OPINION: Is it time to redesign animal agriculture?

On the eve of a leading livestock conference, CSIRO Livestock Industries chief Shaun Coffey looks at why there are more questions than answers in agriculture -- and why scientists need to join in the debate.

With the rapidly developing the tools of biotechnology and nanotechnology, agriculture has the potential to feed and clothe the almost three billion extra people who are expected to be living by 2040. But will the community support the use of this emerging technology in agriculture?

The explosion in genetic technologies gives us the power to conceptualise significant transformations of animals. But is this where Australians want their animal industries to head? The question we need to be asking in countries like Australia, is what do we really want our agriculture to do? Is it time to redesign animal agriculture?

Modern agriculture is based on producing as much food and fibre as possible for the least cost. But the traditional, twin goals of productivity and efficiency, which drive agricultural research and industry development, need to be challenged.

Food is abundant in Australia and other developed countries, to the point where obesity has become endemic. The tyranny of cheap food has taken its toll on the environment, with degradation now a major national focus. And then there are enormous social and economic costs of urbanisation and rural poverty.

Is agriculture about producing cheap food? Is it about producing export income? Are there other resource values -- such as preserving the countryside for tourism and as a base to enrich life? Do we need to change the way we view food? Do we need to eat less? Should we double the price of food, but only if we consume half, so there is no impact on disposable incomes? Could we produce less, increase environmental values, and maintain rural populations? Can we change the whole profitability system?

And why is the Australian community demanding greater environmental performance from agriculture, while at the same time passing the cost onto farmers?

When it comes to animal agriculture, perhaps we should no longer think of meat as just protein, but also as zinc in early childhood for brain development and as iron for teenagers. (Iron deficiency in adolescent males has become a major health problem in western countries). These are two major nutritional issues globally, in both the developed and developing world.

At the same time, a study by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington -- whose principal author, Chris Delgado, is a speaker at next week's CSIRO Horizons in Livestock Sciences conference -- has calculated that the demand for animal protein will double within 20 years, fuelled by population growth, urbanisation and increased income in the developing world. Should this be the trigger for Australia to dramatically increase our animal production?

If we are going to double protein production there will need to be big changes. Our emerging sciences of genomics reproductive technologies, gene technologies and epigenetic programming are well placed to deliver a two- or threefold increase in animal productivity while reducing the ecological footprint by two- or threefold at the same time. But is this appropriate? Is further intensification of animal production what we want -- particularly when people are critical of current systems from an animal welfare perspective? The debate about the longstanding practice of mulesing sheep, for example, comes back to the fundamental question of man's relationship with production animals. Unfortunately, the debate between animal rights organisations and industry groups tends to polarise the issues, when in fact there is a rich middle ground to be explored.

Whatever the answers to these complex issues may be for Australia, at the end of the day, the expansion in the global human population will still have to be accommodated. According to Thomas DeGregori, professor of economics at the University of Houston, and a director of the American Council on Science and Health, the dramatic agricultural productivity gains of the past five decades will have to be repeated over the next half century to feed the projected nine billion human population. And, he says, this will need to be achieved without bringing more land under cultivation.

Prof DeGregori, in Australia next week as a keynote speaker at Horizons in Livestock Sciences, is adamant that 21st century science and technologies such as biotechnology are the key to our future as humans and our ability to meet the food requirements of all the earth's inhabitants, including those most in need.

However, he argues that the actions of those opposed to genetic modification (or "anti-transgenic irrationality", as he describes it), are putting at stake global sustainability. He asserts that anti-transgenic forces have lost every round of scientific argument, and every claim of adverse impact they have made has been massively refuted. He says it is difficult to find a respected scientific society or scientist of any reputability to support the anti-transgenic cause. Yet most public opinion surveys in the US and Europe find about 70 per cent of the public believes the scientific community is divided on the issue.

In spite of all the 'wins' in scientific argument, and despite global growth in the planting of transgenic corn, soy, canola and cotton, Prof DeGregori argues that activists have successfully poisoned the public's mind, making the further use of transgenics in new food production difficult if not impossible.

The third annual Horizons in Livestock Sciences conference will debate the role and place of animal agriculture in contemporary Australian society. It is part of CSIRO's commitment to an open, genuine debate about what we want our animal agriculture to do and what research will be needed to underpin it.

I can't imagine an Australia without agriculture. I can imagine an Australia with a different agriculture from the one we've got now. As scientists, we cannot isolate ourselves from controversy. Consumer confidence in science has been shaken in recent times by the incidence and poor management of new food safety hazards such as BSE. The complexity of the issues we now deal with and the consequences of our research, both deliberate and unintended, mean we need to really engage with the Australian community and participate strongly in public debate.

'Redesigning Animal Agriculture' is the theme of CSIRO's Horizons in Livestock Sciences 2005 conference, to be held at the Gold Coast, October 2-5. More information: www.livestockhorizons.com.