Part VI the LAST

The final morning focused on what the supply chain stakeholders are interested in and how they view their own sustainability and sustainability efforts within the industry. 

The morning started with a panel discussion:

The facilitator wanted the panelist, which encompassed representatives from Cargill, McDonald's,JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding LLC, Audubon, and a rancher who is also is a consultant for a firm called Natural Resource Solutions, to discuss their views on: i) How do you define sustainability ii)What are the needs and challenges you encounter? iii) What innovations and opportunities are you most excited about?

I will say this is probably the hardest section of the workshop to summarize because it was all over the map on what these folks touched on.

Each panelist tried to define sustainability, which they all unanimously agreed is very difficult and complex.  That view point did not, personally, help us have a discussion on what should be done about the future of their industry that is dependent on the average rancher/farmer that has a herd size of forty.

One gentelman blasted the USDA's definition for Sustainable agriculture, which is below:

"Sustainable agriculture" was addressed by Congress in the 1990 "Farm Bill" [Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACTA), Public Law 101-624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1603 (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990) NAL Call # KF1692.A31 1990]. Under that law, "the term sustainable agriculture means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term:

• satisfy human food and fiber needs;
• enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends;
• make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls;
• sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and
• enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole." (Source: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml#toc2)

He claimed that it made little since, but did not have enough time to go into why he thought the above defintion was flawed, but he made sure to emphasize that if it makes since economically and if the buisness is economically strong then it should positively influence the environment and their workers and consumers.  (hmm...)

 I remember having to memorize and digest the USDA's definition four years ago in my Introductions to Sustainable Agriculture course in college.   While it could do with some better choices in language I still think this is a good definition of what American agriculture should be shooting for.  I could write a whole series of posts on definitions, I guess.

I walked away from this panel discussion a little mortified by most of the folks definitions and what they viewed they needed: stable economics. If they have sustained economics then they can help sustain their environment and help their communities.  Yes, staying in the black is the objective, but at what sacrifice to the environment and social well-being will be impacted to do so?  It was well stated that they work on thin margins, like all producers do too, but many of them view sustainable economy= sustainability. 

The group discussion after the panel leaned towards "how to tell the story."  One thing beef has over pork and poultry is the image of the rancher.  The rancher plays a big part of selling beef to the consumer, since beef is the priciest of meats at the counter. A part of telling the story is communicating what the industry is doing to conserve and reduce their footprint.  And what they have yet to achieve because they're not perfect.  My table ended up having an interesting discussion about communicating science and scientific advancements in the food industry.  Especially, the science that has helped reduce inputs into producing the beef and keeping the price of beef lower than it could be. 

One member of my table remarked that they didn't understand why there is this growing anti-science and food movement, aka GMO discomfort.  Well, I sat there thinking, "yeah, I prefer my food not infringed upon by non-plant genes"....I sit in the anit-camp because we yet know the risks of some of these modification, and from the perspective of genetics, corn/soybean/sunflower/sugar beet genes cannot naturally reproduce with bacteria genes to produce a corn and bacteria plant.  As humans we have decided to splice genes from different organism together to get plants that can be sprayed with herbicides and won't die.  That is only a little bit against evolution.  Alright, I'll stop with the non-GMO part before this turns into a rant. 

Getting back to the comment on anti-science and food.  There is a disconnect from how chemistry and science are apart of creating or sustaining a viable food-chain.  So, communication is important. Plus, many Americans don't have the time or energy to care where their food comes from because they're making ends-meat.  So then again, how important is this?

We ended with a presentation by what I took to be a marketing consultant, but I don't think that would be the way she would described herself.  What I took home from her talk was as an industry we have to continue to strive for a common language, common goal (economic sustainability being the top priority because this enables other changes),and have a common enemy (then we all have someone/something to fight together against).  In group discussion after this coming up with a common enemy was difficult.  Too many parts to the industry, too many possible enemies. 

Thanks for reading.

Rain fall being absorbed at the 6666 Ranch