Multikosmos: Efficiency over growth

In our conversation, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Windisch, an agricultural scientist and professor of animal nutrition, explains why sustainability does not come from growth, but rather from a mindful approach to resources and natural cycles. “We don’t need to grow; we need to become more efficient,” he asserts. His perspective offers a humane, hopeful vision of the agriculture of tomorrow—one in which we need to take less in order to gain more in the long run.

There are three ways of looking at sustainability: For the population that depends on agricultural products for its livelihood, this means that the food supply never runs out. They don’t have to worry about whether their food will still be on the shelves tomorrow. For farmers, sustainability is not a goal in and of itself; rather, they depend on it for their livelihood. Sustainability is the fundamental prerequisite for, say, building a new barn or choosing a crop rotation. Every investment has an impact on the coming decades. The third aspect is the sustainability of resources. From a human perspective, resources are theoretically infinite. But we must ensure that this remains the case and that, for example, fertile soils are preserved. For true sustainability, all three perspectives must be in harmony.

Not under threat, but not a given either. It takes forever for a piece of land to become fertile. For example, if we have too few cattle and thus too little grazing pressure on the alpine pastures, they will become overgrown with trees unless we use machinery to help clear them. We can’t simply clear these areas when needed and put them back into use right away. These are processes that take decades. Climate change, too, is essentially robbing us of our resources in this way. The Sahara is expanding enormously, while at the same time the permafrost in Siberia is thawing and areas are being exposed. But these aren’t arable lands. If arable land were merely shifting, we wouldn’t have such a big problem. The problem is that we’re losing arable land entirely—and that’s causing instability on a global scale. The Sahara and Siberia may be far away, but the new climate conditions are causing new pests, for example, to spread here as well. And that’s a disaster for local agriculture.

Above all, healthy soil needs protection from compaction and erosion, as well as greater resilience to drought, heat, and flooding. Key factors include permanently covered areas, diverse crop rotations, and cover crops that cool the soil, store water, and promote biodiversity—which also helps manage nitrogen accumulation. While yields may decline over the course of the crop rotation, the soil remains more fertile and more reliable in terms of yield in the long term. Livestock play an important but often misunderstood role in this cycle. The view that they are needed solely for fertilizing fields is too narrow. The non-edible biomass contains nutrients that must be returned to the fields. We have three options for this: we can let the biomass decompose, send it to a biogas plant and spread the digestate, or feed it to livestock and apply the manure. The fertilizing effect is most efficient when it aligns with the plant growth cycle. This means we need manure that can be stored. Biogas plants provide energy, while livestock also provide food—both produce valuable fertilizer. In this respect, both sources are equally valuable. But there is a difference in output: in a biogas plant, we generate electricity, while livestock provide additional food. Feeding the biomass to livestock is therefore more efficient. Currently, we use about 40% of arable land worldwide, just under 60% in Germany, and about 50% in Austria for growing animal feed. We essentially feed half of every kilogram of bread to livestock. It would be more efficient to produce only as much milk and meat as that one kilogram of bread yields in non-edible biomass. This would automatically result in a balanced mix of plant-based and animal-based foods—tailored to local conditions and soil types.

Exactly - we don’t need to grow, but we do need to become more efficient. An SUV isn’t “bad” in and of itself if, for example, it’s powered by solar energy from its own roof. Efficiency always goes hand in hand with the concept of finiteness. In agriculture, there’s a statistic: 70% of the world’s livestock is found in developing countries, yet this enormous proportion produces only 30% of the world’s food. The difference is largely due to animal health and management. That’s why they “waste” an enormous amount of resources and significantly increase the carbon footprint per kilogram of meat. Mortality and breeding rates there are simply enormous.

Why not start here?

The problem lies in the motto of the linear economy: “Grow or get out.” Fields and machinery keep getting bigger because the product itself costs next to nothing. With such low prices, farmers are forced to increase their output. This means they have to keep expanding. The linear economy creates global standards—which ultimately results in just one large producer: a “Bill Gates or Elon Musk,” if you will. That is the “efficiency” of the linear economy. The efficiency principle of the circular economy, on the other hand, works against monopolies and focuses on ensuring there are many small, local producers.

This article first appeared in Multikosmos Magazine, Issue 45 / “Persistence.”
You can read the entire issue online here.