Why surplus grain will not ensure the well-being of Lithuanian nature and the countryside

"Lithuanian agriculture generates 3% of the country 's economy, but is responsible for a quarter of the country' s carbon dioxide emissions, the largest share of pollution in the country 's rivers and lakes, and the greatest impact on biodiversity loss.

 

    Therefore, the discussion started by the Minister of Agriculture Kęstutis Navickas about the dominant cereals in Lithuanian agriculture is timely, meaningful and accurate. It is time to rethink the sector towards higher rural employment, higher national incomes and better ecology.

 

    Although grain exports are one of the main pillars of the country's trade balance, this activity has a particularly dark side - it damages Lithuania's nature. The European Green Course aims to reach in 2030 simple goals - reduce the use of fertilizers by a fifth and expand the area of ​​organic farms to 25%. Today the record grain harvest every year reaches the records of the use of mineral fertilizers. 

 

It is no coincidence that you will not find organic flour on store shelves - without mineral fertilizers, cereals would yield poor yields, as the natural fertility of the soil (and the ability to retain nutrients) is severely reduced due to monoculture farming.

 

    Such a vicious circle: in order to grow a good crop in depleted soil, more fertilizer needs to be used, but a large part of the mineral fertilizer is leached from such soil into surface water bodies. Half of Lithuania's rivers and lakes are in poor condition. The situation is particularly poor in central Lithuania, where agriculture is most intensive. Up to 80 percent of nitrogen and 60 percent of phosphorus pollution in rivers comes from agriculture, i. y. fertilizer.

 

    Cereal monocultures also suffer from another disease - their fields are bridges to the genocide of biodiversity, green deserts. Monocultures, with their identical and cultivated genetics, have a higher risk of disease, so plant protection products' spraying is more intense here.

 

    Finally, grain growers are the main consumers of subsidized fossil fuels, with incentives for green diesel to work in the fields and for red diesel in elevator dryers.

 

    So cereals that do not rely on crop rotation, organic fertilizers and non-plowing technologies are, from an ecological point of view, a cheap export of our yield and a highly polluting import with a huge ecological footprint.

 

    And what about economic added value? Agriculture is essentially almost on a public dow: billions in support for most farmers and companies account for more than half of their income. 

 

What the state encourages is grown. So it is a perfectly legitimate question for the Minister for Agriculture, could that public order be more environmentally sustainable, more value-added and more rural?

 

    Let’s start with the simplest question, do we grow our own food? And yes and no. The highest value products: meat - only half, fish - less than a tenth. And we eat 110 kg of bread, although we grow 3,000 kg of grain for each Lithuanian. It is clear that our agriculture has focused on the lowest value production, thus colliding with the European Green Course.

 

    Not only that, cereals drive people out of the fields. Let’s say growing vegetables requires a lot of labor because you won’t collect tomatoes or cucumbers with a combine. In dairy farms, the animal needs attention 24/7, all year round. Growing grain is basically enough for several tractor drivers and will soon be replaced by a satellite-powered autopilot. Sow in the spring, spray several times in the summer, mow in the fall. 6 million tons of unprocessed grain through the port of Klaipėda shows a fundamentally shameful fact that we are competing with Africa and other countries exporting low-value raw materials, without creating real employment and improving the demography of the Lithuanian countryside.

 

    But the situation will change. The Ministry of Agriculture is reviewing guidelines for future agricultural funding. We need a revolutionary return to higher value-added agricultural products - meat, dairy and other industries. There will be dissatisfaction - from fertilizer sellers to various other companies. Secondly, one third of agricultural support will be distributed through eco-schemes, ie for those farms that switch to farming with a lower negative ecological footprint. We do not do it empty-handed - in 2023-2027 Europe allocates 753 million euros to agriculture in Lithuania.  This is almost twice as much as the state is investing in roads of national importance this year.

 

    It’s big money, but there are additional conditions. If farmers want these funds, they should grow a little greener with so-called eco-schemes, which will account for 25% of the Green Exchange rate. direct payments to farmers. And this proportion is mandatory, as it is for us and other EU countries.

    Ecosystems envisage a more intensive use of man-made in the Stone Age crop rotation, which we have forgotten in the age of technology. We should also give the fields at least one year off from chemistry. Together we can no longer leave bare fields in the winter to prevent all excess nitrogen from flowing into lakes and rivers in the spring.

 

     All this is extremely important in cleaning up the country's rivers and lakes, and in order to recover at least part of the insects, birds and plants that have moved out of the monoculture fields. It is also necessary to pay attention to the protection and restoration of the landscape. To achieve these goals, ecosystems will help to create environmentally friendly farming.

 

     After all, with the same, but differently distributed, EU support, Lithuanian agriculture, which has stopped depleting our soils and rivers, can increase its role in the Lithuanian economy by achieving a share of more than 3% of GDP and return jobs to the village."