Why do fish live underwater and not on land? Why does your grandma always make the pumpkin pie for Thanksgiving, and your great auntie make the mash potatoes? Probably the same reason Saudi Arabia exports more oil than electronics: specialization (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Specialization applies to all levels of life from molecular cells and microscopic bacteria to why Earth is inhabited and the other planets in our solar system remain unseemingly so. Specialization simply states that whatever ‘thing’ – organism, entity, environment – is best at some task, action, or form of production, should be the primary producer of that commodity because it will have the best efficiency and quality (Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies).
This seems rather straightforward, but when politics, economy, culture, and limitations of trade become involved, the simplistic sense of specialization is twisted. In our current economic and food distribution crisis this becomes particularly evident in the push for localization of food systems. Many scientists, activists, and even historians like Samin Raja, Elizabeth Henderson, and Harriet Friedmann, have suggested localizing food production could be an extremely effective strategy to lessen food stress and booster economy. However, in doing so, the idea of specialization on a national and even global scale is lost.
Specialization allows for maximum yield of the land, which is beneficial for farmers and the environment. Often times, crops that are grown in places they do not belong (e.g. rice in a dessert) take more resources than if they were cultivated in native climate, soil, and ecosystem. Therefore, if parts of the world were only to grow what their land was ‘specially’ suited for, less additional resource transportation and depletion would occur to supplement ‘unnatural’ crops, and natural crops would be healthier (True, 212-317). Healthier crops equal higher yields. Higher yields are better for farmers, and reduced pesticide use and resource depletion favor the environment. This mutually beneficial relationship of farmers and the environment through specialization is visible right here in the Willamette Valley.
Katlyn Gambiolini describes the Willamette Valley in Oregon as “one of the world’s most productive regions for grass seed farming” (Turf to Table, 144). Due to this specialization they produce “essentially all of the U.S…. annual ryegrass, perennial ryegrass, bentgrass, and fine fescue” (From Turf to Table 144). While this specialization seems like a good use of land for the Willamette Valley, it also means that everything else – wheat, quinoa, beans – must be transported into the Valley which increases the price of the commodities. (Not to mention environmental costs of transporting tons of produce.) Dan Armstrong of Willamette Valley Bean and Grain Project explains, though, that this leaves barely any land for growing ‘edible’ crops that can be locally consumed. Patricia Allen, a professor of Agricultural Development at UC Berkeley, describes in her article Relocalizing Justice In Local Food Systems how “localizing food systems increases equity” of the community through resource distribution and democratic community participation (Relocalizing Justice In Local Food Systems, 295). The desire for localization of food also makes sense on political and government levels because it would reduce reliance on other nations, countries, states, or even communities for the essential commodity of food in case of conflict, natural disaster, or resources exhaustion.
The importance of having a variety of food available locally, instead of a greater quantity of one specialization food, is also in the interest of human health. Giombolini, Armstrong, and the USDA recommend complete servings of vegetables, grains, dairy, fruit, and protein daily to maintain a healthy diet (Food Groups).
So, we see how important it is to have all varieties of food available to a local community, produced by that community, to increase quality and reliability of food and overall community health. On the other hand, there are also the impracticalities of growing food in an area where it is not naturally meant to be that can have human and ecological costs.
We must ask ourselves as consumers, community members, and possible future educators, which benefits outweigh the costs. As empathetic beings, we instinctively want to aid our own kin over the often-intangible idea or entity of ‘environment.’ However, by disregarding potential environmental costs like the added inefficiencies and resource transportation needed to grow locally, we find ourselves in situations like today facing Global Warming. Many people may think I sound callous to suggest the health of nature is equally or even more important than our fellow human beings. I agree. Furthermore, the many benefits of localizing food for economic and community health are more numerous and effective than I ever expected before taking this class. As the possible negative environmental effects of localizing have not been mentioned though, I thought it would be at least provoking to mention and consider.
Works Cited
Allen, Patricia. “Patricia Allen Ph.D.” Patricia Allen, Ph.D. Portland, Oregon. Marylhurst University, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Allen, Patricia. “Realizing Justice In Local Food Systems.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3.2 (2010): 295-308. Web.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Timothy K. Earle. Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987. Print.
“Food Groups.” Choose My Plate. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Giombolini, Katlyn, Kimberlee Chambers, Joe Bowersox, and Peter Henryd. “From Turf to Table: Grass Seed to Edible Grains in the Willamette Valley.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development (2011): 141-61. Web.
True, Alfred C. “U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication.” A History of Agricultural Education. US Department of Agriculture, July 1929. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Countries. U.S. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
I agree with the previous comment to some degree. If we tried to relocalized production under the current regime of agriculture, we would still do irreparable harm to natural ecosystems. That is why we need a different strategy.
Due to the damage we have already done to our climate system, I don’t think we will be able to do annualized agricultural production here in the Willamette Valley in 50 years anyway. Perennial crops will be much more adept at dealing with the extremely variable climate this, and many other areas, will experience in the future. Like Mary Wood says, we also need to draw down 100 gigatons of CO2 a year to get back to 350 anyway. There is only one agricultural system that can do this; perennial polyculture. The good news is that by drawing down carbon into our soils, we increase their fertility instead of decreasing it, which lends itself to long term ability to grow food and not become tired and depleted as is common in our current system.
By coupling this with a fully realized carbon tax that pays for sequestering carbon, regenerative sustainable agriculture would receive the tremendous boon it needs to become the basis for a localized economic system that meets the needs of all people, but in particular those organic farmers that are struggling to make ends meet in a business environment where the destructive forces of industrial agriculture are not kept artificially cheap by subsidies that take money out of the pockets of taxpayers, and artificially inflate the costs of doing sustainable agriculture.
While specialization can be argued as an integral part of our society today, I am not so certain that specialization in the agricultural world is the best way towards a sustainable agrarian future. Even if this specialization was centered around “natural” crops like wheat or pears, this doesn’t mean that stewardship of the land would suddenly improve. I find issue with the statement, “Therefore, if parts of the world were only to grow what their land was ‘specially’ suited for, less additional resource transportation and depletion would occur to supplement ‘unnatural’ crops, and natural crops would be healthier (True, 212-317), because this doesn’t account for what specialization could do to the land. I see specialization as a gateway to mono cropping and overexertion of the land even with a “natural crop”. I think diversity is crucial to the future of our food system and I would more argue for a generalist and diverse approach that includes crop rotation of more than just one specialized crop. I think it is important to take into account the positive and the negative effects of eating local, such as the fact that this is not a possibility for all communities. Furthermore, specialization in terms of crops could mean more susceptible to disease and less genetically diverse seeds. This is some thought-provoking material you presented here, and I appreciate the note that we haven’t talked much about any negative effects to localized agriculture. I am curious what those would be.