. 70% of the cereals grown in the UK are fed to animals, mostly in what are effectively CAFOs and they are necessarily 'industrial' operations requiring much capital expenditure, machinery and anti-biotics and the rest. Take that 70% of cereal land and put it to grass. Then liberate the animals and grow food that might actually taste of something whilst building soil fertility. More beef, less chickens.

 

[Hartwig]

Take that 70% of cereal land and put it to grass. Then liberate the animals and grow food that might actually taste of something whilst building soil fertility. More beef, less chickens.

That wouldn`t be competitive under todays price-relations !?
When you can grow 10 ton/ha wheat you can turn that into 3 to 4 tons/ha meat, depending on the animal (pig, chicken), but you have to use 100 ltr/ha fuel and another 200 ltr. as fertilizer at least and add some overseas soybeans.....
How much meat from cows or sheep can be produced on grass with how much fertilizer ??

 

[Still Farming]

Same place with different clowns and different circus ???

 

[mikep]

I think maybe we're looking at this all backwards. Meat production isn't necessarily inefficient, just the way it's done now. 70% of the cereals grown in the UK are fed to animals, mostly in what are effectively CAFOs and they are necessarily 'industrial' operations requiring much capital expenditure, machinery and anti-biotics and the rest. Take that 70% of cereal land and put it to grass. Then liberate the animals and grow food that might actually taste of something whilst building soil fertility. More beef, less chickens.

I don't know the exact figures but if it takes one acre to produce enough vegetable matter to feed a human for a year it takes a lot more to feed them an omnivorous diet. We are the animal so if you feed one to feed another there is going to be inefficiencies. The only way it can be considered efficient from a resources point if view is using by products or land not suited to arable.
That is the argument on a macro scale, on the micro it would suit many farms to integrate but then what price the meat with a boost in production?

 

[mikep]

Same place with different clowns and different circus ???

Yep where the clowns pay the audience.

 

[two-cylinder]

@Spud
In this area yes the older farmers have packed up sold or let their farms to other units.
There are some family farms going though and going ok[emoji106]

All depends how you define family farm?
Is there an upper cut off point in area farmed?
Is a multi-thousand acre unit that runs under an 'ancestors' name different to an agribusiness with a 'generic' name?

 

[Old McDonald]

We've had some enthusiastic young people around this weekend and we were discussing what we imagined would be a perfect agro-ecological system to aim towards, ie where we saw farming in 50 years time and, by extension, what shoud we be doing now to get to this state of agri-nirvana?

Two questions in your OP. Most people have addressed your remarks in the middle (not bolded) and I was about to do the same, but hesitated when I read your post again.

A perfect system would involve feeding everyone in the world to the level they desired, and with no agricultural pollution of any description.

I think all we can do as individuals is to attempt to improve our own food production output using as modern a technological approach as is feasible and affordable according to our own circumstances.

With regard to the middle bit, farmers will still complain that they have no money and that the weather is always against them. Chances are it will be true in both cases. There will still be millions of people short of food every day - probably more than at present.

A lot of land suitable for farming is not used for food production. Near me, much of it is not used at all. I can see many acres from my property that have never been used for any purpose in the almost 14 years I have been here. It has simply been abandoned. When I lived in Australia, a lot of land was used only intermittently. Lack of rain for a couple of years was always a possibility there, so judicious stocking meant being permanently understocked. This situation could worsen rather than improve in that country.

Even so, good land in many countries around the world is being used to grow crops for electricity production. This is madness when so many people are hungry, but, we all have to eat too, and if a farmer can make money by providing feedstock for generators and cannot by growing food, then it is obvious that he will, and should, grow the "food" for the generator.

I forsee much of the unused land being taken up, predominantly by livestock, but also for the growing of bio-fuels. Cardoons and globe artichokes have been trialled in Portugal and Spain respectively. It is a few years since I saw any figures but I believe it was up to 900 litres of oil/ha. Many other plants can produce good quantities of oils, and again, I have looked half-heartedly at this. The possibilities looked promising, but it takes capital to set up the process.

 

[Farmersdaughter]

I think it will all depend on energy. At the moment energy mostly comes from fossil fuels or havesting sun's energy (plants being our best solar panels). If scientist and engineering sort out fusion energy production or another method that can give cheap almost limitless energy life will be very different and I image "farms" with hydroponics and led lights growing food.
However, I expect there will not be limitless energy and it will realised that we need use natures solar panels for our energy, be it food, fuel or to feed the soils.

 

[martian]

I don't know the exact figures but if it takes one acre to produce enough vegetable matter to feed a human for a year it takes a lot more to feed them an omnivorous diet. We are the animal so if you feed one to feed another there is going to be inefficiencies. The only way it can be considered efficient from a resources point if view is using by products or land not suited to arable.
That is the argument on a macro scale, on the micro it would suit many farms to integrate but then what price the meat with a boost in production?

I don't know the exact figures either but it used to be thought that a properly run allotment could feed a family of 4 with vegetables for a year. You get 16 allotments to the acre...not many farms are that 'efficient'. Our local allotments seem to have a hunger for endless trailer loads of FYM, so animals are required somewhere along the line, unless you can persuade people that 'nightsoil' (ie human sewage) is suitable soil food.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I don't know the exact figures either but it used to be thought that a properly run allotment could feed a family of 4 with vegetables for a year. You get 16 allotments to the acre...not many farms are that 'efficient'. Our local allotments seem to have a hunger for endless trailer loads of FYM, so animals are required somewhere along the line, unless you can persuade people that 'nightsoil' (ie human sewage) is suitable soil food.

Good soils could be run that "efficiently" on a large scale with enough Labour. Perhaps there is much merit in the "Landbank" idea promoted by High Fearnley-Whittingstall where those with land to spare make it available to the public as allotment space in return for a small share of the produce?