Feeding Our Populations

It's one thing to read about the feasibility of futuristic urban agricultural operations which might replace the traditional farms that provide populations with their fundamental food stuffs. It may very well become practical and possible for tall specialized high-rise buildings to be designed and built in urban settings which would produce through hydroponics fruit and vegetable crops sufficient to feed thousands of people within a particular area.

We hardly know what our future will bring us. It may very well be a brave new world. But new methodology doesn't always trump the tried and true. And if something new is adopted and adapted to our changing needs, that doesn't necessarily argue for the abandonment and termination of traditional methods which have proved their utility and dependability over time.

It seems to make no great good sense to continue devaluing the presence of small farms on the outskirts of urban centres, which have traditionally offered us the basics of the foods we eat. As wealthy countries like Canada have increasingly continued to import out-of-season foods characteristically grown in other latitudes, with cheap labour and up until recently inexpensive transport costs, we have downgraded our dependency on local crops.

And this is one huge mistake. Productive farms are capable of feeding a great many people in local environments. Tradition has succumbed to the increasing presence of farming conglomerates, able to produce on a larger scale, purchasing fertilizers and seeds less expensively than small producers, and strangling family farms in a situation of stagnation, unable to compete in the wider market.

And increasingly, good arable land that has experienced urban creep has encouraged farmers to sell their suddenly valuable land to land speculators. Amazingly, although Canada has such a huge geography, less than ten percent of its soil is considered to be Class 1. That very soil class type that is being sold off by dejected farmers unable to make a decent living, but making a killing on the sale of their land to developers.

And while governments give lip service to the protection of arable land, insisting that prime agricultural areas be protected - those identified with containing soil of Class 3 or better, capable of supporting viable farming operations, there's no clout there at all. Municipal politicians simply look the other way. Land developers are very chummy with local politicians, they're big contributors during election time.

It's time that people woke up to the situation. That arable land is among our most precious resources - along with the farm families that ply their trade. Without food crops we don't eat. We won't be able to continue importing foods from abroad indefinitely, particularly with higher transport costs, and higher costs related to the production of food.

Developers are extremely fond of arable land, it's first-rate for urban development. It doesn't require costly environmental studies, it doesn't need remediation, or blasting through sold rock. Where once valuable food crops grew to feed hungry populations, all the civic infrastructure of laying sewer lines and installing electrical grids is simplified.

It's nothing to dig into that valuable soil for the installation of new houses for an expanding population. An expanding population which should ideally be fitted into existing urban areas, as infill.

None of that land being covered over, paved, inset with houses and buildings and big-box markets is recoverable. Rezoning of valuable farmland should never be permitted. We're in dire need of a strict land-use regulation that would take food growing land out of the equation for urban development.

Never a better time than now.